Washington sentinel., 1854-05-20

could have existed in the States and therefore it
could not have been reserved 10 the States, nor
could any part oft / rest it upon the practice
OF the government. l rest II upon the opinions
oi tne most eminent men who have taken part IN
It's deiioerations and the conduct OF its affairs, or
who have presided over its destinies. proceed
now 10 Inc consideration of the second objection
Inc PRESIDENT Of the United States suggests that
Inc particular provisions of this bill assume some
control, direction, or interference with the local
analrs of the States which are not within the con-
stltutonal power of this government. Now, sir,
II this bill fairly considered, assumes any control
and direction over State in this Union in the
management OF It's local concerns, in matters re-
served TO II by the Constitution oil the United
states then, beyond all doubt, it is violation of
the principles OF that instrument and il ought not
10 receive the sanction of the Senate But does
y What does It doa II proposes to give these
iahds 10 the several States and the substance of
all lis particular provisions is this That the lands
are 10 De sold the money invested and the inter-
est ony applied to the support of insane INDECENT
persons under the care and Jurisdiction of the
Slale. what power of State does il invade
Does assume the control and direction of her
INDECENT insane? +? Does il undertake 10 prescribe
now they shall be treated, where located, who
shaii govern and manage them, the rules regua-
ting the institutions in which they are placed or
any requisiiion as TO how the accounts are to be
settled IN those institutions Not at all. 1t gives
TO the States certain amount of money, 10 be
Proauceu Dy Inc sales of these lands, the interest
Oh which IS 10 be applied by them TO the support
Oh the INDECENT insane in such institutions, under
sucn regulations, and subject, in all respects TO
such cohtrol as the States shall see proper 10 ex-
erclse over them. As had occasion 10 say once
IN some remarks made incidentally upon this sub
Jeci, IS no more an invasion of the reserved
rights OF the states, or attempt 10 control them
10 lner domeslic conduct, than grant made by
my honorable friend from Illinois, who sits beside
me, Nlr. SUIELDS.l n nv IF 10 ha
applied ior promoting and advancing my sons,
Tor educating them, for putting them out as ap-
prentices, for teaching them professions or for
giving marriage portions to my daughters, would
my own family.
But, MIR. President, if there is any apparent
force in the objection, how are we TO resist what
has been done from almost the commencem of
this government? ! have before me a list CT
grants Of lands 10 States for various objects. an
proved of by General Jackson and Mr. Polk during
the time they We're at the head of the govern
ment, In which such conditions, or conditions liza
Bile 10 equal objections, were imposed.
If these acts are looked through, il will be
iouna mat Congress uniformly undertakes to di-
reel what shall be done with the properly which
u grants, TO what purposes it shall be applied and
prohibits its being applied to any other purposes
lhese grants are innumerable. have tables of
them here, but will not fatigue the Senate by
gong over them, but will hand the list 10 the re-
remarks. See Appendix.
Now, sirlf II be unconstitutional for Congress
10 grant 10 any ofthe old States certain portion
OF the public lands with direction that the pro-
ceeds, the interest upon the amount realized from
the sales of those lands, shall be applied 10 the
support OF an asylum for the insane, wish TO
know whence the power was derived to give these
directions, impose these conditions, aad lay these
restrictions upon the grants made 10 the new
States! Are the new States less sovereign than
n faf Ava IL q
this Unions Do they not all occupy relation Of
perfect and precise equality of rights and powers
Ihe President vindlcates these grants TO the
new States from the general constitutional obec-
ton, upon the ground that they are dispositions
made by prudent andholder for enhancing the
value of the residue of his lands. But putting
aside for the present that as a source of power
who was the prudent landholderl The United
States. Who represented the United States in
the transaction? The Congress of the United
states. Well, sir, il Congress, in giving these
lands to one State has not power TO direct tho
State authorities in their application, where does
Congress get the power 10 do il in regard 10 an
other State five have not the power as a Con-
gress, then there is an end of the matter; but if
we have It at all as Congress, we have il in
respect TO one State well as another. But il is
said we in this respect to be regarded only as
prudent landholders. Surely by calling ourselves
prudent landholGers we do not acquire any power
to regulate the domestic institutions of the States
III we have power 10 grant the lands, we can grant
| them, and impose such conditions we may an
| mex 10 the grant ii we have no power TO grant
| the lands with or without conditions we cannot
acquire it by calling ourselves prudent landhoId-
| ers. The act OF grant was the act, in every in
| stance, of the government OF the United States
1t was, like every other act done by this govern
ment, an act of sovereignty II was not an act of
a private person. II was not, and it cannot be
made 10 be, bargain merely, like that which
would be transacted between my friend from Mis-
| n III - r
purchase OF lands or personal property. il was
something more; il was an act of the sovereign
authority OF the United States; and if it exceeded
the constitutional limits of that authority in one in
stance, il exceeded it in every one unless you af
firm that the new States have not equal sover-
eighty and independence with the old States-the
land States with those that have no public lands
within their limits.
Sir, this whole subject is covered over with pre-
cedents. Those precedents back for half d
century. have list of them here before me.
They have been voted by Congresses of every
political description. They have been sanctioned,
without question or hesitation, by presidents of
every various political shade that we have had.
believe that it will be very difficult, believe it
will be impossible, TO maintain that, if the egis-
lation of Congress in connexIon with the grants
of lands to the new States was constitutional, in
the view am now taking of it, the legislation in
this bill is unconstitutional in regard to the old
States. Congress grants lands for the purpose Of
establishing schools. What does Hrequire! Why,
that the lands, or the proceeds of sale, shall be
sacredly kept and the interest and income ap.
piled 10 that purpose, and no other. II grants
lands for the establishment of university, with
precisely the same restrictions 1t grants lands
for cutting canal or for a railroad, with similar
restrictions. And pray you, sir if these restric-
tons are not beyond our constitutional authority
in regard 10 those States in what possible manner
do we invade the rights Of the States by the con-
dition annexed 10 the grant which the bill under
the consideration of the Senate proposes to make
to all the States?
AS have said, the fact OF our assuming to act
IN the character OF land can give no
power TO control the States in their local concerns
II II be true that we append 10 such condi-
uons as tins bill proposes TO grant Of the public
land, then the conditions are void. Suppose they
are; what is the consequence? Assume that the
restrictions are invalid Tor want Of constitutional
power; then the grant takes effect, but is dis
charged OF the condition. That is all. We, in
that case, say TO the States You shall have these
portions OF the public lands for the purpose, with
the understanding, with the declaration, that they
are 10 be app led 10 the support Of the INDECENT in
sane; and on this supposition the States may pay
Just what respect and consideration they please 10
the restrictions that are thus attempted 10 be i'm
posed, and may apply The proceeds of the lands in
that thew think TnIo