Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-06-28

veto message Of tho PresIaent.

by the two houses, commonly known as the nome
stead bin.
To he Senate Of he United States
return, with my objections, to the Senate in
which it originated the bill entitled San act to secure
hOmesteads to actual settlers on the public domain
and for other purposes presented to neon the 10th
instant.
This bill gives to every citizen of the United States
''vho is the head Of family" and to every person
Of foreign birth residing in the country, who has
declared his intentions to become citizen though I
he may not be the head Of family, the privilege /
Of appropriating to himself one hundred and sixty
acres of Government land, Of settling and residing
upon itfor five years and should his residence con-
tinue until the end Of this period. he shall then re-
ceiYe patent on the payment Of twenty hTe cents /
per acre, or one fifth Of the present Government |
price During this period, the land is protected
from all the debts Of the settler.
This bill also contains cesson to the States of all
the public lands within their respective limits which
have been subject to public sale at preVate entry,
and which remain unsod after the lapse OF thirty
years" This provision embraces q present dona-
ton to the States Of twelve millions two hundred and
twenty-uine thousand seven hundred and thirtyone
acres and WILL from time to time, transfer to them
large bodies of such lands which, from peculiar cir
cumstances, may not be absorbed by private pur-
chase and settlement.
To the actual settler this bill does not make alb
soute donation but the price is so small that II can
scarcely be called sale. L Is nominally twenty
five cents per acre considering this is to be paid
until the end Of five years. it is, in fact reduced to
about eighteen cents per acre. or one seventh of the
present minimum price Of the public lands. In re-
gard to the States; it absolute and unqualified
gift.
/. This state Of the facts raises the questions
whether Congress- under the Constitution, has the
power to give away the public lands either to States
or individuals. On this question expressed de-
cided opinion IN my message to the House of Repre-
sentatives, of the oath February, 1859, returning
the agriculture college bill This opinion remains
unchanged. The argument then used, applies, as
constitutional objection with greater force to the
present bill There it had the plea of consideration,
growing out Of specific beneficial purpose here, it
is an absolute gratuity to the States without the
| pretext of consideration. am compelled, for want
Of time in these the last hours of the session to
quote largely from this message:
Il presume the general proposition will be adj
mitted that Congress does not possess the power to
make donations of the money already in the Treas
ury, raisedLy taxes the people, either to States
| or individuals.
But it is contended that the public lands are
placed upon a different footing from money raised
by taxation and that the proceeds arising from their
sale not subject to the limitations of the Consti
tuition, but may be appropriated or given away by
Congress at its discretion, to States, corpora
tiOns individuals for any purpose they may deem
! expedient
!sThe advocates of this bill attempt to sustain
their position upon the language of the second clause
of the third section of the fourth article Of the Const
TutOn which declares that the Congress shall have
regulations respecting the territories, other prop
erty belonging to the United States" They con-
tend, that, by fair Interpretation of the words
dispose Of" in this clause, Congress possesses the
power to make this gift of public lands to the States
for purposes of education.
'It would require clear and strong evidence to in
duce the belief that the trainers of the COnStitu-
tiOn after having limited the powers of Congress
certain, precise and specific objects, intended by
EMPLOYING the words dispose off, to give that body
| unlimited thQ Drhic domain 1t
would be a strange anomaly, indeed to have created
two funds the one by taxation, COINED to the
cutiOn of the enumerated powers delegated to Con-
gress and the other from the public lands applica-
bic all subjects, foreign and domestic, which Con-
gress might designate That this fund should be dis
posed of not to pay the debts of the United States
ito raise and support armies" nor to provide and
maintain navy, nor to accomplish any one of the
other great objects enumerated in the Constitution;
but be diverted from from them to pay the debts of
the States TO educate their people, and to carry into
effect any other measure of their domestic policy.
This would be to confer upon Congress vast and If
responsible authority, utterly at with the we'll
known jealousy Of Federal power which prevailed
| at the formation Of the Constitution The natural
intendment would be that the Constitution con-
fined Congress to well defined specific powers, the
funds placed at their command whether in land or
money, should be appropriated to the performance
| of the duties corresponding with these powers.
If not Government has been created with all its
other powers carefully limited, but without any
imitation in respect to the public lands.
| Z" But cannot so read the words disposed of"
as TO make them embrace the idea of "giving away
The true meaning of words is always to be ascer-
tanned by the subject 10 which they are applied, and
| the known general intent of the lawgiver. Con-
gress is a trustee under the constitution for the
people of the United States to dispose of their
| public lands, and think may venture to assert
with confidence that no case can be found in which
a trustee in the position Of Congress has been au
! thOrizeG to dispose Of" property by its owner
where it has ever been held that these words au-
thOrzed such trustee to give away the fund ntrust
ed to his care No trustee, when called upon to ac
count for the disposition of the property placed
der his management before any judicial tribunal,
would venture to present such plea in his defense
The true meaning Of these words is clearly stated
/ by Chief Justice fancy in delivering the opinion
| Of the Court. 1S Howard, p. 4360 He says in re-
ference to this clause Of the Constitution: at be-
! gins its enumeration of powers by that of dispOs
ing; in other words, making sale Of the lands, or
raising money from them, which, as we have alrea-
dy said, the main object of the cessiOn, from
| the States) aud which is the first thing provided
for in the articleo 1t Is unnecessary to refer to the
/ history of the times to establish the known fact
that this statement Of the Chief Justice is perfectly
well 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
concluding portion of the same clause. By il, Con-
gress has power not only ito dispose of" the ter
ritory, but Of the 'Other property of the United
States" In the language of the Chief Justice,
| %. 1879 "And the 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 the terri
tory, in this respect, with the power movable
or personal prOperty-that is the Ships arms, or
munitions of war which then belonged in common
| to the State sOYereigntes"
The question is still clearer in regard to the pub
lie lands in the States and Territories within the
Louisiana and Florida purchases. These lands were
paid for out Of the public treasury from money
/ III.
er to appropriate the money with which these lands
purchased is it not clear that the power
the lands Is equally limited The mere conversion
of this money into lands could not confer upon Con-
gress power the disposition Of land which
they had not possessed over money. If It could,
then trustee, by changing the character of the
fund ntrusted to his 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 irresistible
that this land partakes of the very same character
with the money paid for it, and can be devoted to
objects different from those to which the money
could have been devoted. If this not the case
then, by the purchase of a new Territory from a |
foreign government out of the public Treasury, !
Congress could enlarge their own powers, and ap- |
proprate the proceeds of the sales of the lands thus
purchased at their own discretion, to other and far
different objects from what they could have applied
the purchase money which had been raised by tax |
alton"
2 It will prove unequal and unjust in its opera |
ton among the actual settlers themselves.
The first settlers of a new country are most |
meritorious class. They brave the dangers of saw
age warfare, suffer the privatIOns of frontier life
and with the hand Of toll bring the wilderness into /
cultivation. The "Old Settlers they every
where called, are public benefactors This class
have all paid for their lands the government price,
or 81 % per acre. They have constructed roads,
established schools and laid the foundation of pros
porous COmmOnwealths. Is it just, is it equal that,
after they have accomplished all this by their labor,
new settlers should come in among them and receive
their farms at the price Of twenty-five eighteen
cents per acre! Surely the old settlers a class,
are entitled 10 at least equal benefits with the new.
If you give the new settlers their lands for com
paratively nominal price, upon every principle of
equality and justice you will be obliged to refund
out of the Treasury the difference which the old
have paid over the new settlers for their land
g. This bill will do great injustice to the old soldiers
who have received land warrants for their services
in fighting the battles of the country 1t win greatly
reduce the market value Of these warrants Al
ready their value has sunk, for one hundred and
sixty warrants, to sixty-seven cents per acre,
under aYnrphenSiOu that Such Uoaas11rp |