Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-05-27

deed of cesson ITSELF or for my illustration, and to bt
fair according to my view Of the subject without any
deed ALL and in general ceded the lands to tbs
Federal Government for the general purposes provided
IA the Constitution Win it be pretended that Congress
after it had devoved upon it the power of dsposng o.
that land had the same power that North Carolina had
before she made the cesson? Why sir North Carolina
before she made the cesson had what lawyers term
an absolute right right in fee simple to dispose of the
territory according to her will, according any law
or any prescription contained in any instrument what
ever except ar she met with the positive pro-
hibtions Of the law of the land and that law would be
her own constitution. North Carolina could have en-
dowed literary institution eleemosynary nstu-
ton She could have endowed Protestant institution
to the exclusion Of Catholic cathedral She could have
endowed Jewish seminary the exclusion Of the Chris
tan churches Thus far North Carolina would have had
amplitude Of power which Congress could have
exercised neither under this clause nor any other
yded Congress controlled by the other grants and
limitations of the Constitution Of the United States Be-
fore North Carolina parted with these auds by her
sion the United States she had the powers which
have adyerted but after she had parted with the land
to the United States was it not them trust subject
the positive limitations of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States to her deed made in conformity it,
which prohibits Congress from giving preference to
religion another? Then, say, the predicate of the
gentlemans proposition cannot be sustained that Con-
gress has all power dispose Of the public lands which
perained to the original States from whom Congress de-
rived them 1t is not SO.
Mr.. BADGER. wish to correct my friend in regard
to my proposition. 1t is not that Congress has all the
powers the public lands which belonged to States
that ceded Them but Congress- by their deyoluton upon
by the Constitution has all the power of disposng Of
the public lands which belonged before the Constitution
to the United Sates-the political sovereignty to whom
the lands ceded by the States admit the correct
Of his proposition that the political sovereign of the
United States is limited in several respects by the Cons
tuition of the United States in which the States cedng
the land weuld not be limited He has given one Of
them.
Mr. BUTLER could give others, but 1t is utterly un-
important differ from him far regards the
which he has indicated and which he has met
with great fairness. say Congress is but trustee but
an agent and though admit Congress has exclusive
power to dispose of the public lands she has that excu
sve power only in reference to certain ends and it is
controlled by limitations that cannot be mistaken in other
grants of the Constitution and that she does not have oil
the power whichis vested in the States If it is trust
take 1t for granted the States by amendment OF the
Constitution, will at any time have right to the
jurisdiction over these lands and to revoke the power Of
attorney under which Congress has the right dispose Of
them, and to resume not only the jurisdiction them
but to reinyest them in such way they could agree
upon by such an amendment Of the Constitution. Con-
gross has an absolute title with vested interest irrevo
CABLE then it has power equal to the true owners but
II her right Of disposition is in power of attorney it
one not equal to the States political communities,
pable OF revokng the power Of resumng the original
title; that is, supposng them the But suppos
ing they parties to trust Decd then the trust deed
must be construed for the benefit Of the benefcares and
subject to the terms either expressed or implied.
But, sir to what monsrous consequences will the gen
.eman's proposition lead? Here permit me to say that
after looking at what have been the views Of Mr. Clay
Mr. Calhoun, and others who have spoken this SUBJ
ec find that nearly all Of them have taken the ground
that Congress should act under considerations Of good
alth as trustee and agent Of the people of the Unit
I'd States and has not the power of absolute to
dispose of the lands certainly soy with regard to
MIR. Calhoun. | am correct, think, when say such
was the view of Mr. Clay; and have elementary
nay I,Ir xx,bn "a
enance the opinion entertained by my honorable FRIEND
and think Judge Story only goes far to say that
the power to dispose of the public lands is universal and
vested in Congress- but he does not under
take to say it is without limitations does he under
take to say that Congress proprietor may hold
trustee and therefore subject within certain range of
discretion To make Congress otherwise it should have
the interest as well as the power of proprietor.
uW, to what consequences win the honorable Senator's
proposition lead SO far regards the validity implied
in the exercise Of the power to dispose public Iands
Suppose Congress should undertake say that the pub
lie lands at the west and northwest should be disposed of
to defray the expenses of the State Governments re-
gard to the payment Of their judges ard State Legsa-
lures, surely my friend would say tina abuse.
But what Government could stand up urder such
strucon of the Constitution in references other clauses
in the same instrument, when such extavagance could
be INDUCED and such power be held to depend upon the
mere discretion upon the judgment of majority Of Con-
gress? have supposed that the Government bound
be general equal liberal in its disposition of the public
lands And under the power Of pausife preexts under
the doctrine Of taking where is equ in requta for
dsposals that have been unequal thisb is be taken
not only in the Of benevoence hut proper bill
for the disposal Of the public lands under the provision
suppose to pay the public debt Twill it do that to
provide for the defence, (wit do that for
the general welfare If So oil the expenses Of the States
for the support Of charitable institutions may be betrayed
again return to the distinction between private own
er, NC private owner, or ownerin fee simple, has
right to be partial; and far regards strict law he
has right to be unjust. He has right to dispose of
his own property in any way according to his own judy
men unless he be opposed by the positive nhibons Of
the law Now, then, take the principle and apply
it to Congress- absolute proprietor Suppose it should
be said that, Virginia has coded to Ohio Indiana, Hi
nois, Michigan, and Wisconsin lands by which they have
erected themselves into five several States therefore be
enacted that in consideration Of said grant, Congress
shall eede to Virginia. not any Of those States but
in Utah, in Nebraska, and in Kansas number Of
equal to those which Virginia had heretofore ceded to
the United States for the purpose Of forming these five
So far as regards the validity OF the power there
could be no objection to it this argument. You would
say was partial Why to Virginia. The reply might
be, perhaps, Virginia is entitled to 1t more than any
other State because she has heretofore given lands
to the Federal Government than nyother But will
further, for the purpose of illustrating the extrava
gance and absurdity Of the proposition. do not hold
my friends responsible for it, but extreme cases
times go to illustrate principles Suppose it should be
now proposed that should give all the public lands to
the Government Of Utah. community whose morals
offensive, whose system of society and whose institutions
repugnant to the age in which live and the re
gion which we profess Is there any thing in the
else of that power to make such transfer nyalid It
would be unjust; 1t would be grossly offensive 1T would
be monsrousy partial But it might be said, partial,
unjust and gross it may be- here is the clause giving
to Congress absolute power Judge for itself the
objects for which il shall dispose of the public lands
The honorable Senator cannot separate the other words