, 1864-01-15
y could not restrain the limits of bis Constitution.

|
Il power.
suppose no. one will doubt but that the
President has the same power over the posi-
uons and acts Of his Cabinet officers, and the
commissioner of the general land office, that
he has over the pos1tons and acts Of the dis
jeet to his direction, and il either Of them
fafl to execute a1aw, they, being but the crea-
tqIee Of hts Will, 1t e his duty to see that
I submit, therefore, that the authority I
hnse tnat qnoted, and those equally high,
more weight thar, the opinion Of the hon
orable Assistant Secretary. who declined,
upon my praying an appeal to you, to tsend
up the papets, assuming the ground, il do
ing %, that hts opinion was final and conclu-
siFe-thaf, although 7Jou might differ from
had no right to direct him to execute it-that
I his letter to mc) from the attcnti9n that I
havc been able to bestow: upon the subject
that an appeal lies in such a: case, from the
| oeelslon Or the department., ! shall await the
that sou bad no power or right, in his opln-
ion, foE thatfs tho meaning Of It, to look at
the papcrs-slo right to INQUIRE whether jus
lice had been done to 1llinois-whether tho
Law lad been executed-no right to give an
opinion contrary to his-no right to question
than thou" This theory and exposition Of
our political organization seems to havs been
unknown to our earlier. statesmen. and has
for the first time in our history been serious.
ly urged by o subordinate ministerial officer.
IN defense of his own act and assumed supc"'
riority.
II this new readfng Of the Constitution
Should become the settled doctrine Of the ex-
tcutiye department., and be regarded as: q
sound legal interpretation Of that fustru--
1nent, readily admit that ny State is
without executive remedy, and that she
constitutional Inv. She hns relied up:
on older authorities, but 1t may, be
that the honorable. Assistant Secreta-
~ has successfully ovcrthrown them,
and given direction to the Government DIFF
ferent f from; that It las heretofore pursued,
t1ority to look into the acts uf~your eubordi-
mates; no authority to inquire whether. in
the case of Illinois, the law has been execu-
ted, you have no power over the, Interior, Dc
partment-no, not even supervisory power
no right to inquire whether It has executed
the laws, although the Constitution provides
you shall stake care'' that they aro executed;
and thus the departments. are exhalted over
the executive aud d vital blow is struck ut tic
supremacy OF the Constitution. - 60. :.
/ cannot believe that your Exce1leucy will
understand the subject as.thc Hon. Assistant
Secretary does, or will So act upon it. In
your letter to me, speaking Of the case OF tho
State, When, in the Interior. Department, you:
say: ~-.--.-
'4Whcn be fmeantng the Interior Secretary shall
hare acted II his acron is not satisfactory, there
may, Or 1nay not be an appeal TO me: 1t is point
! have not examined; but II 1t then be shown that
the Law gives such appeal, shall not hesitate to
entertain u VI hen presented.
:. l trust Il. is not too much for me 10 say it
has been shown you hare that power; that
unless you possessed 1t your dignity and of
fee would subordinate below tie dignity and
offices Of the creatures of your own will or
appointments. Such being constitutional
impossibility and understanding that, so far
is the ccsc of Illinois Is concerned, the real
mud only question involved therein, is your
power to hear and pass upon her rights: I
rest under the. confident expectation they
will be upheld and your authority yindicated.
There are some things In this conneMon:
that I ought to say IN Justice to my State,
to confine myself, ns fur as possible, to the
great issue presented, and permit outside
pressure aud Influence, which has been
brought to bear against the State, from
certain quarter, to pass by; at least for the
present, unnoticed. They are as detrimental
arc injurious to Illinois, who has so nobly
stood BY crery ;dsty required Of her, and
promptly responded to every call upon her
nat1iotitm. Il the is to be denied By the
General Government her p1ainest aud simplest
rights, she. must feel her inferiority among
lcss indifferent to government that treats
her unjustly. -:
But # the constitutional requirement is dis
Ie.arCcd or set aeidc, and the 1egfelation Of
Congress is relied on, that would seem to be
equnlly clear In tho case OF Illinois, pending
to the public lands. The first section Of an
aet {see U. S. statutes, vol. 5. p. 107-s,) enti-
tied g An act to organize the General Land:
Office, :" approved July 9TH 1886, is Us follows
"Be It enacted BY the Senate and House Of Rep
age Of this act, the executive duties now prescribed
o. Which may 5e1saiter be prescribed by law ap-
snds Il &c Unise States, or in anywtse rcepoct o
ing such public lands, and alec such as relate to
pirate claims q land and the tss1ing Of patents
c1nmeut Of the United States, shall be subject to
tfe i e, ,trfs1vtsien and control Of the comnisslone.
tic President ofthe United States. - +
THIS statute Is merely declaratory Of the
Upon one point your Exceuency il labor
ing under Misrepresentation. In your letter
to me, under date of the 26th Of August last.
among other things you say:
Now my understanding is that the law has not
e. Il ba 4 t6e 'fe sass
The law, Us you will see by again referring
toll, has not assigned to The Interior secre.
ta1Y any duty, but assigned 1t to the Com
missioner Of the General Land Office ALI |
the power the Secretary Lad, was to decide
did not do. The acts Of the Land Commis-
sioncr "fE anyWise respecting public 11n9is," |
are placed by the law, directly under your |
supervision. But the constitutional duty Of |
directing The execution Of the laws rises to
higher dignity than the command Of. q Con
greEsiona1 statute. There is one point under
which have been 1aboring under some mis-
apprehension, though It has been against, and !
not for the State. supposed, from infor- |
nation which received, that Missouri had !
applied for tho payment Of her two per cent.
under the act Of 1887, upon which I rely, as
Representatives in Congress had only resort
cd to the passage Of Q special act, pro-
yiding. for it's payment, to avoid the |
objections Of :. reluctant governmental
officers. -snch seems not to be the case.
In regard to the matter, and Why
Missouri dM not rely upon the legislation
Of 1855 and 1857, instead Of asking for and
obtaining epccial act for her relief, nd
dressed the Hon. James s. Green, formerly a
unittd States Senator from Missouri, a letter,
with copy Of his reply, to which l ask your
special attention, as 1t not only states the
reasons why the special act for Missouri was
passed, but contains also brief, yet exceed
ing lucid exposition Of the laws upon which
rctt 1le claim Of Illinois. have no doubt
hut that if my State had the benefit Of epe-
cial act she would be resisted in the Depart
ments, as Vas Missouri, nfter she obtained
her net, since the p1ainest duty required by
the act Of 1867 towards her, to state her ac-
count that she may know how it stands, even
If the payment Of the sum due is thereafter
denied, has been totally disrcgardcd, and the
law get ut open defiance.
!: As to the per cent on Indian reservations, j.
It would be laTd to conceive Of or find j rca-
son to justify the assumption that when Con-
g1css passed the acts Of 1855 and 1867, 1t con-
tcmplated or even dreamed Of appropriations
made for the construction of the national
road, ringing In their date from more than
half to quarter of century before, being
applied as IN Offset by the Government to
that Per cent The same is equally true Of
the per cent. on the public lands. Ono class
Of legislation has no reference to the other,
but each Is complete and Independent in it.
self If Congress had intended the Offset, it
would have 50 provided, and falling to make
the provision, 1t cannot be supplied byn min
lbterial officer. This doctrine would scem to
be settled rule Of construction, and has
been so held in the Attorney Generals Office !
Sec Ar. Wirt's opinion, In "Gilpin's Opinions T.
Of the Attorney Generals" pages 1885 81,
in Ha 5a%o Il