Washington sentinel., 1854-06-06

quire us as prudent proprietors to appropriate
a part of it TO local objects IN The States where
it lies. That the mind of the President in PEN
ming this sentence was directed to the land
grants heretofore made for railroad, college,
school and swamp purposes in the States, there
can be no question. Has Congress any more
right to patronize by gift or grant, a railroad,
school, or college, or to drain swamp, in a
State, than it has to patronze by gift or grant,
a lunatic asylum in State2 What is the diff
ference between patronizing an eleemosynary
institution in State, and common school or
college in State. One is purely local. and so
is the other, and one is no more specified or
provided for in the Constitution than the other.
Ii Congress may patronize by a gift an elee-
mosynary institution in this District, as the
President admits, it may do the same thing in
State, aatess there is something in the rela-
tions between the States and the federal gov
ernment that forbids it. And submit, with
dffdence and respect that if there be anything
in that relation which forbids us to patronize
an eleemosynary institution in the States, there
must be that, also, which forbids our patroniz-
ing college in a State. fit be said that the
college is exclusively under the control of the
State, reply that the eleemosynary institution
is also exclusively under the control of the
State
If Congress may give lands to railroads,
schools, colleges, and other purely State insti
tutions, there can be nothing in the argument
that lands cannot be given to asylums or other
institutions, simply because they are within
the limits of the States.
The President lays great stress on the as
sumed fact that we are only authorized to dis
pose of the lands as prudent proprietor would
dispose of his own estate. Very well I; let us
examine the soundness of this position. ] have
never asserted, myself, that the United States
was the proprietor of the land; have only
maintained that she was the trustee of the
States. If she is the proprietor, it needs no ar
gument, 1t seems to me, to prove that she may
give, or SELL lease, or abandon as she pleases.
But if she be trustee, then | grant that she
must administer the estate as a prudent pro-
prietor would administer his own property.
We have seen in the past that lands have
been given to various purposes, and the Presi-
dent gives us plainly to understand that as a
prudent proprietor he would approve of the
gifts, and say that Congress had the power to
make them. Now, suppose that the President
was the prudent proprietor of a million of acres
of land in Wisconsin, and that he had appoint
ed my friend, the senator from that State, Mr..
WALKER, his trustee, with power to dispose of
the lands as prudent proprietor would dis
part at auction and some at private SALE and
the President approves his acts, saying, that
was prudent; you had the power TO do that"
He gives some to q railroad and the President
approves that; he gives some to college,
some to common schools, some to build court
house, and some to drain swamps; the Presi-
dent looks over the whole and says: this is
as prudent proprietor would have done with
his own estate. You had the power to do all
this and approve it." Then the senator gives
a little to an insane asylum; the President
says: must resistMe deep sympathies of0ay
heart IN behalf Of the humane purposes Of This
g.H But it is not as prudent proprietor
would have managed his own estate DIsAp
PROVE IT." Now the question is, could he
consistently say that? When he conferred the
power to make the first grants, he conferred the
power to make the last, and when he approved
Of its exercise in the first cases he necessarily
commits himself to an approval of the last He
may disapprove if he chooses, but not on the
ground ofpower.
Suppose thatthe Constitution, instead Of Civ
ing Congress the power simply to dispose of the
territory, had said that Congress may dispose
OF territory as prudent proprietor acould DIS
pose OF has o,cn estate, who in that case would
be the judge Of what was aprudent disposition?
Congress, unquestionably. do not mean to
say that the President could not, in such case,
exercise the veto; but do say that he could
not put it on question of power. He would
be compelled to put it on question Of expedi-
ency. He could not say that Congress had no
right to give away the lands, for it often hap
pens that prudent proprietor does give away
his own lands. He might say that giving it to
the INDECENT insane is not prudent disposition
OF 1T, and veto for that reason. But this, ] APP
prehend, would raise question Of fexpediency,
and not a question Of constitutional authority.
Congress has power to levy taxes. 1t may levy
excessive taxes But there is not a court in
Christendom that would declare the act uncon-
stitutional on that account, and why? because
the abuse of power does not effect the question
of its existence. | fancy, therefore, that the
President, to say the least has placed the veto
on the wrong ground. Instead of denying to
Congress the constitutional right to pass this
bill, he ought to have assumed that its passage
was an abuse of power. How far the President
would be justified in interposing his Judgment
against the Judgment of Congress on mere
point OF expediency, is altogether another ques.
tion. He has the power to do it if he chooses.
"Ihe President inspeaking of certain grants,
heretofore made, says: "All such grants Of
land are in fact disposal of it for value re-
ceived, but they afford no precedent or consti-
tutional reason for giving away the public
lands" admit that giving to a school does
not obhge us to give to an asylum. But must
insist that the same constitutional reason that
would justify us in giving to one would justify
us in giving to the other. And think, more
over, that the President is mistaken in assum
ing that giving to one affords no precedent
for giving to the other. If we have the same
right to give to one that we have to the other,
then giving to the one does afford precedent
for giving to the other.
The President assumes that, in disposing of
the lands by grants to various objects, we have
heretofore enhanced the value of the remaining
land. have already shown that this enhanc.
ing the value of one parcel Of land cannot am
phfy our constitutional powers over another
parcel. But suppose it could, is it true in point
of fact that these grants have always enhanced
the value of the remaining lands2 When Con-
gress gave two townships of land to Mississippi,
and many others to the other new States, to EN-.
dow colleges or universities, what lands were
in in yolu o1ro