The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1857-05-06

nuignanthV
come nav. gentlemen. to the constitu-
ionality Of the only three modes Of distribu-
ion proposed by high authority FIRST. the E
Benton, Jackson scheme Of giving them to
settlers, alias squatters. Need urge that
this is expressly in the terth OF the deed OF
cession---as affirmed BY the Constitution Ii
10 distribute among all the states is uncon-
stitutiona. too clearly for argument is that,
10 distribute among Individuals, and they
souatters, is hagranty more SO. Second,
Mr.. Cahoun's scheme to dispose OF them
The stcklcs for that Constitutional alnl heres
ditary words " dispose'9 to the States IN
which they ssverally lie--such States 70 re-
fund to the United States one third Of the
net proceeds. know that to assail pro-
position Of Mr.. Calhoun will be looked upon
In some quarters as petty treason, or al least
!. iese maiesfe"-but here to begin with.
have the authority Of one Of his warmcst dis
ciples, my friend. Mr.. Caskic, himself OPP
noses it. Nor without reason, for mathema>
tically, legally, and doubtless constiiutionally
the less is comprehended in the greater--if
therefore to dispose Of equally pro rata
10 ali the States be unconstitutional, the rule
Of three will solve the problem how far it IS
constitutional to dispose Of TO few. 70
return one. third into an already o,ertiowing
treasury is simply absurd. No one now
however. believe. theoretically contends for
either Of these plans, though both are IN iuii
operation.
The other scheme, that Of Mr.. Clay, in
brief is to distribute the proceeds among all
States in the ratio Of their general charge and
expenditure their federal population.
when justified by the finances, Where is
the constitutional objection to thisf II IS
conceded that the trait yields more than
enough for the current expenses Of Govern.
ment. II must be disposed Of. This is ad.
miIled BY all whom party stress does not
compel to the opposite. Is not the scheme
in the very winds eye If the deeds Of cession
and the constitutional? tits disposed OF for
the common benefit and general welfare OF
al he States; il is fair. equal. beneficial aud
practicable but il is objected. land here the
whole argument turns. so FAR as constitution.
atty is concerned,) that the Constitution
does not expressly provide for this mode OF
distribution. My answer i several wise
LIST. The Constitution imparts no mode OF
disposition. | indicates certain qualllica-
tons and points out The end, but specifies no
manner. IL must be disposed Of for the COM
MN beneft Of all The STATES. Now, here is
power granted 20 the United States. be exei.
cised within what limits is expressed. in what
particular manner Is not expressed. The
conclusion is that the power is to be exercised
IN the way most efectually TO secure the end
contemplated. viz: "f0 be disposed Of for
the common benefit Of all the STATES" This.
briefly and precisely, is the scheme at pre-
sent proposed. proposed by Mr.. Clay. and
before him by Mr. Dlckerson. (Oemocrat.) and
il consistent with the deeds Of cession--the
Constitution. with justice aud necessity.
?. II the constitution. being silent ~s 70
the manner &c distribution, makes i uEeon-
stitutional. then there is no difficulty 10
showing that Virginia is not only entitled To
her share &c these lands, but is now POSSESSES
ed in fee Of the whole States Of Oho. Illinois.
Iowa, Indiana, and Wisconsin,, with Cass.
Douglas, sc. For not only is the Cons,itu-
ton siiea upon the subject OF acquiring lands.
but the articles of confederation also. The
gentleman will look 10 vain 10 the coastitu-
ton for power 70 acquire any Territory hut
ten mile. square Cor seat ~ Government.
+ Mr.. Jefferson 50 thought when be acquired
i Louisiana Territory. and proposed an anend-
ment. Aud the articles Of confederation are
absolutely silent. What is the Argument
silence denirs power--power 10 give and
power to take-ihen the conclusion follows
/ tina, the grant Of the North West Territory
TO Virginia was what legal men call I" Madam
pactup"--l void eontrset-lor want nf power
70 contract IN one party. and hence Virginia
still holds the Tee of the States named. Now
this is plainly absurd. but think il mt lille.
gitimate from the premises. When a con.
elusion legitimately derived is absurd, il
follow. the piemise is wrong. So here.
J. II silence denies power 10 grant. where
does my friend 6nd the p0ser 10 give bounty
land warrants iotIse soldiers II 1912. Florida
and Mexico. Thuse OF the revolstion are ex-
pressly provided for. Where ,he power To-
grant to Lalayettsi Where the power jus.
lifying those stupendous grant. to corpora.
tions 10 Illinois, &C.; Arc these set down TO
the Instrument !" IL II 50 nominated in the
bondf' Gentlemen. the plain com mon sense
VI the matter i, think. this-The deeds Of
cesson aud tie constitution here indicates
phGi direction the fund il TO take, but has
left il 60 Cong ess to say hOiU IL shall BE- mo-
rofd Ia that direefion-- aud submit that
general, fais and pro rate distribution il con-
II stitutional. just aud rcasonable--I take IL for
granted that my friend did not vote Tor any
Of these monslrous grants which, have recent
I ~ passed Congress, and The cunstiiutiunali-
" u which do not think he will attempt TO
deisnd--but be was on the floor ! presume.
and what wish 10 know is this, did nv
, friend use bis acknowledged ability AMI eIo-
guence. 10 denouneing. 10 the name Of yirgi.
MIA, these nagraut peryersions Of the common
fund! Did he protest against iheu,i IL is
vain 10 say that he was uyerpowered By ma.
| jorliies--wben a constitutional question. q
strong appeal TO the strict construction Ma.
tional Democracy could not hare Iaiiei. and
even Il i did. perhaps the Judgment Of tho
! Presidential reo might not have been unsuc.
ecssfally appealed 10 By his Convincing In.