The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-03-23


them to pay the debts Of the States, to educat,
their people. and 10 carry into effect any othel
measure Of their domestic policy.
This would BE- to confer upon eongTeSs a vas
end irresponsible .uihority. utterly at war with
the well known jealousy Of Federal poWerwhici
prevailed At the GrnAtoa Of the constitution
The natural intenGnirnt would be that, IS tht
Constitution confined Congress to we'll defined
specific powers the funds placed al their com
Inand, whether in land OF money, should be APP
propTiated to the performance OF the duties cor.
responding withthese powers II not, a govern
nent has been created with all its other power:
carefully limited, but without any limitation il
respect 10 the public lands.
But | can net read the words dispose Of" as
tOniake them embrsce the idea Of'giying away
The true meaning OF words is always to be aScer-
tanned BY The subject 10 which they are applied
aud the known geaeral intent ofthe law-giver.
Congress IL s trustee under the Constitution fol
ihs Cuited States to dispose Of" their public
lands, and ! think ] may venture to assert with
confidence, that no case can be fouud in which O
trustee in the position of Congress has been ar
thorized TO dispose Of" property by i's owner,
when it has never been held that these words
authorized such trustee to give away the fund in
trusted to his care.
No %trnstee. when called upon 10 account for
the disposition cfthe property placed under his
management be fore snyjudicial tribunal, would
venture to present such q plea in his defense.
The true meaning of these words is clearly stat
cd by Chief J Justice fancy in delivering the
opinion of the Court, 10 Howard, p. 436.) He
says, in reference to this clause ofthe Constitu-
ton: 1T begins Its enumeration of powers bv
that ofdisposinc; in other words, making sale of
the lands, or raising money from them, as we
have already said, was the main object ofthe ces.
sion, (fom the Staics,) and which is the first
thing provided fUr in The article" 1t isl nneces-
tlry to refer to the history Of the times to estab-
l,sh the known fact that this statement of the
Chief Justice is perfectly we'll founded.
That it never was intended by the trainers of
the Constitution that these lands should be given
away by Congress is manifest from the conclud.
ing portion oithe same clause. Byit, Congress
aspower not only "to dispose Of" the territory,
hut Of the "other property Of the U. S." In
the language of CLIFF Justice. (p 1879 land
the same power of making nesdiul rules respect
ing the territory is in precisely the same langu-
age applied to the other property Of the United
States, assoc;atins the power over the territory,
in this respect with the power over movable or
personal property-that is, the Ships, arms, or
munitions Of war, which then belonged in COM
mon to the State sovereignties"
The question is still clearer in regard to the
public lands in the States and Territories with
in 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 purchased, is it
not clear that the power over the lands is equal.
ly limited? The mere conversion ofthis mon
ey into land could not confer upon Congress new
power over the disposition ofland which they
had not possessed over money. fit could, then
g trustee, by changing the character Of The fund
intruSted to his care for special objects rom.
money into land might give the land away, or de.
vote it to any purpose he thought proper, how
ever forcign from the trust.
The inference is irresistible that this land
partakes of the Ve:y same character with the
money paid for it, and can be devoted to no OBJ
JectS different from those which the money
could have been devoted. Ifthis we're not the
case, then, by the purchase OF q new Territory
from a foreign Government out of the public
treasury, Congress could enlarge their own DOW
ers, and appropriate the proceeds Of the sales of
the land thus purchased, at their own diScre.
ton, to other and far different objects from what
they could have applied 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
il not exclusively, made to the new States, as
they successfully entered the Union, and con.
sisted at first Of ore section, and afterward of
two sections Of the public lands in each town
ship for the use OF Schools, as we'll as o add.
tional Sections for a State university. Such
grants are not, in my opinion, a violation Of the
Constitution. The United States is a great
landed proprietor, and from the very nature of.
this relation it is both the right and the duty of
Congress, as their trustee, to to manage the
lands as any other prudent proprietor would
manage them for his W best advantage.
Now, no consideration could he presented of
a stronger character to induce the American
people to brave the difficulties and hardships Of
frontier life, and to settle upon these lands and
purchase them at q fair price, than to give to
them and to their children an assurance of the
means Of education. II any prudent individual
had held these lands he could not have adopted
. wiser course to bring them into market and
enhance their value than to give a portion Of
them for purposes of education. AS a mere
speculation. he would pursue this course. No
person will contend that donations of land to
all States ofthe Union for the erection of collie
ges within the limits of each can be embraced
by this principle.
It can not be pretended that an agricultural
college in New York or Virginia would aid the
settlers or facilitate the sale ofpublic lands in
Minnesota or California. This can not posi-
bly, be embraced within the authority which a
prudent proprietor Of land would exercise over
his own possessions. | purposely avoid any
attempt to define what portions Of land may be
granted, and for what purpose, to improve the
value and promote the settlement and sale of
the remainder, without violation the C~onstitu-
ton. In this case | adopt the rule that "sufi.
Gent unto the day is the evil thereof.
JAMES BUCHANAN.
WASHINGTON City, Feb. "a, 1859.