The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1854-05-31

sovereignty designated as q the United
States Of Ameriea," and these United
States have deselsed that power. by the
terms Of this grant. upon the Congress
Of the United States. II is not ques-
tiOn about disputed power. II is not
an inquiry of Interpretation. We are
not engaged in investigating whether
we can deduce or infer power over
the public lands. as falling naturally.
and appropriately. and necessarily
within some power that il expressly
granted. There j. an express grant in
terms Of this power--ihis Whole pow
er--to Congress. The power was in
the United States. and never in the
State sovereignties. as such. and this
power. by the Constitution, is vested
exclusively in Congress, without any
declared qualification.
Mr. President, | think that a rule
laid down by Mr.. Calhoun. in his post
humous work upon government. in re.
lation to another subject. furnishes a
very clear aud safe ground for inter-
preting this grant Of power. and sup
ports the general view have taken.
On the 202d page Of his treatise he
thus expresses himself:
"Thsre il very striking difference between
the manner in which the treaty y-making aud the
law-msking power, in lis strict sense, are dele
gated, which deserves notice. The former 10
vested In the President and Senate by a few &C.
neral words, without cnunefalng OF specifying
particularly the power delegated. The consli.
tuition simply provides that he shall haze power,
hy and with the advice and consent Of the Senate,
10 make treaties. provided lwolhirds Of The se.
nators present concur; while The lesisaliye pow
ers vested in Congress are, one by one. careful
ly enumerated aud specified. The reason is to
fe found in the fact, that the treaty y.making pow
er is vested exclusively la ths Government Of
the United States, and therefore nothing more
was necessary IN delegaiing il, Than to specify,
as j. done, the portion or department Of the Go-
vernmcnt in which II Is vested. Il was then mol
only unnecessary. but il would have been absurd,
TO enumersle specially the powers embraced in
the grant. Very different is the case in regard
10 legislative powers. They are divided between
the Federal Government aud the State Govern
ments, which made il absolutely necessary. in or
der 10 draw the line between the delegated and
reserved pewers. that the one or the other should
I've carefully enumerated and specified; and, as
the former was intended to be ihii supplemental
10 the latter, and 10 embrace the comparatively
few powers which could not be either exercised
NJ ali, or II al all, could mol be well aui safely
yeral States, il was proper iha, the former, and
not the latter, should be enumerated and specih
cd. But, although the trcaly-making power !.
exclusively vested, and without enumeration oI
specification, in the Government Of the United
States, il isncveriheess suheclt TO several iinpor.
tant limitations"
The first limitation, he then states,
is "to questions anteraiios," and then,
ia the second place, il is to be limited ;
but | will give his own words:
at is, ia the next place. limited by all the pro.
visions of the Constitution which inhihit certain
acts from being done by the Government or any
of lis departments. of which description there are
many. II is also limited by such provisions Of
the Constitution as direct certain acts 10 be done
in particular way, and which prohibit the con;
traTy; Of which striking example is TO be found
in that which declares that no money shall he
drawn from the Treasury but in consequence ol
appropriations 10 he made ly law
Then he states that, by necessary
Limitation, implied though not express
ed, the treaty-making power Of the
country cannot be used to destroy or
alter the Constitution or Government
under which it is exercised.
Now, sir, ask the attention of the
Senate for one mament to this state.
ment. The power Of making treaties,
Mr.. Calhoun says, Is a power erciu,
siUely vested in the Government Of the
United States. 1t was a power tha,
either could not be exercised at all by
the separate States or not SO well and
conveniently ; aud therefore the soioit
power was gwen to this Government.
Hence, he says, there was no necessity
for entering into an enumeration Of
particulars; it would have been absurd
the whole is given. 1t is an e1press
power aud an erciusiUe power, and
therefore it is subject to no limitations,
in his judgment, but those which he has
specified as growing necessarily either
out Of the nature OF the power granted,
or out Of express inhibitions elsewhere
contained in the Constitution, or out
of the necessity of preserving intact
the Constitution itself under which the
power is exerted. But, as he saws,
with regard to legislative powers di.
yided between this Government and
the States, with respect to these, an
enumeration of one class or the other
was necessary, and those granted to
Congress were selected as the powers
more convenient and more proper for
enumeration,
Now, sir, how exactly is that the case
with regard to the grant Of power over
the publicl lands. Its not among the &c,
neral enumerated Legislative powers d
Congress. 1t is power erclusiuely in
Courress. Ii isa mower that neypr wa,