Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-05-13

stion which cannot be shaken by ingenuity WAat
is the argument of the veto 1t is that because the
above appropriations increase the value OF the pub
lie lands, Congress- as proprietor, may exercise
the power If this be not latitudinarian doctrine
far more dangerous than any involved in the bill,
we are greatly mistaken.
Who are benefited by the increase of the value Of
the public lands2 The answer must be, all the
Tinted States which have common interest in them
Now, we contend that, on this argument, the appro.
pration made by the bill is constitutional, because
more benefits would be conferred on the States re-
spectvely by carrying out the objects Of the bill,
than by any enhancement to the value of the pub
lie lands by approprating the same amount Of land
to the construction of railroads, canals or for any
other local object in the States where the land is
situated The constitutionality of the act, by the
Message, made to depend upon the benefit secured
to the proprietors. Now, what is most singular IN
this view Of the case Isl that the President assumes
to Judge of this benefit and pays no respect 20 the
Judgment of the proprietors. They have spoken
through their agents in favor Of the bill The Pres
ident is against it. because they, as propnetors are
benefited by local application, and rot benefited
by the appropriation made by the bill
1t is said that in Austria the mas, OF the people
give themselves no concern about Che Government,
as they consider that matter belongs to the Empe-
ror and his Prime Minister. This veto is a more
ungracous exercise of power, because the repre-
sentatives of the people are thwarted IN their hopes
by the exercise Of the one-man power. they have
expressed themselves earnestly after great dehbera-
ton; but this amounts to nothing, seeing that the
President has undertaken to think and act for them
We suppose that, among the constituency of the
President, there are able constitutional lawyers
as ,he President and his Cabinet, although they
cannot speak authoritatiyely now this particu
larsubect. Their voice; however, sooner or later
will be heard and respected.
We are quite sure that there is in the great body
of pur readers sufficient intelligence, and also suf
cieht knowledge Of constitutional law to the fall
lacy of the veto argument in this respect and that
they will come to the conclusion that the Constitu-
tioi is the same in Virginia as it is in Iowa or
Wisconsin; and that if the public lands may be APP
prpriated in those States for the general benefit,
they may be appropriated in any other State on the
same ground We believe that no application of
the public lands has ever been made where the be-
nefts were proportionably as great as those that
would be realized under the vetoed bill. Besides,
the calls of humanity, suffering humanity, were
perhaps never stronger in behalf of any of
congress The interference in the domestic concerns
q the State, as intimated, is, in our humble judg-
InGnt, an entire misconception of the Executive.
There is far less interference in this respect by the
proposed bill than in the hundreds of appropriations
ofthe public lands for local purposes.
e an appropriation of public lands may be made
he propretors are benefited, there can be no
limit 10 We power Whether more or less benefit
ed would pa question Of policy in this view, and
not questonNf power. So that we may safely say
!, ,na9 inc veto argment which was intended to ad-
mere 10 strlct obstruction of the Constitution,
authorizes construction that is SCARCELY suscantihle
Of limitation.
whether we look at the third section of the fourth
article of the Constitution, winch dec,.ros tbo+
Congress shall have power to dispose &C and make
all needful rules and regulations RESPECTING the ter
ritory or other property belonging to the ula,od
States or to the deed Of cession from Virginia, we
see that the public lands g are considered . common
fund, for the use and benefit of all the States"
The Message certainly mistakes when it says that
the public lands, in regard to the appropriation pro-
posed, are in no respect different from the money in
the Treasury The public lands are owned by the
people of the States and are subject to be appopri
ated for their benefit They do not arise from tax
alton. Several Executives have approved of the
application of the public lands to different objects
which they could not have aided by appropriations
from the Treasury There is no limitation as to the
appropriation of the lands, as there is in regard
to the appropriation of money. Lands containing
mines or salt springs have been disposed of by
leases for term of years. Donations of them have
been made to individuals who have rendered distin-
guished services LAFAYETTE and many others are
instances of such an appropriation.
Congress have power to dispose of the public lands
the same as other property of the United States.
They may sell the lands or grant them by donation,
at their discretion. In short, they may exercise
their discretion in good faith and for the general
benefit of the States. There is no other limit
than this
There Is no constitutional power which interposes
an objection to the bill vetoed 1t is the first veto
that ever has been given to an appropriation of the
public lands, and it is exceedingly unfortunate that
the Administration should have come before the
country with constitutional objection when none
can exist. 1t is generally agreed that the veto
power was not given to be interposed except on
constitutional questions. Before Gen Jackson's
administration, we believe, no law was vetoed on
question of policy
The argument of the President that the lands
arc pledged for the redemption of the public debt,
must excite smile in the reader. With an over
flowing treasury, seeking an opportunity of pur-
chasing stocks of the Government at premium,
this argument is brought up to strengthen that
which precedes it. We should like to know
whether the Secretary Of the Treasury sets aside the
money received from the public lands to be applied
only to the payment of the public debt. The Gov
eminent would be glad to apply ten millions now
in the Treasury to the reduction of our debt at a
reasonable premium, but the holders prefer gene
rally the stock and they will not part with it un-
less they receive considerable advance.
We mean no disrespect to the Executive in the
remarks here hastily made We felt a reluctance