Washington sentinel., 1854-05-20

upon them should be lei in free, and articles which
the interests OF the country require should come
in free should be subject 10 heavy duty Con-
gress would most wrongfully have used the
power confided 10 them; but the power could not
be impaired by that consideration, and the law
would undoubtedly be valid law-unjust, il is
true, because unequal and unfair; but yet bind
ing and obligatory actofegislatlon, because within
inc granted p1wfr.
Sir, the PreSlsnt, in his veto message has re-,
ierred 10 two instances as the only two in which
grants OF land have been made for purposes SINH
lar TO those contemplated in this bill. | wish 10
draw the attention of the Senate 10 the circum-
stances under which those TWO bills were passed.
As he has called attention in the veto message
TO the fact that those bills were passed many years
alter the Constitution was formed, beg 10 remind
the Senate that they were passed al least many
years nearer 10 the formation oi the Constitution
than the year 1854; and il the value Of an act, as
exposition of the Constitution, depends upon
its nearness, its proximity, TO the time when that
instrument formed, we certainly have no
right 10 claim any superior advantage for the en-
position we may give over these, given, as they
We're, nearer by many years 10 the era OF the Con-
stltuton itself. And II must be remarked, further,
that al the time when these acts-the act for the
Kentucky and for the Connecticut asylum for the
deaf and dumb-were passed, in 1919 and 1876,
the age still presented 10 US men who were con-
cerned in making the Constitution, men who
occupied seats in both branches OF the national
Legislature
Now, how were those acts passed The first
act, that Of 1919, granting land for the benefit of
the Connecticut asylum for the deaf and dumb
originated in the House OF Representatives. On
its second reading, March /, 1919, Mr.. Bassett of
Virginia, moved its commitment to Committee
of The Whole, but the motion was lost. MIR. Z. p.
Barbour moved its indefinite postponement; the
motion was rejected. The bill was then ordered
10 be engrossed and il was read a third time, and
passed, no yeas and nays having been called.
And, sir, in the House of Representatives, 10 men
tion no other distinguished individuals there were
then, from the State of Virginia, Mr.. Philip p.
Barbour and Henry ST. George Tucker If there
had been any real doubt, any serious question
about the constilutonality Of that measure, can
we doubt for one moment that these gentlemen,
knowing as we do their political connexions and
affnies, would have called for The yeas and nays
upon that BILL and shown by their votes that they
did not concur in its passage?
That bill then came TO the Senate; it was imme-
dately read twice, and referred 10 the Committee
on Public Lands. On the next day il was passed
without division, no yeas and nsys having been
taken. There were IN the Senate at that day
some gentlemen of no mean fame and considera.
ion in this country. There Were Mr.. Daggett, Of
Connecticut; Rufus King and Nathan Sanford,
OF New York; Mahon Dickerson and James J..
Wilson, from New Jersey; Abner Lacock and
Jonathan Roberts, from Pennsylvania; from Ma
ryand, Robert III. Goldsborough; from Virginia,
James Barbour and John w. Eppes; from North
Carolina, Naihaael Macon, than whom stricter
of the Constitution was not TO be
found; from South Carolina, Mr.. Gaard and Will
liam Smith; from Tennessee, John Williams and
John Fl. Eaton. Yet among these gentlemen,
many OF them eminent members OF the democratic
party, and afterwards leading members OF the
Jackson party, no one thought it necessary 10 de-
mand the yeas and nays; aud therefore no one
n noH he mo Spra wa fifttjn
Now, sir, with regard 10 the bill passed in 1896,
the act granting township Of land for the benefit
of the Kentucky asylum for the deaf and dumb,
! find, upon referring 10 Gales Il Seatons Register
of Debates, that on the 2Sth of March, 1896, when
The Senate proceeded 10 the consideration Of that
bill
Mr. Cobb objected to the bill principle, uncon
siutonal grant property partial or local
purpose, and argued against the bill ON that ground.
debate Of wide extent and considerable duration,
ensued the merits of the bill and the validity of the OBJ
jections made to it by Mr. C and of its details.
The bill supported by Messrs Rowan johnson of
lucky Benton barton Eaton Holmes Moyd Mills Ed
wards Hendricks and King"
After debate, that bill was passed by vote OF
yeas twenty-seven 10 nays six. / wish to call at
tention 10 this fact.
Mr.. Cobb objected to the bin principle
sutona grant of common property for partial local
purpose and argued against the bill that ground
Them it was either conceded on all hands al
equal in its application, it would have been con.
stitutional; the debate must, besides these
matters, have embraced the questions whether
such grant would be constitutional if general ant
equal. In the former case there must have beer
a general acquiescence OF the Senate in the con
stituonality of il, if il had been for general ant
| equal purpose throughout the United States, ant
not local and partial; and in the other case ther,
was the judgment OF an overwhelming majority
that it was constitutional, notwithstanding its be
IL
voted in favor of that bill | find the following
names. will not read them all; !; will not under
take 10 read some names which carry great weight
with me- but will read the names OF gentlemen
known for eminence in the democratic party then
and afterwards Take notice that this vote was
after discussion il was after repeated discussion
after g a debate of wide extent, and considerable
duration" Among the yeas ] find the names o
Mr.. Benton, of Missouri: of Mr.. Dickerson, oi
New Jersey; of Mr.. John III. Eaton, of Tennessee
of Mr.. Johnson, OF Kentucky; of Mr.. Kane, oil
Illinois; OF Mr.. King, of Alabama, our late Vice
President; and, passing over several others. Mr.
Rowan. OF Kentucky; Mr.. Hugh l.. While, oi
Tennessee; and Mr.. Woodbury., of New Hamp.
shire, late Judge on the bench Of the Supreme
Court fthe United States.
Mr.. BUTLER. Wi my friend read the names
Of those who voted against the bill
Mr.. BADGER. The nays were Messrs Branch
of North Carolina, Chandler, of Name, Chase, OF
Vermont Cobb, of Georgia, and Harper and Hayne
Of South Carolina.
Thus, in 1885, nearly thirty years nearer 10 the
adoption of the Constitution than we are now
that bill passed by the vote which have stated
In the House of Representatives, also, the yeas
and nays were taken on the passage of the bill
and il passed by vote of 100 to 43. Among the
yeas find these names /: Mr.. Buchanan, of Penn.
sylvania then in the House, since in this body
afterwards al the head of the State Department
and now our minister al the Court of St. James
Mr.. Cambreleng, of New York. then an eminent
member of the democratic party; Mr.. Livingston
Of Louisiana; Mr.. McDufie, OF South Carolina,
Mr.. McLane, Of Delaware; Mr.. Polk james X
Polk) Of Tennes see; Mr.. Saunders, of North Caro-
lima and Mr.. Wicklfie, of Kentucky.
Thus, sir, that bill, after discussion in both
houses in the year 1926, passed in the Senate by
a vote Of 81 10 6, and in the House by a vote o
120 10 49, and what array Of names supporting
il as both a constitutional and rightfu applica
tion of the public lands Why, sir, Presiden,
of the United States, Supreme Court Judge for
eign minister's heads OF departments, persons high
in the confidence of the democratic party, mem
bers Of the cabinet Of General Jackson men o
the highest character, strict consiructonists, Who
more eminent for that than the late Mr. Nc Duifie
Who more eminent for that than William r. King
than James X. Polk?
Why, Mr.. President, If we can place any reli
ance on authority; If we imagine that it is
possible an exposition may be given TO a clause
.T,