Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-09-16
SPEECH OF MIR. BAYLY,
OF VIRGINIA,
On the Constitutional Power of Congress oper The
Public Lands
HOUSE OF REpnEsEsrArIvEs, MAncH 8, 1854.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,, MARCH D, 1904.
The bill from the Senate to aid the Territory of
Minnesota in constructing railroad for military,
postal, and other purposes being under considera-
ton
Mr.. BAYLy, of Virginia, said Mr.. Chairman, it was
not purpose to have addressed the committee upon
the three days which have been set apart for the cons
Iteration OF Territorial business. 1t is that
very anxious to debate the Nebraska bill, but
derstand the order of the House. we confined the
consideration OF the local business Of existing Territories
and therefore, Notwithstanding my anxiety to be heard
upon that question, do not think quite proper to in
rude myself upon the attention Of the committee under
this order and should have opened my lips but for
the attacks which were made yesterday by the gentle
man from Ohio Slr CAMPBELL) upon the Virginia dele
cation, and myself in particular It is Of re-
greet to me now that called upon interrupt gentle
men who take more immediate interest thar do in
these Territorial matters to reply TO that speech.
The gentleman charged upon that in voting to cede
to the States in which they lie the swamp and oyerowed
lands and In voting to appropriate land to the soldiers
who have served in different wars we have ceded to
the Congress of the United States the full authority
dispose Of the public lands in any which their
unrestrained discretion may seem to point out Now,
sir in respect to our jurisdiction over the public lands
have no new opinions to have but to pro-
pound those which have always entertained and which
undertake to say without the fear Of contradiction,
have always been entertained by the State which have
the honor in part to represent The Constitution in SO
many Words con.ers upon the Congress Of the United
States the authority dispose Of and make oil needu
rules aud regulations respecting the Territorial and other
property of the United States"
am free to admit that this clause Of the Constitution
Of the United States Congress the exclusive
troll of the public land and other property of the United
States but utterly deny that it confers upon it the
unlimited control The public land of the United States,
whether acquired by cession, by purchase by con-
quest held by this Government in trust In Of
cession the trust is defined in the deed of cesson in
the Of purchase CONQUEST the trust results from
the character of the transaction and in the latter two
cases it is less certain than is the first In each
case, whether by grant, where the trust is defined by
by conquest or by purchase where the trust is
resulting one it rebounds to the common benefit Of the
whole and is to be administered for other objects
than those specified in the Constitution. Although,
therefore, admit the power Of the General Government
make all needfu rules and regulations in respect to
the disposition Of the public lands contend that they
are bound to do it in subordnaton to the trust They
have right make disposition of theandn disregard
of that trust. Gentlemen, therefore, when they come
here and show that the Congress of the United States
have the authority to dispose of the public lands do not
advance inch in the argument until they have estab
shed it, that in the particular before them the
lands proposed to be disposed of to accomplish
constitutional object and to execute the trust which ex
lists in the case. ,a
Now this being our position, the gentleman from Ohio
Mr.. CAMPBELL) asks how it that voted to cede
the swamp lands? How it that we voted to give
bountes to soldiers who served in various wars lie
to think that, in giving away the swamp lands to
the States in which they e we have DONE and in CIV
conceded Congress the power dispose of these lands
without any other restriction than their uncontrolled
discretion voted to cede to the States in which they
lie the swamp lands In doing this it never entered my
mind that was violating the trust which have to
discharge What the representations made and truly
made in respect to them In the southern part Of
Missouri in Arkansas, in Florida and in some of the
other States Of the Union there lands that were
utterly useless and unfit for cultivation in their native
state. We hold these lands trustees to dispose Of
them for the benefit of the whole Why did we
cede them to the States in which they lie!
In the condition in which Nature left them they were
we're nuisance They only of practical value
the United States but they impaired the value of other
lands in their vicinity belonging to the United States
In this condition Of affairs the question which was pre-
scented to the trustees simply this viii you under
take to make these lands valuable? viii you undertake
DRAIN DYKE and ditch them to make them Of some
avail, they being valueess viii you permit others
more interested to do it for you? To u.s. as faithful
trustee the only question presented whether would
be better have these lands waste for all coming time
them valuable ourselves by the expenditure Of
money by direct appropriation for their reclamation
to cede them to others upon condition that they would
| do it?
Well sir as practical question, never entertained
doubt upon the subject II this Government, with the
notorious corruption in the execution of contracts in all
Government undertakings had undertaken have
diched and reclaimed these lands not only would much
more than the value Of lands have been
them but in my opinion valuable result so far as the
Government is concerned, would have ensued. Con-
would have had jobs but the Government would
not have profted When ceded these lands to the
States we ceded them upon the condition of their reca
mationupon the condition that these States would make
them valuable to them which valueess to and
in making them valuable themselves also confer bene-
h upon u.s. Could not do that in bona tide discharge
Of our duty faithful trustee? Could we not do 1t
without any violation Of our trust?
Again the gentleman from Ohio arraigns those of us
who voted giving lands bounty to the soldiers who
have served the of the country Now, sir does
any body doubt the power of this Government under the
war power-not under the to make needful rules
and regulations with respect to the disposition of the
public lands-does any body doubt the power of Con-
gress under the power, to make appropriations Of
the public lands of money to reward the gallant
soldiers who have fought defend country and add
its territory? Why sir you gave pensions from the
Treasury reward for service already performed and
you gave bounes to induce soldiers to enlist in your
army fer future service May you not then under the
war power do what is infinitely effective than giving
bounty to encourage enlisments May you not reward
where there has bounty been given in advance May
you not reward your faithful public servants by giving
them either land money and thus encourage and simu
late future service In this mode Of giving bounes after
the service has performed and when it has been
certained be meritorious do you not with infinitely
more effect encourage patriotism, and, all future
casons encourage enlistment by the hope Of this sub
seouent bounty than you would by offering it in advance
lnever, in any vote that ever gave to grant bounty
lands to soldiers who served in any Of wars acted
the idea that the lands given under the clause
thorizng Congress to make all needfu rules and regua
tions in respect to the public domain | always went
upon the ground that right and proper to reward
the faithful public services Of military men under the
war power and have always thought that the most APP
proprate way which that could be done would be by
giving them lands rather than money. To say nothing
about other considerations it would benefit them
and incommode us less.