Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-01-17
Section of article 4 of the constitution

OtH6r property belonging 70 [le ~UdlEet
States, and nothing in this constitution
shall be SO construed - to prejudice an
clsims OF the United States, Or any par
ticulsr stste''
This clause has been tae subject of re-
peated discussion and construction in th'
Supreme court Of The U1ited States
in acts Of Coa&ress, ard speeches
OF leading slSteEmeD, and h1
the various commentators on I'll,
constitution OF the United States, aut
there q GO absolute concurrence Of opin
ion among all Of them, unbTokeu by &,
sIugle dissent, so f2r IS / have been sbls
30 fed, that il Invests Congress With al
absolute, pienary, aGd uncontrolled CWn.
eFship and power Of disposal ever the
public lands. TIE Terms "0ther propar.
u" occurring il Ihe game c ause have il
the same way been held % re;4P t. The
ships, arnls, and munitions cf war, which
st the time Of The adoption Il De ccusti-
tuition belonged to the Sac sovereign
ties, l reSd from Kent's Commentaries
on this subject. He ssys:
"CoLlsress have the exclusive right Of
pre-em ption OF all Indian lHrds ync IN
the territories OF tie United Safes. This
was SO decided ii the case OF JhEsOn vs.
Mcintosh. Upon the doctrine CT the
court in that case, and ia thst Ct Fletcher
VS.. Peck, the U1i;ed States own the sol!
as well a. the juris 1iction OF 1he immense
tracts OK uDpalented lands included with
il their territories, &cd If oil the produc-
tive funds which those lands may heresf-
ter creare. The title is in the Uaited
STATES oY the treaty OF peace with Great
sfitsiD, and by subse qucnI csssioHs from
France ana SpsiD, and by cessions from
tue Individual states, and the Indians
have only the rignt Of occupancy, and the
United States poasess the legal title sub
jet 10 thai occupancy, and with an sbso-
jute and exclusive right to eX>iuguish tire
Indian tile Of occupsnCy by either con-
quest CT purchase"
Again, e9ys the same uthor:
1.-THE constitution gave to Congress
the power 10 dispose Cf and to make Ill
needful rules and regulations raspe citing
the territory or other property be-
longing to he United States, aud ts 3D.
nit new states into the Union. SiDce
the constitution Was formed the value
and eficscy Of this power have been mag
riflet 10 go lncalCui65le extent bJ the
pure IGSe OF L JuieianS and FIoridS, and
under the doctrine cOntsined N the cases
[ have referred to, Congress- have large
and magnificent portion Of territory under
their absolute control and disposal"
I now read from Judge Ssory's Gem
mentaries on the same subject:
"The power CT Congress over the pub
lie territory is clearly exclusive and uni
ver5sl, nd their legislation is subject to
no cOntro., but is absolute and urllmite d,
unless so f4T IS It is ff4cted by stipula-
Et0ps IN the cessicns or By the ordinance
Of 1887, under which any part Of it hss
been settled"
Again says Judge SSCry:
''In view CT this doctrine, what is TO be
thought Of the recent purchases OF Louis
isns and FIoriGa? II there was danger
before, how nightly musd it be increas-
ed by the accession Of such vast extent
Of territory end sUch "a vast increase Of
resources? Hitherto the experience CT
the country hes justified no alarms on
this subject from suCh g source. On tee
other nand, the public lands hold cut,
after the discharge Of me national deDt,
ample revenues to be devoted to the
Cause CT education and to sound learning,
and to internal lmprt yements, without
treIching upon the property or embsr-
RAISING the pursuits OF the people by
burdensome tsx@ti0n. The constitutional
or lection to the appropriation OF the
other revenues OF The government to
such hi scJ has been supposed TO apply to
ca appropriation OF the proceeds Of the
public laods.n
l call especial attention to the last
sentence III this extract from Story's
CONNIE ntaries, where he says: "The cen
stitu iOnal objection to the spprooria-
ton CT the other revenues of the
g jvernment 10 such objects has
not been supposed to apply to Gn appro-
priati0n OF the proceeds OF The public
lauds," Congress having absolute power
tf disposal over the public lands, con-
ferred b. express grant OF the constitu-
ton, has made donations Of them to
coils ges and SCHOOLS, to railroad corpora
tions, to actual settlers, 30 immigrant
foreigners, to soldiers and sailors as
bounty, has promoted timber culture by
donations Of them, has sold them for
money, has created reservations for In
disns on them, and indeed has Opposed
Of them in every way that lands can be
OF, and nobody questions the
power of Congress thus to dispose Of
them.
In accepting donations Of land for edu-
catioDsl purposes the states have simply
taken what CONGRESS had g constitutional
right TO give. No implication OF s right
in the rational government to take
charge Of the schools OF the states Can
arise from such donations, whereas Can
gress having no power to tax the people
except to RAISE 1evenne ior the support of
the government, and 80 execute the
powers and enforce the jurisdiction of
the government, can not a. pcopriete the
revenues thus raised BY tsxstion 10 the
support Of common schools in the states,
except upon the assumption that the
schools are WITHIN the jurisdic-
lion Ct the nstioEal government, whose
duly it is to provide for them Those
who support this bill are estopped from
denying the jurisdiction Ct the national
government over the common schools,
because without such jurisdiction there is
no power 10 Congress to raise the money
o. taxation ind appropriate 1t for their
support, IS is done il this bill.
No such conclusion or consequence
arises from donation Of land, because
here is no sucn jgris dic'i1nal limitation
On the power to appropriate or dispose Of
and which belongs 20 me government as
xists on the power to appropriate money
taken cut Of the pockets Of the people by
taxation. am now ard h.ve slwsys
been willing 10 vote for donations Of