Washington sentinel., 1854-06-25


comforting power 10 give away, is obvious. He
holds the property not as his own or for HIMSELF
but i'll trust for the benefit OF another whose rights
would be prejudiced by giving il away. Fiduci-
airy powers are never absolute or unlimited but
subordinate and llmited-limiled not only by the
express terms Of the trusts, but by the shelltt0n
with which il was created subordinate 10 the
rights OF the maker, any abuse oil which IS no less
breach OF The trust than exceeding IT'S terms.
Hence, have been surprised TO hear any sena-
tor, more especially one protesting 10 belong 10
the straightest sect OF consiruciionists, maintain
that the power OF Congress over the public land
was discretionary, absolute. and unlimited, save
by the positive prohibitions of the Constitution
No one, believe, asserts or believes that The
public land belongs 10 Congress or the federal
government II owns no property. II is but the
agent trustee of the United States il holds the
territory public land in trust for their common
use and benefit, and can make no disposition of il
not warranted by the letter spirit of its charter,
prejudcial 10 the interest Of the United States,
either of them. To give away properly is 10
transfer il 10 another without equivalent or COM
pensaton. Such power over property is absolute,
not limited The power OF the owner and not of his
servant. Such power is rreconcab!e with the
general character of trust estate, because ad-
yerseto the interest ofthe beneficiary. Such power
is not conferred on trustees in any other than pre-
else aud positive language, and never inferred
from doubtful or ambiguous terms.
Hence if there were other words in the
should not understand II as intended TO confer
power 10 give away the territory of the United
States. But there are other words that negative
this construction. The clause runs thus: " Con-
gress shall have power 10 dispose OF, and make
| all needfu rules and regulations respecting, the
| territory or other property of the United States
| If by dispose of was intended 10 give way, what
1 rule or regulation could be needfui? These words
imply raiuc They show that some system was
10 be adopted, some plan established in the dispo
| siton of the territory. But, surely, il was never
| contemplated by the trainers OF the Constitution
TO invest Congress with power to make rules and
4 regulations for giving away the putc lands. II
they had designed TO confer such absolute power
! over the territory, they would not have deemed
rules and regulations respecting II necessary.
/ Again, following territory we find the words 'or
| other property" Territory is uniformly under
stood 10 signify land, and presume all will con
4 cede that the words Tor other property were
used in coniradslinction TO territory, and in
/ tended 10 embrace other species of property than
/ land. Otherwise, the words or other property
are not merely tautologous, but senseless and ab-
surd. The trainers OF the Constution certainly
4 knew what every one knows, that property en-
braces money well as land in short every kind
J Of estate, real, personal, or mixed Such is moi
only its technical but its popular import also. II
| so, then over everything which may be called
| property, and may belong to The United States,
4 Congress has the same power, conferred in TIE
same clause, and in the same language; which
| is 10 dispose of and make all needfu rules and
regulations respecting it. We have the same
power 10 dispose of land, whether wild or I'M
proved navy yards, dock-yardr, arsenas, and forts
the navy, arms, and munitions of war, and the
money OF the United States. Ii our power over
the public domain is plenary, so il Is over the
/ public money; if we can make gratuitous dona
tions Of one kind of property, may OF all
| others If we distribute land we may money,
4 The constitution was framed with no purpose Of
/ giving greater power over the public land than
over The public money. Why should such dis
| elimination or distinction have been made? Why
I should we make il !? What is the difference be
tween distributing ten millions of dollars among
| the States, and dividing among them ten millions
| of acres of land, worth one dollar per acre2 Why
| not distribute money II you can purchase land
| for distribution with the money? Tue land wa>
bought with money raised by taxation it will sell
tor money and diminish taxation. The land l.
! much common federal fund as the money
Il will serve the same purpose 10 pay The debts
and provide for the common defense and general
welfare. There Is no substantial difference be-
tween taxing the people 10 raise money for dir
irlbution and taxing them 10 buy land for division
among the States; or between dividing land bought
with their money, and money for which their land
was sold. The principe and effect of both policies
is Identical. could vote 10 give away the public
money 10 the States or TO individuals. with as
little scruple as could vote to give them the pub,
| lie land.
| If the words ssdispose of can be fairly inter
preted TO give array then il seems 10 me undenia-
BILE that the trainers Of the Constitution conferred
1 on Congress the power 10 give away every species
! of public property the United States might ever
| acquire, unless il be shown that the word
'sor other properly" We're used as synonymous
| with territory, or not embracing money. No
i one asserts they were used TO express the same
thing with territory; all admit that both or and
other denote something different from territory or
land. Bilt some senators maintain that the word
property not intended TO mean naoRey; in other
words that il means every sort of estate that may
| be held by the United States, except money. II
so, then the word property was used in sense
neither technical nor popular, in different sense
from that of lawmakers and law expounders.
| photographers and the masses who speak the
| English language. Crsdat JndgRs AppelLa!t
4 How, then, can any Senator conclude that Con-
gress has power 10 dispose of money only for
| those purposes named in The Constitution, but may
dispose OF land for other purposes not named in
that instrument THAT is. in gratuous donations
10 States or individuals. If because the Constitu-
! ton, in conierring power over territory, does mol
specify The purpose 10 which il shall be applied.
Congress may dispose Of il at discretion, what
limitation is there on its power over navy and
army? The Constitution gives Congress power
| 10 provide and maintain navy, and 10 raise and
support armies without annexing 10 either grant,
the end 10 which il shall be employed. Can il,
therefore, be maintained that Congress may give
the public ships TO the several States, the ma
tera of the army, the forts barracks and arsenas,
| TO individuals, for private alms-honses or hos
| pitals
4 AGAIN, Inc section and sentence OF the Consul
| tuition 10 which reference has been made, as defn-
I ing the purposes TO which money shall be applied,
1 is rather limitation the power of taxation
| than of disbursement, and might be transposed
without altering its meaning, so as TO read, :" Con-
4 gfess shall have power, in order to pay the debts
| and provide for the common defence and general
welfare, TO lay and collect taxes" &c. The pur-
! pose oftaxaiion, is thus clearly defined.
But taxation was not the only mode Of raising
money contemplated by The trainers Of the Con-
| stiiulion In the article and section is
another clause, conferring power TO borrow
| money on the credit of the United States !" which
! Is as clear, distinct substantive, and broad, as
| the power 10 dispose of territory. Yet who will
| pretend that Congress has power 10 borrow money
| TO distribute among the States for the INDECENT
insane or for any other purpose not named in the
| Constitution.
| Nor was this the only source whence public
! money was exnected TO be raised The territory
was looked TO for in and and mitigation OF
taxation. The acts Of cession of the several States
the United States express very clearly that idea;
they all signify that IL was 10 be common fund,
| for the use and benefit oil the United States, in
! proportion TO the paid by them 10 the federal
government or in oi ber words, il was 10 be sold,
and The money proceeds applied SO as 10 relieve
! each State of its proportion OF taxation. All con-
cede that this was one of the purposes for which