Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-05-10

Furthermore this bill is in violation of the faith
of the Government pledged in the act OF january
%, 1S47 The nineteenth section of that act de-
cares, That, for the payment Of the stock which
may be created under the provisonsof this act the
sales of the public lands are hereby pledged and 1t
is hereby made the duty OF the Secretary OF the
Treasury to use and apply all moneys which may
be received into the Treasury for the sales OF the
public lands after the first day of january, ls49,
first to pay the interest all stocks issued by VIZ
ture of this act and secondly to the balance OF
said receipts after paying the interest aforesaid in
the purchase of said stocks at their market value,
&C. The debts then contracted have not been llqul-
dated and the language of this section and the OBJ
legations of the United States under IL arc TOO pain
to need comment.
have been unable to discover any distinction, on
constitutional grounds, grounds of cxpedency,
between an appropriation OF ten millions OF aolars
directly from the money in the Treasury, for the OBJ
ject contemplated, and the appropriation OF lands
presented for my sanction. And yet, cannot doubt
that if the bill proposed millions of dollars from
the Treasury Of the United States for the support
of INDECENT insane in the several STATE that the
stitutiona! question involved in the act would have
attracted forcbly the attention of Congress
respectfully submit, that, in constitutional point
Of view is wholly immaterial whether the apPro-
priation be in money or in land.
The public domain is the common property OF the
Union just much the surp us proceeds OF that,
and of duties on imports remaining uneXpended IN
the Treasury. AS such, it has been pledged, Is now
pledged, and may need to be so pledged again for
public Indebtedness.
As property, it is distinguished from actual NOM
cy chiefly in this respect: that its profitable manage
mcnt sometimes requires that portions of it be ap-
propratcd to locpl objects, in the States wherein it
may happen to lie, as would be done by any pru-
dent proprietor to enhance the sac-va uc OF his pr
yatc domain. All such grants of land are in fact,
a disposal of it for value received; but they afford
no precedent or constitutional reason for giving a
way the public lands Still less do they give sane
ton to appropriations for objects which have not
been entrusted to the Federal Government and there
bal, -,1,r Sxr.,lx tot he fGt
To assume that the public lands applicable to
ordinary State objects, whether of public structures,
police, charity, or expenses OF State administrator,
would be to disregard to The amount OF the value
of the public lands all the limitations of the Con-
stitution and confound to that extent, all dstinc-
tons between 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 limita
tons Of the Constitution, then Congress possesses
unqualified power to provide for expenditures IN the
States by means of the pubic lands, even to the de-
gree of deraying the salaries of Governors judges
and all other expenses of the Government, and in
terna 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 eXpedicncy so far as re-
CARDS the principle of the appropriation proposed in
this bill. Would not the admission of such power
i'll Congress to dispose of the public domain work
the practical ahrogaon of some OF the most lmpor-
matte reservation Of definite portion of the public
lands hc sixteenth scction) i'll the States, for the
purpose of education, and occasional grants for sim
liar purposes be cited contradicting these conciu
siOrS, the answer, it appears to me, is obvious
and satisfactory. Such reservations and grants, be-
sides 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 tax
alton in the State in which it lies, long it re-
mains the property of the United States the acts
of mere land owner diSposing of small share of
his property i'll way to augment the value Of the
residue, and in this mode TO encourage the carly
occupation Of it by the Industrious and Intelligent
pioneer.
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
sniamp lands to the States in which they Stu
ated but this also, Ike other grants already refer
red to, based expressly upon grounds clearly
in prI ciIlc fr, any which be
assumed for the bill herewith returned, viz: upon
the interest and duty of the proprietor. They were
charged, and not without reason, to be nuisance
to the inhabitants of the surrounding country. The
measure predicted, not only upon the ground OF
the disease inflicted upon the people of the States
which the United States could not justify, just
and honest proprietor, but also upon an express lin
itation of the application of the proceeds, IN the first
instance, purposes of levecs and drains thus pro-
tccting 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 Congress- while administering
the public lands proprietor, within the princl
pie distinctly announced i'll my annual message, may
have failed to distinguish accurately be-
tween objects which and which not within |
its constitutional powers.
After the most careful examination, I find but |
two examples in the acts of Congress which fur
nsh any precedent for the present BILL and those |
examples will, i'll my opinion, serve rather as a
warming than inducement 10 tread in the same |
path.
The first is the act Of March Sd, 1619 granting |
township of land TO the Connecticut asylum for the |
education of the deaf and dumb.
The second that of April 9Th, 1926, making SIM
lar grant of land to the Kentucky asylum for teach
ing the deaf and dumb.
The first more than thirty years after the adoption
IF the Constitution, and the second more than
quarter of century ago.
These acts unmportant as to the amount APP
Droprated and, far as | can ascertain, were pass
ID two grounds first, that the object char
table onc and secondly, that it was national. To
ay that it charitable object, is only to say that
was object of expenditure proper for the COM
1ctent authority but it tended to show that
t was proper object of expenditure by the United
States than any other purely local object appealing
the best sympathies of the human heart in any of
he States And the suggestion that school for
he mental culture of the deaf and dumb in Connec-
lieut. or Kentucky, is national object, only shows
low loosely this expression has been used when the
purpose was to procure appropriations by Congress.
t is not perceived how school of this character is
otherwise national than is any establishment of re-
gious moral instruction. All the pursuits of in
ustry, everything which promotes the material or