I hold that the old states have an interest in this land, an interest which we recognise, and which we are bound to recognise, which we practically recognise in the very act of coming here and asking them to vote to give us land for our railroads. I will not ask the old states to yield their interest to me for railroad purposes, and for the purpose of fencing out the floods of the Mississippi river, and other western and southwestern streams. I will not ask them to give up their interest in the swamp lands. I will not ask them to give up their interest to educate the children in my state, as they have done by granting her the sixteenth section of public land in every township for school purposes. I will not ask of them to surrender their interest to promote the interest of my state, and then turn upon them and say, "I will not vote you one solitary acre of this land for any purpose within the limits of your states." While I will be generous to myself, generous even to a fault to my own constituency, I will at least be just to those who have an interest in these lands like that of the people whom I represent. I do not, however, rise to discuss this question again. My colleague will certainly understand me as not presenting my views, in reply to him, in any spirit of controversy; but I wish to justify the vote which I shall give; and more especially since my honorable colleague will vote on the other side. PRESIDENT PIERCE'S VETO MESSAGE OF THE INDIGENT INSANE BILL. SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 17, MR. PRESIDENT: It is with extreme regret that I utter a word on this subject. To me it would be a more grateful task to sustain the views of *May 3, 1854, Mr. Brown, on the reception of the President's Message vetoing the Indigent Insane Bill, made the following remarks, preliminary to the complete dis cussion of the merits of the veto:- care. Mr. President: Of course I do not wish to say a word as to the number of copies of this message which should be printed. I would as soon vote for the printing of twenty thousand as for printing ten thousand copies. I have no doubt that every reading man in the country will examine the message, and examine it with great But I think it is due to those who voted for this bill that something shall go out with the message to arrest public attention, and induce the public mind to pause, before it comes to too hasty a conclusion, as to the correctness of the doctrines set forth in that paper. I certainly do not intend to undertake an answer to a carefully prepared state paper, upon merely hearing it read at the Secretary's desk. This, however, is not the first time that the subject of giving lands for the benefit of the insane has been before the Senate. It was here, according to the record which lies before me, in 1851, and, after an elaborate discussion, the bill then passed the Senate by a majority of more than two to one. I have the yeas and nays before me. On that occasion the yeas were 36, and the nays 16. That the Senate may understand who it was that voted in favor of the bill at that time, I ask leave to read the list of yeas and nays. The yeas were:— "Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bradbury, Chase, Clark, Clay, Cooper, Davis oʻ the President than to oppose them. A strict constructionist of the Constitution myself, it is more pleasant for me to act in harmony with those who construe it strictly, than to differ with them. We have rare ex Massachusetts, Dawson, Dayton, Downs, Ewing, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Phelps, Pratt, Rusk, Seward, Shields, Smith, Soulé, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, and Wales-36." The nays were : "Messrs. Atchison, Cass, Davis of Mississippi. Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Felch, Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mason, Rhett, Turney, Walker, and Yulee-16." It will be seen by an analysis of the vote that some of the most rigidly strict constructionists of the Constitution are recorded in favor of the bill; among them are two gentlemen who have received the highest mark of the President's considerationMr. Borland and Mr. Soulé. They are strict constructionists of the southern school ; and they have both been sent abroad on missions of the first class. I mention this fact simply that the country may be induced to pause before it comes to too hasty a conclusion in reference to this subject. During the present session of Congress the bill has been under consideration in the House of Representatives. On its passage the yeas were 81, nays 53. It was discussed there. It was certainly not hastily passed. After having been before Congress for several years, and after being pretty elaborately discussed at this session, and at former sessions, it has passed the House, if not by a majority of two to one, certainly by a very heavy majority. My experience is, that in the House they divide pretty closely upon almost every question of general interest. I find among the yeas many gentlemen of acknowledged ability, strict constructionists of the Constitution, good Democrats, men who have never been suspected of faltering in the support of the Constitution, or of Democratic principles. The same bill was under consideration in the Senate during this session, and though the Senate then was not so full as it was in 1851, when the former vote was taken, the bill passed this body a second time by a majority of over two to one. The vote was 25 to 12. The yeas upon the occasion of its passage were:— "Messrs. Badger. Bell, Brown, Chase, Clayton, Dawson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Everett, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Geyer, Gwin, Hamlin, Houston, Jones of Tennessee, Morton, Rusk, Seward, Shields, Stuart, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, Wade, and Walker-25." The nays were : "Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Butler, Cass, Clay, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Fitzpatrick, Mason, Pettit, Weller, and Williams-12." I do not say, sir, that after these votes the President was bound to approve the bill against his views of constitutional propriety. I am very far from finding any fault with him for having sent in this veto. But I again say, that, looking to votes like these, the country ought to pause before it comes to a hasty conclusion in reference to the soundness of the views which the President has put forth. It is no light thing for a measure, after passing the Senate twice by a majority of more than two to one, and after passing the House of Representatives by a majority of nearly two to one, to encounter an executive veto. If it had passed hastily, or without due consideration, it would not surprise any one if the President should arrest it. But the bill before us, as we all know, was discussed in both Houses of Congress, at this and at former sessions. I said before that I did not mean to attempt an answer to the arguments of the President, after having merely heard his message read. Some of the arguments, I confess, struck me as having force in them. Some others seemed to me to have but little force. This, perhaps, arose from the fact that I had heard them on many occasions before, and having become accustomed to them, I did not regard them with the same consideration that I would something new. The President, in the outset of the message, admits that this is a measure of great humanity, and one which commends itself to the warmest sympathies of his heart. I am glad he said so, because I apprehend that the sentiment will find a response in the heart of every American citizen, of every friend of humanity, whether he resides north or south, east or west. The President says that eleemosynary objects or purposes are not among those which are provided for in the Constitution. So they are not in express terms; but does Congress never legislate upon any subject in regard to which it has not been been expressly authorized to legislate? If not, I want to know where we get our authority to legislate for school purposes? The President makes an argument to show by implication that we have the power to do that. All the grants that amples in the administration of the government of a rigid adherence to that instrument, and any attempt to set us an example excites my admiration. I could wish, however, that the President had selected a less have been made from time to time for school purposes are sanctioned by the Constitution, according to his construction of it; and yet, sir, you may read the instrument from one end to the other, and find no specific power to make grants for school pur'poses. If the President will point to the clause which authorizes grants of land to colleges, I will show him the clause which authorizes the grant proposed in this bill. But, says the President, if we legislate for the benefit of the insane, where are we to stop? Are we to carry our benevolence so far as to legislate for the protection of all other indigent or unfortunate classes? This, you will see at once, is not an argument which can touch the question of power, but it is simply an argument which reaches the question of the exercise of power. If you have authority to do this, it may follow that you have the power to do something else; but it does not follow that because you do this, you ought therefore to do something else. If you have the power to make an appropriation of land for the protection and benefit of the indigent insane, it may follow that you have the power to make an appropriation of land for the protection and benefit of the indigent who are not insane. But if you exercise the power in the one case, it does not necessarily follow that you must exercise it in the other. The President seems to think that in this matter the states will be brought to bow to the authority of Congress. I do not think so. When my state and yours, Mr. President (Mr. Bright occupying the chair), accepted donations of land for school purposes, for common schools, and for schools of a higher grade, did it ever enter into your head or mine that our states were thereby humiliated, and were bowing as paupers, and beggars, and mendicants, to the authority of Congress? No, sir; we felt that we were receiving a part of that which belonged to us, that we were not beggars, but that Congress was giving its assent to our exercising exclusive jurisdic tion over a part of that which belonged to us in common with our fellow-citizens of all the states. The President seems also to be apprehensive that if we go on legislating in this way, we shall dry up all the sources of benevolence in the states, and that the people of the states, instead of taking care of their indigent insane, their poor, their blind, and their lame, will habitually look to Congress for the protection of those classes. I think not. With as much justice might you say that, if you receive land from the government for the education, in part, of your children, this will induce the states to look to Congress for the means of educating all the children. Did it ever enter into your mind, sir, when Congress granted your state the sixteenth section of land in each township for school purposes, that, by the state accepting it, you were in danger of becoming mendicants, begging Congress to make appropriations for the education of all the children in your state? I apprehend there is no more danger of our be coming beggars at the footstool of Congress for the support of our indigent insane, our indigent blind, and our poor of every class, if we accept a grant like this, than there has been that we should become beggars of Congress to educate all our children, because, in days gone by, we accepted aid from Congress to educate a part of them. But, sir, the President further tells us that this bill is in violation of the public faith. And why? Because the land stands mortgaged for the redemption of our public debt. With all due respect for the President, I must say that this argument does not strike my mind with great force. You have more money in the treasury now than will satisfy all the demands against it. Your Secretary of the Treasury is out in the market, constantly buying up, at a large premium, the bonds of the government. Instead of being without money, and being compelled, in good faith, to keep the mortgaged property until you discharge the obligations which are resting upon it, you have more money than will satisfy all the demands against you. I cannot conceive that the bill is in violation of the public faith, because in disposing of the lands as the bill proposes, you are not putting yourselves in a condition to avoid, or even to render dubious, the payment of your public debt. But, sir, when Congress passed a bill granting millions upon millions of acres of the public lands to your soldiers, the public domain was then under mortgage. The same sort of obligation rested upon it then as now. The same thing occurred when you passed the swamp land act. When you granted millions upon millions of acres of land for railroad purposes, you granted land which was under this same mortgage. It is true, an argument is made to prove that if you grant one section for a railroad, the next is doubled in worthy object than the one before us for a manifestation of his zeal in sustaining the Constitution in its letter and in its spirit. If this were an original question I would be silent. But having voted value, and so nothing is given; but suppose the mortgagee does not think so; and suppose it does not turn out so; is the public faith violated? The President introduces the prudent proprietorship argument, to justify grants to railroads. It is one which we have frequently heard, and it always strikes me with great force. But if Congress, as a prudent proprietor, may grant land for one purpose, saying "this is as I would dispose of it," where does the President get authority to say to that proprietor, "you shall not grant it for another purpose, because that purpose does not strike me as being proper." If a prudent proprietor may give land for school purposes, for railroad purposes, for internal improvement purposes, and for various other purposes, as you have done time and time again; and if the same proprietor concludes that he may give a little for the protection and benefit of the indigent insane, who shall dispute his right to do so, or restrain him in the exercise of his judgment? The people are the owners of the soil, and, I think, if their representatives say, in their name, that this is a just and proper disposal of the land, they ought to be allowed to appropriate it in this way. That is my judgment. One of the grounds on which the President justifies our giving away the swamp lands is, that, by so doing, we protected the public health. He intimates that the lands were subject to overflow, and produced miasma and malaria, and were exceedingly detrimental to the public health. To get clear of this nuisance, it was a prudent disposition to give the lands to the states, that the states might drain them, and thus secure the public health. This is the argument as I understand it. Where, sir, do we get power to protect the public health? Is that in the Constitution? If we protect the public health in a state, and do it constitutionally, I pray you, have we not the right to protect the indigent insane in a state, under the same clause in the Constitution? If Congress may do anything towards protecting the public health in the state of Arkansas, or Mississippi, why, by the same authority, may it not protect the indigent insane in Delaware, or Pennsylvania? I confess myself wholly unable to see how it can exercise the one power, and yet be constitutionally denied the right to exercise the other. I should never have thought, myself, of such an argument; but the President seems to rely upon it; and, therefore, I take it for granted there, must be something in it more than I have seen. I should not have said a word on the message at this time, but that I wanted the country to understand when they enter upon the investigation of this subject, that after mature discussion in this body, the bill has twice passed on the yeas and nays by a majority of more than two to one. I want that this point may be understood; that calm, dispassionate men shall, when they come to investigate the subject, take into account the fact that while the President has felt constrained to veto this bill on constitutional grounds, other gentlemen of high legal fame have taken different grounds; that there are arguments, in fact, on the other side of the question. A right minded man, a man of proper thought, ought, in justice to the Senate and House, before he makes up his mind, to examine and see what the arguments are that justified the vote, and then having taken the pros and cons into the account, having investigated both sides of the question, give such judgment as he feels he ought to render. I voted for this bill when it was before the body; and upon hearing the message read, my convictions of its constitutionality have not been at all shaken. I will read the message, and read it again. I have none of that sort of pride of opinion, that love of consistency, which will induce me still to stand by the bill, if, upon a careful investigation of the President's arguments, I shall be convinced that he is right and I am wrong. But I say that upon hearing the message read from the secretary's desk, I have not been so convinced. The inclination of my mind now is, and it is strongly so, that I shall record my vote as I did before. I trust, sir, that no one will suppose that in submitting these remarks, and in taking this position, I am becoming in any degree the antagonist of the President. He has his constitutional opinions about this question; I have mine. He acts upon his convictions; and I shall act on mine. I will make no attack upon him; far, very far from it. I have great personal respect for the President; great respect for him as a politician and as the head of the great party to which I belong; and I am sure he will not take it amiss if I say that I have yet a much higher respect for the distinguished office to which he has been elevated by the American people. These for the bill that has fallen under the Executive veto, in the House and in the Senate, I feel called upon in justice to my constituents, and to myself, to assign the reasons which justified me in giving these votes. I yield to no man in a rigid adherence to the Constitution. I have no oration to pronounce in behalf of the indigent insane. These children of misfortune are their own most earnest advocates. Immured in cells, or shut up in loathsome dungeons, shut out from the light of day and from the light of reason, with the hand of God resting heavily upon them, their mute appeals to us for help and succor are more eloquent than anything that I can say. The President has declared, with an earnestness that does him credit as a man and a Christian, that he has "been compelled to resist the deep sympathies of his own heart in favor of the humane purposes sought to be accomplished" by this bill. The sentiment will find a hearty response in the bosom of every good man. Of all the millions who live under the ægis of our Constitution, there is perhaps not one who will not say that the purposes sought to be accomplished by the bill are humane, benevolent, Christian, and eminently worthy of all the support which we can give them consistently with our duties to the Constitution. We have, then, but one question before us: Can we pass this bill without violating the Constitution? To that question I address myself. The Constitution says: "The Congress shall have power To DISPOSE OF and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." That the word territory is used in this connection as synonymous with land, and that land is here treated of purely as property, is not questioned, I believe, by the President or any one else. To dispose of-to dispose of the territory, to dispose of the landwhat is meant by that phraseology? In ordinary parlance, it means to give, to sell, to bestow, to convey, and I apprehend that it was used simply to convey its ordinary meaning. The framers of the Constitution were men not only of common sense, but of extraordinary astuteness. They knew the force of words, and the meaning of words, and it is a reproach to them to say that they employed words with one signification in the Constitution, which, in their common every-day use, carried with them a different signification. I have consulted eminent lexicographers as to the true meaning of the words "to dispose of," and with these results : JOHNSON.-To dispose: To employ for various purposes; to GIVE; to place; to bestow. To dispose of: To GIVE AWAY; to employ to any end; to put into THE HANDS OF ANOTHER. RICHARDSON.-Dispose: To employ for or apply to a particular purpose or use, and thus to bestow. considerations, if nothing else, would restrain me from saying anything in the slightest possible degree unkind in regard to him, or of the paper which he has sent to us. But, sir, if all these considerations were out of the way, my own self-respect would always induce me to speak of the President of the United States, and of any paper which he may send to either House of Congress, with becoming respect and consideration. |