Daily evening star. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1852-1854, 1854-05-04
THE VETO MESSAGE.


| This document is much too long for
our columns that is, after it has ap-
pesred in the morning papers and the
distant press. We, however, herewith
present sufficient Of it to enable our
readers to understand precisely where the
Administration stand, upon the question
of disposing of the public lands: that is,
as to the principle which must guide
propositions to that end, so that they
may receive their sanction:
"I have been unable to discover any dis
tinction on constitutional grounds, or grounds
| of expediency, between an appropriation of
ten millions Of dollars, directly from the mo-
neyi in the Treasury, for the object contempla-
ted, and the appropriation of lands presented
for my sanction. And yet, cannot doubt.
that if the bill proposed ten millions of dollars
from the Treasury Of the United STATES, for
the support Of INDECENT insane in the severa!
States, that the constitutional question involved
IN the act would have attracted fercibly the
attention of Congress
Sc respectfully submit, that, in a constitu-
| nonal point Of view, it is wholly immaterial
whether the appropriation be in money or
land.
The public domain is the common property
| OF the Union, just as much as the surplus pro-
ceeds of that, and of duties on imports remain
ing unexpended in the treasury. As such, it
has been pledged, is now pledged, and may
need to be so pledged again for public indebt-
edness. lEs
GAS property, it is distinguished from actu.
81 money in this respect: that its profitable
management sometimes requires that portions
| of it be appropriated to local objects in the
States wherein it may happen to lie, as would
be done by any prudent proprietor to enchauce
the sale-yalue Of his private domain. All
such grants of land are, in fact, disposal of it
| for value received; bat they afford no prece-
dent or constitutional reason, for giving away
| the public lands. Still less do they give sane
ton to appropriations for objects which have
not been entrusted to the Federal Government.
and therefore belong exclusively to the States
10 assume that the public lands are appii-
cable to ordinary State objects, whether of pub
lie structures, police, charity, or expens es OF
State administration, would be to disregard. to
the amount Of the value of the public lands.
all the limitations of the Constitution, and
confound, to that extent. all distinctions be-
tween the rights and powers of the States and
those of the United States. For if the public
lands may be applied to the support of the
poor, whether sane Or insane, if the disposal
OF them and their proceeds be not subject to
the ordinary limitations of the Constitution
then Congress possesses unqualified powers to
provide for expenditures in the States by me ans
OF the public lands, even to the degree of de-
fraying the salaries of Governors, Judges and
all other expenses of the Government and in.
ternal administration within the several States
The conclusion from the general survey of the
whole subject is. to my mind, irresistible, and
closes the question, both of right and of expe-
dieney, so far as regards the principle of the
appropriation proposed in this bill Would
not the admission of such power in Congress
to dispose of public domain work the practical
abrogatloD OF some of the most important pro-
visions of the Constitution? Ifthe systematic
| reservation of definite portion of the public
lands (the sixteenth section) in the States for
the purpose of education and occasional grants
for similar purposes be cited as contradicting
| these concl usions, the answer as it appears to
me, is obvious and satisfactory. Such reserva-
tions and grants, besides being part of the
conditions on which the proprietary right of
the United States is maintained, along with
the eminent domain Of particular State, and
by which the public land remains free from
taxation in the State in which it lies az long
as 1t remains the property of the Unit
States, are the acts of a mere land owner dis
posing Of a small share of his properly in n
way to augment the value of the residue, and
II this mode to encourage the early occupat ion
The great example Of apparent donation
OF lands to the States likely to be relied upon
as sustaining the principles of this bill, is the
REIMBURSEMENT OF swamp lands to the States
in which they are situated but this, also like
| other grants already referred to- was based
expressly upon grounds clearly distinguisha-
BILE In principle from any which can be assumed
TOT the Dill herewith returned, viz. upon the
interest and duty Of the proprietor. They
| were charged, and not without reason, to be a
nuisance to the inhabitants Of the surrounding
country. The measure was predicate no
only upon the ground of the disease ind oted
upon the people of the States which the United
States could not justify as just and honest
proprietor, but also upon an express limit alton
Of the application of the proceeds, in the first
instance, to purposes Of levees and drains
taus protecting the health of the inhabitants
and at the same time enhancing the value of
the remaining lands belonging to the General
Government. 1t is not to be denied that Con-
gress, while administering the public lands IS
proprietor within the principle distinctly
announced in my annual message may some
times have failed to distinguish accurately be-
tween objects which are and which are not
within its constitutional powersn
We find the following picture of the
jury that acquitted Matt. Ward in late
number of the Louisville Democrat
A glance at their faces by stranger
would at once have led him to conclude
that it was sentence day in court, and
that the convicts of protracted term
had just been brought out to receive
sentence. There was but one man on
the jury whose face would not have con-
demned him in any civilized community;
we mean Crutcher. He looked honest.
We hope, though with many doubts,
that he was-but that, finding himself
in den of - 1--WE were going to say
th'eres, but respect for the inmates of the
penitentiary forbid such comparison,
finding himself with eleven such men as
he was associated with, he permitted
himself to be overruled. 1t was in
deed slckening to hear the comments
of the neighbors and acquaintance of the
jurors upon their history and character
One had been indicted for burning his
neighbours barn, and never acquitted
Another was well known to have CON-
mitted base perjury. Another had visit
ed the prisoners in Jail repeatedly, and
had said again and again that the prison