Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-05-26

Auu HOW dNhi olltt dsdiiis wac
it constitutional TO relieve the dis
tressed and starving people of for
eign nations by appropriations of
money and the employment of Gov
eriment ships and is it unconsti-
tuition to alleviate the INDECENT and
distressed citizens of our own coun-
try by a grant Of the public lands to
the several States for that purpose 7
The absurdity Of the PROPOSITION
implied in the inquiry furnishes lis
most significant answer.
If a constitutional question is ev-
er to be regarded as practically and
fully settled by contemporaneous le-
gislation and by long series of sue
cesSive legislative acts involving the
same question, acquiesced in and
approved by all the departments of
the Government, it would seem tina
this question had been settled be-
yond controversy. Grants of the
public lands to a particular State TO
special objects, and for almost ever7
conceivable purpose, mark the hi
tory of your legislation from an ca
ly period after the adoption of tn,
Constitution. Aside from origind
reservations, there are now standing
upon your statute-books more thai
one hundred acts, running through
period of half century, making
and regulating grants of the publr
lands to particular States for educ;-
tional purposes alone more than f.
ty for purposes Of internal improve
ment; more than twenty-five fer
State and county seats saying NJ
thing about innumerable grants o
individuals and to private corpora
tions. The aggregate of grants to
the new States and Territories A.
mounted, at the close Of the last IS
cal year, according to the report Of
the Land Office, TO more than ole
hundred and twenty-tlree millions
of acres, and for almost every var
ETY. of object A much larger I
mount has been granted in some IL
stances to single States than tie
whole amount embraced in this bill
for distribution among all the States.
These acts have been passed by e1-
cry Congress and approved by ev,-
ry President from an early period IF
the Government. Out of the hos
dreds of acts which have passed the
two Houses of Congress, running
through every Administration from
the beginning of the present cenul-
ry, granting lands to certain States
for different purposes, not one with
in my recollection or research has
ever been arrested by the Executive
veto till this present instance. The
exercise of the power and the pur-
poses of the grants have been limit
ed only by the judgment and dscre
ton of Congress as questions of a.
pediency. Among the vast number
of bills of this description, is it not
somewhat remarkable that the veto
should fall upon the first bill Of all
this series of acts which makes a
grant of land directly for the bene-
fit of all the States in just and eqlu-
table proportions, and for ar object
of great and conceded inertia bill,
too, which. to the extent of its re-
lief from the burden of taxation for
the support of the INDECENT insane,
carries its benefits directly to the
whole people If this bill is I'M
constitutional, pray tell me what
land bill has Congress ever passed
that is constitutional? Aud tell me,
furthermore, wherein is the distinc.
ton to be drawn as against this mea-
sure If those acts were right,
wherefore can this be wrong?
am aware of the common argu-
ment in favor of the consiiiutionaity
of the large grants which have been
made 10 portion of the States for
educational purposes, internal i'm
provemcnis, State and county seats;
of grants Of sallnes and of swamp
lands To The States in which they are
situated, and which have actually
SlOamped a good portion of your
public domain Of your grants OF al
ternate sections for railroads, and of
your proposed grant of one hundred
and sixty acres of land for actual
settlement and occupation TO each
one of all the poor and landless -
| am well aware that all these grants
are justified upon the assumption Of
compromising equivalent 10 the
General Government by the en-
HANGED value of the residue of the
lands. Admitting this assumption
to be true in point OF fact-which
actual experience has shown to be
otherwise in many instances-the ar
gument goes only to the policy, and
not TO the pooer of Congress TO
make the grants. We are now con-
sderlng the question of constitution
al power The point is, whether the
power exists, not whether il has been
properly or improperly exercised
This very argument, this plea of JUS
tification, if | may so call it, admits
the power TO lis fullest extent. The
power which can grant lands for a
university in Mississippi can grant
lands for university in Vermont
The power which can grant lands
for railroad in Illinois can grant
lands for a railroad in New York
The power which authorizes you to
grant lands for any specific object in
aaA Atosn antkA..,o.