Library Collections: Document: Full Text

But there is another consideration which is fatal to the theory.

The policy which a prudent landholder might pursue, merely as a landholder, to increase the value of his estate, might be altogether inconsistent with the policy which a great, rich, and beneficent Government ought to pursue to increase the wealth, the greatness, and the strength of a nation. Many a prudent proprietor has changed his allegiance to save his domain; and many a brave people have sacrificed their domain to save their liberties. The United States are not a mere land-owner. They are a State -- a political State. They are, indeed, a land-owner; and they ought to be a prudent one. But land-ownership is the lowest of their functions, and land speculation ought to be the last which they should assume.

Without tracing further this new and idle theory of prudent prorietorship, it may be dismissed with two remarks. First, that it rests altogether upon the restraining provision contained in the deed of cession from Virginia which applied only to the original domain of the United States, and not to those portions since acquired; secondly, that the ten millions of acres apportioned by this bill are virtually to be selected in regions subsequently acquired and entirely distinct from that original domain.

The President's next objection is, that there is an act of January 28, 1847, which pledges the sales of the public lands for the payment of the debt contracted in the Mexican war. I reply, first, that that debt is virtually paid, insomuch as we have a surplus revenue, constantly accumulating, and are buying up the stock in advance of its maturity, at enormous premiums, and the creditor who complains of this bill may at once receive payment in full; secondly, that pledge was never understood to prohibit judicious appropriation of the public domain, and the objection, if good against this bill, annuls all the laws by which we have given homesteads to the survivors of all our wars, as well as those by means of which we have procured capitalists to cover with a net-work of railroads the broad region which stretches away from the base of the Alleghany mountains to the river Mississippi.

The President expresses deep concern lest this contribution by the Federal Government to the States should impair their vigor and independence. But it is not easy to see how a contribution which they are at liberty to reject, and which they are to apply to a necessary and to a proper purpose of government, in entire independence of the Federal Government, can wound their self-respect, or deprive them of any of their attributes of sovereignty.

The President is, moreover, deeply disturbed by an apprehension, that if the policy of this bill should be pursued, its noble purposes would be defeated, and the fountains of charity within the States would be dried up. The President must not needlessly afflict himself in this wise, on the score of humanity. Experience is against his fears. Congress has never manifested a disposition of profuse liberality towards the States. Every community that has received from the Federal territory or property military bounties or pensions, is at least as brave and patriotic as it was before. Every community that has received from the same sources contributions for the purposes of internal improvement is more enterprising than before. Every community that has received aid for its schools of learning has been rendered more zealous and more munificent in the cause of education.

Thus, sir, I have reviewed the President's objections. In conclusion, it remains for me to express the opinion, that, as in the early days of the Republic, there was a school of latitudinarian construction of the Constitution, which school was quite erroneous, so, also, there was school whose maxim was strict construction of the Constitution, and this school has accumulated precedents and traditions equally calculated to extinguish the spirit of the Constitution. Circumstances have altogether changed since that school was founded. The States were then rich and strong; the Union was poor and powerless. Virginia lent to the United States $100,000 to build their Capitol. But the States could not enlarge themselves. They possessed respectively either no public land at all, or very small domains, and to such domains they have added nothing by purchase or conquest. Charged with all the expenses of municipal administration, including the relief of the indigent, the cure of the diseased, the education of the people, and the removal of natural obstructions to trade and intercourse, they reserved, nevertheless, only the power to raise revenues by direct taxation, one which always was, and always will be, regarded with jealousy and dislike, and is therefore never one that can be freely exercised.

The Union, on the contrary, by conquest and purchase, has quadrupled its domain, and is in possession of superabundant revenues derived from that domain and from imposts upon foreign commerce, while it also enjoys the power of direct taxation. Contrast the meager salaries of the officers of the States with the liberal ones enjoyed by the agents of the Union. Contrast the ancient narrow and cheerless Capitols of Annapolis, Harrisburg, and Albany, with this magnificent edifice, amplifying itself to the north and the south, while it is surrounded by gardens traversed by spacious avenues and embellished with fountains and statuary, and you see at once that the order of things has been reversed, and that it tends now not merely to concentration, but to consolidation. I know not how others may be affected by this tendency, but I confess that it moves me to do all that I can, by a fair construction of the Constitution, not to abate the Federal strength, and diminish the majesty of the Union, but to invigorate and aggrandize the States, and to enable them to maintain their just equilibrium in our grand but exquisitely contrived political system.