The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1854-05-19

it be appropriated TO local objects, IN the Hales
wherein it may happen TO lie, as would oe uone
by any prudent proprietor TO enhance the SAFE
value of his private domain. All such grants Of
land are, in fact disposal of 1t for value recelVeo
but they afford no precedent or constitutional
reason for giving away the public lands. olll'
less do they give sanction to appropriations ior oo'
iecs hIch have not been intrusted 10 the tedera
government and therefore belong exclusively 10
the States.
To assume that the public lands are aPplicab BILE
10 ordinary State objects, whether OF public struc'
lures, police, charity, or expenses oil Stale az
mnstraton, would be TO disregard, TO the amount
Of the value of the public lands all the limitations
of he constitution, and confound, 20 that extent,
all distinctions between the rights and powers OF
the States, and those of the United States; for, II
the public lands may be applied TO the support OF
the poor, whether sane insane, It the disposal
Of them and their proceeds be not subject to the
ordinary limitations OF the constitution, then Con-
gress possesses unqualified power TO provide for
expenditures in the States by means OF the public
lands, even to the degree of deGraying the salaries
Of governors judges, and all olher expenses OF
the government, and internal administration within
the several States. The conclusion from the gen.
eraI survey of the whole sui ct is, to my mnd
irresistible and closes the question, both of right
and of expedcncy, so far as regards the principle
of the appropriation proposed in this bill. Would
not the admission of such power in Congress to
dispose Of the public domain work the practical
abrogatIon of some of the most important Pro7Is-
ions of the constitution? If the systematic reser.
walton of definite portion Of the public lands (he
sixteenth sec:ion) in tho States, for the purpose
of education and occasional grants for similar
purposes be cited as contradic,ing these concIu-
sions, the answer as it appears to me, is obvious
and satisfactory. Such reservations and grants,
boSiu hoipr ri IF the cOOIitionS which
the proprietary right Of the United States is main
tanned, along with the eminent domain Of partic.
ular State, and by which the public land remains
free from taxation in the State in which it lies,
and as long as it remains the property OF the uni
ted States. are the acts of mere land owner, dis.
posing Of small share of his property in way
to augmen: the value of the residue, and in this
mode to encourage The early occupation of it by
the industrious and intelligent pioneer.
The great example OF apparent donation Of
lands to the States, likely to be relied upon as
sustaining the principles Of this bill, is the relin.
qushment of swamp lands TO the States which
they are situated but this, ALSO like other grants
already referred 10, was based expressly upon
grounds clearly dstinguishable in principle from
any which be assumed for the bill herewith
returned, viz upon the interest and duty Of the
proprietor. They were charged, and not without
reason, to be nuisance to the inhabitants Of the
surrounding country. The measure was predi.
Gated, not only upon the ground of the disease
inflicted upon the people Of the States which the
United States could not justify, as just and hon.
est proprietor, but also upon an express limita-
ton of the application Of the proceeds, in the first
instance. TO purposes Of levees and drains, thus
protecting ;he health Of the inhabitants, and, at
the same time. enhancing the value of the remain.
ing lands belonging to The general government.
1t is not TO be denied that Congress, while admin.
istering the public lands a proprietor, within
the principle distinctly announced in my annual
message, may sometimes have failed to distinguish
accurately between objects which are and which
within its constitutional powers.
After the most careful examination, find but
two examples in the acts Of Congress which fur
nsh any precedent for the present bill, and those
examples will, in my opinion, serve rather
warning than as an Educement 20 tread in the
same path.
The first is The act of March 3d. 1919, grant
ing township Of land TO the Connecticut asylum
for the education Of The deaf and dumb.
The second, that of Aprl 5th, 1926, making a
similar grant of land to the Kentucky asylum for
teaching the deaf and dumb.
The first more than thirty years after the adop-
ton of the constitution, and the second more than
a quarter OF a century ago.
These acts were unmportant as TO the amount
appropriated, and, SO far as | ascertain, were
passed on two grounds: first, that the object was
a charitable one; and, secondly, that it was ma.
tional. TO say :hat it was charitable object, is
only to say that ii was an object of expenditure
proper for the competent authority; but it no
more tended 10 show that it was a proper object
Of expenditure by the United States than is any
other purely local object, appealing to the best
sympathIes Of the human heart in any Of the
States And the suggestion that school for the
mental culture Of the deaf and dumb in Connect.
cut or Kentucky, is national object only shows
how loosely this expression has been used when
the purpose was to procure appropriations by
Congress. 1t is not perceived how a school of
this character is otherwise national than is any
establishment Of religious moral Instruction.
All the pursuits Of industry, everything which
promotes the material or intellectual weIl.being
OF the race, every car Of corn or boil of cotton
which grows, is national in the same sense; for
each one of these things goes to swell the aggre.
gate of national prosperity and happiness OF the
United States; but ii confounds all meaning Of
language TO say that these things are NATIONAL"
as eqaIvalen. TO "federal," {" so as 10 come within
any OF the classes Of appropriation for which
Congress is authorized by the Constitution to
legislate.
1t is marked point in the history OF the con.
stitutlon that when it was proposed to empower
Congress 10 establish university, the proposition
was confined 10 The district intended Tor the future
seat OF government Of the United States, and that
even that proposed clause was omitted in consid
Grafton OF the exclusive powers conferred on