Washington sentinel., 1854-05-04

United States and nothing in this Constitution |
shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims
Of the United States or of any particular State"
The sixth article is as follows, to wit. that
"all debts contracted and engagements entered
into, before the adoption of this Constitution,
shall be as valid against the United States,
under this Constitution, as under the confedera-
tion." For correct understanding Of the terms
used in the third section of the fourth article,
above quoted, reference should be had to the
history of the times in which the Constitution
was formed and adopted. 1t was decided up
on, in convention, on the 18th September, 1857,
and by it Congress was empowered ito dis
pose Of" &C., "the territory or other property
belonging to the United States.' The only
territory then belonging to the United States
was that then recently ceded by the several
States, to wit, by New York in 1871, by Nir-
gnia in 1884, by Massachusetts in 1875, and
by South Carolina in August, 1871, only the
month before the formation Of the Constitution.
The cession from Virginia contained the fol-
lowing provision: "That all the lands within
the territory so ceded to the United States and
not reserved for or appropriated to any OF the
before mentioned purposes, or disposed OF IN
bounties to the officers and soldiers OF the
American army, shall be considered common
fund for the use and benefit of such OF the Uni
members of the confederation or federal alli-
ance of the said States, Virginia included, ac
eording to their usual respective proportions
in the general charge and expenditure, and
shall be faithfully and bona tide disposed Of for
| that purpose and for no. other use or purpose
whatsoever" Here the object for which these
lands are to be disposedofis clearly forth, and
| the power to dispose of them granted by the
third section of the fourth article ofthe Consttu
ton clearly contemplates such disposition only.
| If such be the fact, and in my mind there can be
no doubt Of it. then you have again not only
no implication in favor of the contemplated
grant, but the strongest authority against it.
| Furthermore, this bill is in violation of the
faith of the government, pledged in the act OF
January 2S, lS47. The nineteenth section OF
that act declares "That for the payment of
the stock, which may be created under the pro-
visions of this act, the sales Of the public lands
are hereby pledged; and it 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, l84s, first,
to pay the interest on all stocks issued by vir-
tue Of this act and secondly, to use the bal
ance Of said receipts, after paying the interest
aforesaid, on the purchase Of said stocks at
| their market value" &c. The debts then con-
tracted have not been hquidated, and the Ian
guage Of this. section, and the obligations Of
the United States under it, are too plain to
need comment
| have been unable to discover any distinc
ton, on constitutional grounds, or grounds Of
eXpediency, between an appropriation OF ten
millions of dollars, directly from the money in
the Treasury, for the object contemplated, 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 the INDECENT insane in the several States,
that the constitutional question involved in the
act would have attracted forcibly the attention
Of Congress.
! respectfully submit that, in constitutional
point of view, it is wholly mmaterial whether
the appropriation be in money or in 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
1 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.
As property it is distinguished from actual
money chiefly in this respect, that its profta-
| bic management sometimes requires that por
tions Of it be appropriated to local objects in
tie States wherein it may happen to lie; as
would be done by any prudent proprietor to
enhance the sale-value of his private domain.
1 All such grants of land are, in fact, dis
posal Of it for value received, but they afford
no precedent or constitutional reason for giving
away the public lands. Still less do they give
sanction to appropriations for objects which
have not been entrusted to the federal govern
ment, and therefore belong exclusively to the
States.
To assume that the public lands are appli-
cable to ordinary State objects, whether of pub
lie structures, police, charity, or expenses of
State administration, would be to disregard
the amount of the value of the public lands, all
the limitations of the Constitution, and con-
found to that extent all distinctions 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 ordi-
nary limitations of the Constitution, then Con-
gress possesses unqualified power to provide
for expenditures in the States by means of the
public lands, even to the degree of defraying
the salaries of governors, judges, and all other
expenses OF the government and internal ad-
ministration 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 ex
pediency, 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 the public domain, work the pract-
cal abrogation of some Of the most important
provisions Of the Constitution?
II the systematic reservation of definite
portion Of the public lands, (the sixteenth Sec
tions,) in the States, for the purposes Of educa-
ton, and occasional grants for similar purposes,
be cited as contradicting these conclusions, the
| answer, as it appears to me, is obvious and sat
isfactory. 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 taxation in the State in
which it lies, as long as 1t remains the property
of the United States, are the acts of mere
land owner disposng of small share of his
property in way to augment the value of the
residue, and in this mode to encourage the
early occupation of it by the Industrious and