Library Collections: Document: Full Text

The Senate Reacts To Franklin Pierce's Veto

Creator:		n/a
Date:		May 4, 1854
Publication:		The Congressional Globe
Source:		Library of Congress

Previous Page Next Page All Pages



82		Now, sir, with regard to the veto power, allow to say that I regard it as a fortunate power; and I think the exercise of it, even in this case, may be a fortunate matter. And why? Because it will bring us to review our action upon these subjects, and what is still better, it will bring us to establish some principles that will govern us in our future conduct in relation to this important matter-the disposition of the public domain. My opinion, however, is, that if we take up this message, and enter into a discussion of it now, we shall never see the homestead bill, nor any other practical bill relative to the public lands carried through Congress at this session.

83		Mr. PETTIT. Mr. President, there seems to be a great anxiety, on the part of certain gentlemen here, to postpone the consideration of this bill, after they have each made some half dozen speeches upon it. I rise now, however, to give notice, that if the blank in the resolution is not filled as the Senator from Illinois proposes to fill it-for I understand the question is now upon the motion of that Senator to fill it with next Monday two weeks -- I shall move to fill that blank with next Monday, believing that propriety dictates that we should at an early day proceed to the consideration of this measure. While I am up, I wish to say that I intend to be heard at some length upon this veto message, and upon this bill.

84		Mr. SHIELDS. The Senator has a speech, I suppose, and he wants to make it.

85		Mr. PETTIT. The Senator from Illinois says that I have a speech, and I want to make it. Let me say to that Senator, that if he had been as industrious as I was last night, sitting up to one o'clock examining these questions, he would be as well, in fact better, prepared than I am for their discussion; for he has powers for mastering a subject with greater facility than I have.

86		Mr. SHIELDS. Do not have that reported. -Laughter.-

87		Mr. PETTIT. Well, sir, I have nothing to conceal from reporters. -Laughter.- I propose to discuss this question, as I have said, at some length. I propose to show that the power of this Government (even at the time of the acceptance of these grants while we were under the Confederacy) to dispose of the territory, of the soil, of the public land was unlimited; that it ever has been and now is unlimited; and that the unconstitutionality of this bill -- for that it is unconstitutional I have no doubt -- consists not in the granting, or giving away, or disposition of the soil, but it consists in two other things. Its unconstitutionality consists first in usurping the power and authority here to tell States how they shall dispose of the proceeds of the lands granted: and secondly, in directing them to account to us as their masters -- a thing that I entirely deny your power to do.

88		The bill, for these two reasons, in my judgment, is unconstitutional; but not because it disposes of land generally, in any form or in any manner whatever. I take the broadest ground on that subject, and wish not to be misunderstood. The bill is objected to for another reason, not reaching the point of unconstitutionality, but as to its inexpediency and impropriety. That objection, in the language of the President, is that it makes us almoners, to take care of all the indigent, all the needy, and all the suffering; to usurp the offices of charity, the offices of humanity, that properly belong to the States. For that reason, if for no other, it ought, in my judgment, to have been vetoed. I fully and cordially approve of the result.

89		I believe that a fair Construction and fair reading of the veto message will not put this veto upon the basis that we have not power to dispose of the lands, but upon the other ground which I have named, that we have not the power to direct how their proceeds shall be applied, and how, at what time, and under what circumstances, they shall be accounted for by the States to us. I shall endeavor, and I think I shall be able to show, when the proper time arrives, that the veto does not involve the principles of the homestead bill, and will not necessarily bring a veto from the President upon that bill.

90		But, sir, I did not rise now to discuss the subject, nor to bring these questions to the consideration of the Senate, but to ask that some definite action be taken. It is due, as the Senator from Delaware has properly said, that we should at a reasonable and an early day, proceed to the consideration of this question. Nor do I think, its discussion will, by any means, occupy the whole residue of this session, and deprive us of the opportunity of considering other important measures. The very fact that important measures are behind this, and are to be considered after it, will shorten the deliberation and consideration on this bill, and for that very reason, if for no other, I should ask that an early day be assigned for its discussion. Then, if the blank be not filled, as proposed with Monday two weeks, I shall move to fill it with next Monday.