The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-23

ment TO justify the Of il thar If give one section
make the next one worth much as both
/ ~ congress has the power 10 give lands to railroa
companies land think il has II may exercise The powe
at discretion Bnt ii II has not the power IL n difficult
perceive how is Obtained by simply charging bona I'D
purchaser double price for the lands You sell him To Civ
as for charging settler two prices for his hos
that you have given ids 10 railroad conpanv ha,
enough n all Conscience but assert that Congress OBJ
tns constitutional right give lands to railroad com
panes ~ the simple process of charging sauattes tw,
prees Tor their homes Is hardly respectful TO The human
understanding we have the power to give IL exists a
an INDEPENDENT substantive proposition and II we hay
not The power 1t Is acquired by any argument how
nngiy devised
The President regards the bill as appropriang ten mil
ons o acres Of land to eleeosy nary purpose within
s limits of the States and he questions the warrant oil
Congress 70 make such appropriation because
maze 'os az eieenosynary purpose, as understand him
pa because Is made for such purpose within the limits
OF the States This is evident have before said from
the TACT that in the very next be admits that
within the District Of Columbia we may make appropri
lions Tor eicemosynary purposes
The argument then is not that you cannot make an al
preparation for the benefit Of insane asyuns because tey
et ns test The soundness Of this logic b, what appears il
the message elsewhere The President SAYS on page six OF
the printed paper that the profitable Of land
may sometimes require prudent propreors to appro-
pirate part Of it iocaf objects in ne States where il ies
That the mind OF the President in penning this sentence
was directed to the land grants heretofore made for railroad
be question Has Congress any right to patronze
by gift grant railroad school, or college or TO drain
swamp IN State than it has to patronize BY gift
grant unatc asylum in State What is the difference
between parenzing eeemosynary institution State
and school college in State? One s purely
local and so Is the other and one specified
provided for in the constitution than the other If Con-
gress may patronze by gift eeemosynary institution
in this district the President admits may do the same
mng IN State unless there is something in the relations
between the States and the federal that forbids
It, And submit with didence and respect that il there
be anything in that relation which orbds to patrone
an eieemosynary institution in the States there be
tlat, also which forbids patronizing college in
State If be said that the college exclusively under
he control of the State reply that eleemosynary in
tuition Is also exclusively under the control of the State
II Congress may gipe lands to railroads colleges schools
and other purely State institutions there be nothing n
the argument that lands cannot be given asylus or
its Of the States. T7T
The President lays great on the assumed fact that
only authorized TO dispose Of the lands prudent
proprietor would dispose of his own estate Very well
let US examine the soundness of this position have
asserted myself that the United States was the proprietor
OF the land have only antained that she the
tee OF the States II she Is the proprietor needs no rg-
ment 1t seems to me- prove that she may give or SELL or
lease or abandon she pleases. But if She be trustee
then grant that she administer the as pru-
dent proprietor would administer his own property
have seen IN the past that lands have been given
various purposes and the President gives us plainly to
understand that as prudent proprietor he would APP
prove of the gifts and say that Congress the power to
make them Now suppose that the President was the pr,-
dent proprietor Of million of acres of land in Wisconsin,
and that he had appointed my friend the from that
state Mr. aLKER his trustee with power to dispose Of
the lands prudent proprietor would dispose of his own
estate the senator sells part auction and some
private SALE and The President approves his acts saying
that was prudent You had the power TO do that He
gives some to railroad and the President approves that
lie gives some TO college schools some
to build courthouse and some TO drain swamps the
resdent looks over the whole and says this Is pr-
dent proprietor would have done with his own estate
You had the power 70 do all this and approve it, Then
The senator gives little % an insane asylum tn Presi-
dent says 4 must resist he deep synpaies Q my heart
beha5 Of The humane purposes g this gi But il is not as
prudent proprietor would have managed his own estate
DsaPrRovs ~ Now the question il could he consist
emily ay thetg When he conferred the power to make
the first grar he conferred the power make the last
and when he approved Of It's exercise in the first cases
necessarily commits himself to an approval in the last lie
may disapprove II he chooses but the ground OF
power
Suppose that the constitution instead of giving Con-
gress the power simply dispose of the territory said
that Congress may dispose Of the territory prde ro-
prear ,ooud dispose u estate who IN hat case
would be the judge Of what prudent disposition
Congress, questionaby. do not to say that the
President could not in such exercise the veto but
DO say that he could not base IL question Of power
lie would be compelled toput it question Of judgment
lie could not say that Congress had right TO give away
the ands for often happens that prudent proprietor
does give away his lands He night say that giving
II 10 the INDECENT insane E not prudent disposition Of IL
and veto for that reason. But this apprehend, would
raise question o Judgment and not question Of const-
utonal authority Congress has power levy II
may levy excessive taxes. But there a not court in
CLrsendom that would declare the unconstitutional
that account And why Because the abuse OF power
does not affect the question OF ts existence fancy there
fore tnat the President 10 y the least has placed the
the wrong ground Instead of denying Congress
constitutional right 70 pass this bi he onght TO have
sumed that It's passage abuse Of power How far
the President would be justified in nerposng his judg-
ment against the Judgment OF Congress point OF
cxpedienoy, is altogether another question He has the
right to do il, IL he chooses.
The President IN speaking certain grants heretofore
made A such grants Of land in fact disposal
Of for value received but they afford precedent
sttuonai reason for giving away the public iands' adj
nit that giving 10 school does ohre give
asylum But insist that the same constitutional
that would justify in giving 70 onewould Justify
in giving 20 the other, And think moreover that the
ords precedent for giving the other II we have the
right 20 give 10 that have the other then
giving to the does afford precedent for giving the
other.
The President that in disposng OF the lands BY
grants to various objects have heretofore enhanced the
value of the remaining land have already shown tha,
this enhancing the value Of parcel OF land cannot
plfy constitutional powers another parcel Bot
suppose IL could, s Il true in point Of act that these
grants have always enhanced the value Of the remaining
lands When Congress gave two townships OF land 70
Mississippi and many others to the other States 20
in value thereby None within my knowledge IL may
be ha, the existence of colleges and universities In the
States encourages settlements and that thereby chance IS
held that the lands win sell At better price And II
this be the argument reply that the existence OF an as
lam for the insane Is Just likely 70 induce settlements
and thus increase the value Of the lands as Is the existence
Of college TO do the same thing.
have thus far omitted TO speak of the bountylsnd
grants to soldiers connexion with this subject Regard
ing that act ~ depending for s consuonality the