The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1859-03-09

opinion of the Court (l9 Howard, p.
436.) He says in reference to this
clause of the Constitution: "It begins
its enumeration of powers by that of dis
posing; in other words, making sale of
the lands, or raising money from them,
which, as we have already said, was the
main object of the cession, Qfrom the
States,) and which is the first thing pro-
vided for in the article" 1t is unneces-
sary to refer to the history Of the times
to establish the known fact that this
statement of the Chief-J ustice is perfectly
well founded.
Thatit never was Intended by the fra
mers of the Constitution that these lands
should be given away by Congress is
manifest from the concluding portion of
the same clause. By it, Congress has
power not only "to dispose of the terri
tory, but Of the "other property Of the
United States" In the language of the
Chief.J Justice, Up. 1919 "And the same
power of making needful rules respecting
the territory is in precisely the same
language applied to the other property
of the United States, associating the
power over the territory, in this respect,
with the power over movable or personal
property-thati is, the ships, arms, or mu
nitions of war, which then belonged in
common to the State sovereignties."
The question is still clearer in regard
to the public lands in the States and
Territories within the Louisiana and
Florida purchases. These lands were
paid for out of the public Treasury from
money raised by taxation. Now, if Con-
gress had no power to appropriate the
money with which these lands were pur-
chased, is it not clear that the power
over the lands is equally limited? The
mere conversion of this money into land
could not confer upon Congress new pow
er over the disposition of land which they
had not possessed over money. If it
could, then a trustee, by changing the
character of the fund intrusted to his
care for special objects from money into
land, might give the land away, or de-
vote it to any purpose he thought proper,
however foreign from the trust.
The inference is irresistible that this land
partakes of the very same character with the
money paid for 1t, and can be devoted to no
objects different from those to which the
money could have been devoted. If this were
not the case, then by the purchase OF new
Territory from foreign Government out of
the public treasury, Congress could enlarge
their own powers, and appropriate the pro-
do <f 1as so1a - 81, L.
at their own discretion, to other and far diff
ferent objects from what they could have ap-
piled the purchase-money, which had been
raised by taxation.
1t has been asserted truly that Congress, in
many instances, have granted lands for purpo-
ses of education. These grants have been
| chiefly, if not exclusively, made to the new
States, as they successfully entered the Union,
| and consisted at first of one section, and af-
terward of two sections of the public lands in
each township for the use of schools, as well
| as of additional sections for State universi-
ty. Such grants are not. in my opinion, vio-
lation of the Constitution. The United States
is great landed proprietor, and from tho
very nature of this relation it is both the right
| and the duty of Congress-, as their trustee, to
manage these lands as any other prudent pro-
prietors would manage them for his own ad-
vantage,
Now, no consideration could be presented
of stronger character to induce the Ameri-
can people to brave the difficulties and hard
ships of frontier life, and to settle upon these
lands and purchase them at fair price, than
| to give to them and to their children an as
surance of the means of education. If any
prudent individual had held these lands hi
could not have adopted wiser course tc
bring them into market and enhance theil
value than to give portion of them for pur
poses of education. As mere speculation
he would pursue this course. No person will
contend that donations of land to all States O
the Union for the erection of colleges within
the limits of each can be embraced by thi
principle.
1t cannot be pretended that an agricuHu
raj college in New York or Virginia would ait
the settlement or facilitate the sale of publi
lands in Minnesota or California. This cal
not possibly be embraced within the authori
ty which prudent proprietor of land woul.
exercise over his own possessions. I pur
; posely avoid any attempt to define what por
tions of land may be granted, and for wha
, purposes, to improve the value and promot
|, the settlement and sale of the remainder
without violating the Constitution. In thi
case adopt the rule that Sufficient unto tn
: day is the evil thereof" u
JAMES BUCHANAN.
Washington City, Feb. "a, 1859.
y