Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-04-19
lPUBLfsHED BY REQUEST.
THE PUBLIC LANDs-MR. BENHETTS MlN0RI.
TY RKPORT.
[coNcLupEp.l


II there is any constitutional objection to
the grants that have been made, il must be
because they have been made exclusively for
the benefit Of part of tho States, and not for
the benefit Of all and thereby the rights Of
the old States (which have been entirely OK
cluded) have been not only prejudioed, but 30
far denied and defeated. This, if not uncon-
stitutional, Is certainly unjust But that OBJ
jootion does not apply in this instance. The
application IL for all Had it been only tor
the benefit Of the land States il is probable It
would have met with . moro favorable consld-
Grafton.
The power Of Congress to make the grant
applied for, cannot be denied without hrst es-
tablishing that the Constitution does not mean
what it says, and that the Presidents have ap-
proved, and the courts have enforced, uncon-
stitutonal laws on this subject for the last fifty
years; nor without defeating as unoonstitu-
tional and void, more than one half of the
legislation of Congress in relation to the pub
lic lands.
HAS TO EXPEDIENCY
This application is for most useful and
praiseworthy purpose in which all are inter-
ested--one that appeals directly to the best
sympathies Of the human heart against the
merits of which, even its opponents say they
SsJSSS>S.~S ~~S~
from other considerations. They put in plea
Of want of power That has been answer
cd. They intcrpose an argument, that all
manner Of applications would be made If this
were granted. This hardly merits a serious
reply All manner Of applications have been
made, and have been granted. The lands are
being squandered, granted, and given away,
with the most reckless and cxtravagant profu-
sion Among all these, cannot one grant be
made for the public good? Is it all required
to be bestowed upon speculators and corpora
tions? Besides, is not Congress competent to
Judge whom grants should be made and when
they should be denied? Arc we to refuse
proper applications for fear improper ones will
be made?
The members OF this committee reporting
against this grant are prepared to report in
favor Of grants for railroads, at this session,
sufficient TO take moro than 100000 acres
Of the public lands, in addition TO all before
granted. Where do they find authority to
make those grants more than this one? Yet
all these grants they regard as expedient and
constitutional! The land all goes to the proper
States, and for the proper purposes; therefore,
the grants are constitutional! They also sup
ported the Homestead bill Was that expe
dent and constitutional, upon the principles
now laid down in their report?
WAS TO RAILROAD GRANTS.
It is urged these are constitutional and
proper, because nothing is lost by making
them. Ii this were true it is not perceived
how it would affect the constitutional right to
make them; that depends on the power Of
Congress to make the grants, mot whether
they are wisely or unwisely made But moth
ing SO often and go confidently asserted was
ever more erroneous. Take, for example, the
Illinois Central railroad, as most favorable for
those relying upon this argument. The grants
for that road were as follows:
Acres
To Illinois 2,595,O53
To Mississippi 1880