Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-05-13
THE VETO MESSAGE.


dent of the United States explanatory of his views
for not signing the bill for the relief of the Indigen
Insane, his judgment is stated to be that strict
adherence to the terms and purposes of the Fede
raj compact offers the BEST if not the only, security
for the preservation of our blessed inheritance Of
representative liberty" This declaration seems q
little singular when the power of one man is about
to be nterposed to defeat the expressed will OF the
Nation through Representatives fresh from the
People: and as to the subject on which this exer
else Of power falls, none could be more interesting
to people who possess the ordinary feelings of hui
manty. We must therefore take the freedom
though with great Difference, to submit few OBJ,
iectons to the leading argument of the President
After enumerating the objects Of the BILL the
Message remarks at cannot be questioned that il
Congress have power to make provision for the
Indecent insane without the limits of this District
it has the same power to provide for the INDECENT
who are not insane and thus to transfer to the
TeueraI UUvUrnnvrry phc harea &c III H. Pow =
sall the States" This is mode of reasoning
which, except under severe pressure, is seldom re-
sorted to- 1t could hardly have been expected that
such position would have been taken IN the fore.
ground of the argument.
In the first place, it may be remarked that the
bill in this respect, is not new. The principle was
sanctioned by the venerable MONROE, who was
himself strict constructionist of the Constitution
as Mr.. PIERCE processes to be; and the same prin-
ciple was sanctioned by the administration of JOHN
O. ADAMS. And we might here ask, without the
least dsparagement to the present Administration,
whether it is WISER of more experience IN the at
fairs of the Government or OF a lotter patriotism
than the two Administrations above named?
What new light has opened upon our present
rulers We do not find it in the Message, and we
are not informed where else we should look for it.
Forty-two years ago Congress appropriated con-
siderable sum for the relief Of the people of Carac
cas-, in Venezuela who had suffered by earthquakes,
and short time ago liberal appropriation was
made to relieve the starving poor in Ireland. Now,
to apply the Presidents argument: we, IN the hrst
instance, acted on principle which would require
us to relieve the calamities of all nations from
earthquakes, or any other dispensations Of Proyi-
dence; and in the second, we are bound to feed
the poor of all nations
IL the veto arcument is to be carried out, :. will
be difficult TO sind any ground of action for the Gen
eral Government This has not been the practice
of our strict consructionists. Mr. JEFFERSON sign
ed appropriations Of money to construct the Ma
tional Road on the ground that the States through
which it was made consented to its construction.
This, it must be admitted, is q very easy mode of
altering the Constitution. Gen. JACKSON, by his
proclamation against South Carolina, put forth
ultra doctrines, derogatory to State rights, than
have ever been advanced by any of our Presidents.
Mr. CALHOUN avowed and acted upon the principle
that beyond the United States Congress could doany
thing which they were not expressly prohibited from
doing. President Polk made war against Mexico with
out the authority of Congress and when California
and New Mexico were conquered government was
organized and civil officers appointed to govern the
country This was done without the aid of Con-
gress by our good friends who can find constitu-
tional objection against any thing which they desire
to defeat. But favorite measures are never uncon
stitutonal.
The PRESIDENT cites the words, "the powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States respectively or to
the people," and asks, "Can it be controverted
that the great mass of the business of Government
that involved in the social relations; the internal
arrangements of the body polite; the mental and
moral culture Of men the development of local re-
sources of wealth; the punishment Of crimes in
general the preservation Of order and the relief
of the needy or otherwise unfortunate members of
socety-did in practice remain with the States
that none Of these objects of local concern are by
the Constitution, expressly or implicitly prohibited
to the States, and that none of them are, by any
express language of the Constitution, transferred
to the United States"
What application has this to the argument? The
bill rejected did not propose to do any thing within
the scope of the above remarks. 1t appropriated
of the public lands rateable proportion to each
State for the purpose of building lunatic asylums
There was no interference with any internal regula
ton of the States in any of their local concerns
They could reject the benefeent appropriation, and,
if they accepted it, the proceeds were to be applied
to the object specified, under their discretion. 1t
division, to the extent provided, OF the com
mon property of the States among them IN just
proportion, and to encourage an enterprise the most
humane and benefcent
When the President, therefore, thought it would
create q dependence Of the States on the Federal
Government for the administration of charities, he
was making an appeal not fit for constitutional
argument against measure which, from its nature,
could produce no such result
Seeing from the almost annual appropriation OF
the public lands for canals, railroads, seats of gov
eminent, colleges, schools, and variety of other
purposes, the President must needs cndeavor tc
place them upon,a different basis These, he says
arc clearly dstinguishable in principle from any
which can be assumed for the bill herewith re
turned, viz upon the interest and duty of the pro
prietor" Now, we take issue upon this point will
the Veto and allege that in this admission the con
stitutional argument is surrendered
We contend that the Constitution operates q
the whole country and in every State alike; tina
This appropriation was originated in the House 0
Representatives in 1872 the motion of Mr. MACON
North Carolina, than whom there was never NOR