The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1854-08-05

and may, perhaps, think it was :. mere obiter
dtct'nn; but believe can show that il is not
an obifcr d,ctum that it was the opinion ofthe
court upon point necessarily involved in the
decision of the case. There is case reportcd
in Third Howard, which came from Alabama
in which the title to certain land that had
been overlooked with water was contested
one party claimits it Under the United States
and another denying that title. Mr.. Justice
Mckinley delivered the opinion of the Supreme
Court, and find that opinion contains this
language:
1--WE will now inquire into the nature and
extent of the right Of the United States to
these lands, and whether that right can il,
any manner affect or control the decision of
the case before u.s." r. "We
therefore think the United States hold the
public lands within the new States by force of
the deeds of cession, and the statutes con-
nectcd with them. and pot byany municipal
sovereignty which it may be supposed thew
possess, or have reserved by compact with
the new States, for that particular purpose
The provision of the Constitution above re-
telrcd to, shows that no such power can be
exercised by the United States within State
Such power is not only repugnunt to tho
Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the
spirit and intention of the deeds of ccssion.."
lie says: "The argument so much relied
on by the counsel for the plaintiffs (Which
argument, based on the right of the Govern.
ment On compact between the State and the
United States, is not sound, and adds that it
"Gannot operate as contract between the
parties, but is binding as IL law, )" and he gives
the reason for it:
"Full power is given to Congress to make
all nccdful rules and regulations respecting
the territory or other property of the Unite
States. This authorized the passage of all
laws necessary to secure the rights Of the
United States 10 the public lands, and to pro-
vide for their sale; and 10 protect them from
taxation.
"And all constitutional laws are binding on
the people, in the new States and I'M the old
ones, whether they consent to be bound BY
them ornot. Every constitutional act Of Con-
gross is passed by the will of the people of the
United States, expressed through their rep
rcsentativcs, on the subject-matttr Of the on
actment; and when so passed it becomes tho
supreme law of the land, and operates by its
own force on the subject-mattcr, in whatever
State or Territory it may happen to Be.
THE propositions submitted to the people
OF the Alabama Territory, for their accept
ance or rejection, by the act Of Congress s,r-
thorizng them to form constitutional and
State government for themselves, so far as
they related to the public lands within that
Territory, amounted to nothing more nor less
than rules and regulations respecting the sales
and disposition of the public lands
| The SuDpOScd cOnpa.t relied on Nv, thn
counsel for the plaintiffs, conferred no author
lty, therefore, on Congress to pass the act
granting to the plaintiffs the land in contro-
vcrsy. "-Poitard's Lessee rs. Hogan ct, a., 3
Homam-2l2, &c.
Congress have right, under the Constitus
ton, to dispose of, and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting, the territory or
other property of the United States; and.
therefore, according to the j s. c, who delv.
cred the opinion of the court in this case,
they have right to make cnactments having
the same force as any compact would have.
Such an enactment is found in the provisions
of the laws authorizing the Territories to form
constitutions with view to admission into
the Union as States upon the terms mention
ed, and those terms are equally binding and
obligatory upon the States as though the
agreement were really and truly compact,
and had all tile force which compact can
have.
Sir, I only mention this because under
stood the authority of the Senator from Mich
igan to be the other way. lie intimated a
doubt whether these lands were not taxable
by the States except where compact had
been made between the States and the United
States, which was fair and proper compact.
suppose, indeed, he intended to say that
where State was admitted into the Union
by an act of Congress, which imposed upon it
certain conditions, those conditions were in
valid unless the State assented to them in some
very precise form.
Mr.. CASS stated that was the opinion
of the Supreme Court.
Mr.. PEARCE. The opinion of the SUI
preme Court, from which have read, signi-
iies the contrary, and it is the opinion of the
Court though delivered by single Judge, for
it was not dissentcd from except by Judge
Catron, (who, as understand him, held the
compact between Alabama and the United
States to be valid and conclusivc,) and it was
essential to the determination of the question
and must be therefore taken to be the law Of
the land as expounded by that Court. shall
not further trouble the Senate
FALsEuooD. truth on falschood of a
remark is to be determined by the truth or