Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-05-10
THE VETO.
OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY.

We nresent our readers to-day with the veto Mes
.no Of the President on the bill making grant of
blic lands to the several States for the benefit of
:na;,ent insane persons. The document is marked
h. much case and force of language, while it is mild
"a rpspectful to the friends of the measure. 1t
.bous its author to be thoroughly acquainted with
Lo subject discussed and that he is devoted to the
,rbs of the States. lis great merit, however, con-
sfts in the Roman firmness displayed in resisting
ation of the Constitution and of the rights of the
States of the Union. The bill proposed to make the
concentration for the benefit of the INDECENT in
cane, " to give it more popularity among the people
and disguise the encroachments it contained upon
be rights of the States, by controlling their action
rnon municipal regulations, concerning which the
pderal Government has no right whatever to inter-
srp The President has asserted great coustitu-
tiona principle and his veto will be triumphantly
sustained by the American people.
The powerful arguments contained in the message
rpasscrt the doctrine laid down in the Annual Mes
sare of prudent proprietorship which, if carried
ont must lead to the veto of the Homestead Bill, in
fine event that shall be passed by Congress
This is in the main, the doctrine which has govern
oil all the republican Administrations from the foun-
daon of the Government to the present day and if
ted Innovations upon this wise and long settled poll
cr. as we believe he will, it will at once place him
in the front rank of American statesmen, side by
side with Jefferson and Jackson in boldly defending
fe constitution and the rights of the States, and
sntle him to the gratitude of the American people
twill be seen that the bill proposed to donate the
lands acquired by the treasure and blood of the pco
ME to the States prescribing the object to which the
L a. I,a:Y,
mon which the Federal Government has no power
tolegislate Is the Federal Government in this way
TO be permitted to usurp the powers of the States,
and the latter to lose all their rights for the sake of
skw thousand acres of land? We mistake the char
acter Of the people if they will permit the humane
and charitable purpose in the name of which this
wrong was attempted, to influence their decision.
The President very truly states that the proceeds
Of the public lands pledged for the payment of
public debts which have not been paid and that
there may be need for them to be pledged again.
The bill proposed to make the donation according to
the compound ratio of geographical area and repre-
sentation in the House of Representatives, which is
not the constitutional mode of estimating " the gen.
eral charge and expenditure. " The President very
correctly we think takes the ground that he can see
distinction between appropriation of lands and
an appropriation of money, far as constitutional
power is concerned. This doctrine, we hope, will
keep the Government on the good old republican
tack so far at least appropriations of the public
lands are concerned.
We have seen no democrat who does not approve
the doctrine laid down in the veto Message. Indeed
the paper is spoken of in the very highest terms OF
cOmmendation. We have not space to say more
on the subject to-day. We bespeak for this able
document the careful perusal of our readers.