Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Mr. BUTLER. Consistently with the opinions which I have always entertained and expressed, and the votes which I have given on this very bill, I must be allowed to state the reasons why I am opposed to it. I am more particularly led to do so since hearing the remarks of my honorable friend from Mississippi.

I believe the intendments of this bill to be good. I think it looks to justice, and has in it the spirit of equality, of which I approve; and as far as I could subserve the commands of benevolence, if I could substitute my discretion for constitutional authority, I might vote for it. But I cannot compromise my principles; and I think that this will be the most dangerous bill, so far as regards the disposition of the public lands, ever passed; because it will be referred to as a precedent, although dictated under auspices and influences which it is very difficult to resist; but when once the precedent is made, I think others will follow it. Now, sir, I cannot see how Congress can disregard the limitations of the Constitution, and say that, in disposing of the public lands, you can give them away for this purpose or that purpose, according to our judgment. I do not know how many grounds have been taken to justify the disposition of the public lands. At one time, public lands were asked to cut a canal around the Falls of St. Mary's, and it was put upon the war power. Public treasure was required for the Collins steamers, and it was put upon the war power. This bill proposes to distribute the lands to the States, and it is put upon the ground of benevolence. Another one was introduced to give alternate sections within fifteen miles of the road, and that was put upon the ground of' regulating commerce. Another has been introduced upon a still separate ground; and at last the whole thing resolves itself into this, that the congressional discretion of the day shall supersede the limitation and the intendment of the Constitution.

Now, I take this broad ground, that Congress had delegated to it the authority to dispose of the public lands as a trustee; and having taken upon it the responsibility of a trustee, it cannot divest itself of that responsibility by throwing it back upon the State. There is so much money in the Treasury, lands and assets, committed to this trustee, to be administered according to the obligation of the Constitution. Suppose Congress were to undertake to divest itself of all responsibility, and to throw back the assets and the lands committed to its judgment, exclusively upon the States, still I deny, as a State-Rights man -- a proud man, not choosing to accept charity upon the terms which Congress may dictate -- that Congress has the right to give to South Carolina any money, and to tell her what she shall do with it. It has no right to do so. If I were to accept it at all, it would be as a fair distribution of the public funds or land; but if you can give it to South Carolina, to Indiana, or to Michigan; and say to South Carolina, Indiana, or Michigan, you may appropriate it for the purpose of the poor and Insane, is there any limit upon it? Will you not have the right to dispose of the public money for the purpose of relieving the poor, for establishing military academies, or for establishing colleges? There is no discretion except the discretion within the sphere of our judgment; and our judgment may prescribe a pretty broad sphere for its operation.

My friend from North Carolina, I recollect once, when some one was opposing an appropriation, asked how much it was. Some one said $5,000. "That is little enough for the purpose,'' said he. Another said it is $50,000. "Is that all," he replied. With regard to this latitudinal proposition, that you can prescribe to a State what she can do with the funds which you give her, I regard it as one of the most dangerous and mischievous that could be adopted. If I were to introduce an amendment to say that it should be for military academies, under the power of declaring war, could very well say that we should have these academies for preparing officers and soldiers as the best point. There would be some semblance of propriety in that; but I know no jurisdiction of Congress over the insane. Is that a national object? Nor over the poor. Is that a national object? Is a local charity to be controlled by legislative benevolence? and is the Constitution to have no limitations but such limitations as, I again repeat, the benevolence of this body may dictate?

I heard the honorable Senator from Michigan -Mr. STUART- yesterday make a remark that these lands ought to be settled by men who have hearts and hands; and while I felt fully the force of that, I knew that he could not, consistently with himself, take the position without being in conflict with many propositions for which he and many others have been voting. Are corporations, and steam-engines, and railroads such tenants as have hearts and hands? I have always understood that a corporation had no soul; and yet they will vote for grants of lands for corporations to make railroads. They will vote for railroads at one time; for money at another; for the insane at another; and, taking it all in all, I know no limit to the administration of the public funds and lands except, I repeat, the limit of legislative discretion; and I am not going to trust to the discretion of any man. I say, if you adopt this, there is no limitation at all. I am sorry to say that I shall vote against it more reluctantly than against any measure which has been brought before Congress; for it is equal, it is just, and it is benevolent.