Weekly North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1858, 1858-06-02
The Register, Senator Brown and the Public
Lands.

The Register, Senator Brown and the Public
Lands.
Having in our issue of Saturday last shown by
the speech of Mr.. Brown that Congress has not the
power to distribute the proceeds of the public lands,
we shall now endeavor to show that the power to
dispose Of to give away the lands themselves, does
not exist to the extent claimed.
This claim is based by him upon the article in
the Constitution of the United States, which says:
"The Congress shall have power to dispose Of
and make all needful rules and regulations respect
ing the territory other property belonging to the
United States"
He then states that territory, in the connection
used, is synonymous with lard. and that land, in
the clause, is treated as propcrty and that to dis
pose of land in ordinary parlance, means to SELL to
bestow, TO convey, to give it away and that he ap-
prehends the word dispose used in its ordinary
meaning-that the trainers Of the constitution were
not only men of sense, but of extraordinary astute
ness knew the force and meaning of words, and
what they were about. No one sure, will
dispute this and will go further, that Mr. Brown
needed not have cited long list of photographers
to prove that the word dispose sometimes means to
give But the question is: In what sense was it
used in the constitution?
Mr.. Brown assumes that it was used in the sense
power to give these lands for the benefit of the in
dgent insane?" Again: "The power to give hav-
ing thus been conferred in express terms by the
constitution, (auother assumption there can be no
Limitation to the use of that power other than this
that it shall not be used for purpose inhibited by
the constitution in express terms, or by fair imp
cation"
He then says there is no express inhibition in the
consttution-which we grant. And he Under
takes to show that there is nothing in the constu-
ton or outside of the constitution, which being fair
" construed, supplies any such implication" From
this We utterly dissent
The above embraces the whole position, indeed
we may say the whole argument of Mr. Brown,
fairly stated as to the power of Congress over the
public lands and other property of the United States
He insists that the lands and property can be nao
fully disposed of-gven away for any purpose not
inhibited by the constitution, at the mereNwil and
discretion of Congress-for instance, to the ndigen'
or other insane the poor of the States, schools, col
leges, &C., &c. and though to give the public lands
and property for some purposes might be improper
it would only be an abuse Of power possessed by
Congress, and nothing more.
This immense power, claimed for Congress, is W.
confess startling one; especially so in these times
We had thought the general government was one o
limited powers, that it established for certain
purposes Of general character, we'll dc efned Ant
set forth in written constitution, and that onl,
powers clearly granted, such as were <necessar.
to carry into effect clearly granted powers, Ncou
be exercised by it. Any who fairly examine
the constitution or its history, will see that such
its character and such the history Of its formation
IF fha
to adopt it and to come into the Union, such wa
their jealousy of power until the following amend
ment adopted:
:'The enuncation in the constitution of certai
rights shall not be construed to deny dir
parage others retained by the peope.-Art. 9.
"The powers not delegated to the United State
by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to tn
States are reserved the States respectively
the peope."-Art. 10.
Now it seems strange to us that any man of sens
should under the general clause relating to land an
other property, claim a power which is totally il
consistent with the whole spirit of the constitution
and which, at least so far the public lands an
property are concerned, renders null and void Il
amendments we have quoted
Can it be, then, that the trainers of the constit
ton, when they gave to Congress power "to dispo
of" the lands and other public property, intended
confer unlimited power-power to do for an
purpose, at their will and discretion? If so, it W,
total departure from what they did to evel
thing else. Or did they intend that this pow
should be exercised in accordance with the gener
purposes of the constitution expressed in Il
revenue and other clauses thereof? Did they inter
that Congress should have the power to give aoe
our arsenals, forts, ships, arms, munitions of va
and other public property at their will al
discretion? If not, and as lands are placed up'