SPEECHES IN THE SENATE ON THE IOWA RAILROAD BILL, JANUARY 27,
FEBRUARY 17, AND MARCH 16, 1852.
The Senate having under consideration the "bill granting the right
of way, and making a grant of land to the State of Iowa, in aid of the
construction of certain railroads in said State," Mr. Sumner entered
into the debate, speaking several times. His remarks were much noticed
at the time in the Senate, and also in the country, especially in
the West. At home in Massachusetts political opponents seized the
occasion for criticism, and resolutions on the subject were introduced
into the Legislature of Massachusetts. He spoke first January 27,
1852, as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--This bill is important by itself, inasmuch as
it promises to secure the building of a railroad, at large cost, for
a long distance, through a country not thickly settled, in a remote
corner of the land. It is more important still as a precedent for a
series of similar appropriations in other States. In this discussion,
then, we have before us, at the same time, the special interests of the
State of Iowa, traversed by this projected road, and also the great
question of the public lands.
I have no inclination to enter into these matters at length, even if I
were able; but entertaining no doubt as to the requirements of policy
and of justice in the present case, and in all like cases,--seeing my
way clearly before me by lights that cannot deceive,--I hope in a
few words to exhibit these requirements and to make this way manifest
to others. I am especially moved to do so by the tone of remark often
heard out of the Senate, and sometimes even here, begrudging these
appropriations, and charging particular States for which they are
made with undue absorption of the national property. It is sometimes
said--not in this body, I know--that "the West is stealing the public
lands"; and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], who
expresses himself with frankness and moderation worthy of regard, in
discussing this very measure, distinctly says that "we are squandering
away the public lands"; and he complains that such appropriations are
partial, "because very large amounts of land are distributed to those
States in which they lie, while nothing is given to the old States."
And the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. UNDERWOOD], taking up this
strain, dwells at great length, and in every variety of expression, on
the alleged partiality of the distribution.
Now I know full well that the States in which these lands lie need no
defender like myself. But, as a Senator from one of the old States,
I desire thus early to declare my dissent from these views, and the
reasons for this dissent. Beyond a general concern that the public
lands, of which the Union is now almoner, custodian, and proprietor,
should be administered freely, generously, bountifully, in such wise as
most to promote their settlement, and to build upon them towns, cities,
and States, the nurseries of future empire,--beyond this concern, which
leads me gladly to adopt the proposition in favor of actual settlers
brought forward by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WALKER], I
find clear and special reason for supporting the measure before the
Senate in an undeniable rule of justice to the States in which the
lands lie.
Let me speak, then, for _justice_ to the Land States. And in doing
so I wish to present an important, and, as it seems to me, decisive
consideration,--not adduced thus far in this debate, nor do I know that
it has been argued in any former discussion,--_founded on the exemption
from taxation enjoyed by the national lands in the several States, and
the unquestionable value of this franchise_. The subject naturally
presents itself under two heads: _first_, the origin and nature of this
franchise; and, _secondly_, its extent and value, after deducting all
reservations and grants to the several States.
* * * * *
I. In the _first_ place, as to the origin and nature of the immunity
enjoyed by the national domain in the several States.
The United States are proprietors of large tracts within the municipal
and legislative jurisdiction of States, not held directly by virtue of
any original prerogative or eminent domain, by any right of conquest,
occupancy, or discovery, but under acts of cession from the old
States, in which the lands were situated, and from foreign countries,
recognized and confirmed in the statutes by which the different States
have been constituted. Words determining this relation are found in the
Ordinance of 1787, as follows: "The Legislatures of those districts
or new States shall never interfere with _the primary disposal of
the soil_ by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any
regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such
soil to the _bona fide_ purchasers." This provision is incorporated,
as an article of compact, in subsequent statutes under which the new
States took their place in the Union. It is "the primary disposal of
the soil," without any incident of _sovereignty_, which is here secured.
Regarding the United States, then, as simple proprietors, under the
jurisdiction of the States, would they not be liable, in the discretion
of the States, to the burdens of other proprietors, unless specially
exempted? This exemption is conceded. In the Ordinance of 1787 it is
expressly declared that "no tax shall be imposed on lands the property
of the United States"; and this provision, like that already mentioned,
was embodied in succeeding Acts of Congress by which new States were
constituted. The fact that it was formally conceded and has been thus
embodied seems to denote that such concession was regarded as necessary
to secure the desired immunity. Indeed, from familiar principles of
our jurisprudence, recognized by the Supreme Court, it is reasonable
to infer, that, without such express exemption, this whole extent of
territory would be within the field of local taxation, liable, like the
lands of other proprietors, to all customary burdens and incidents.
Thus, in an early case of Pennsylvania, it is decided that the purchase
of land by the United States would not alone be sufficient to vest
them with the jurisdiction, or to oust the jurisdiction of the State,
without being accompanied or followed by the consent of the Legislature
of the State.[75] And it is judicially declared by the late Mr. Justice
Woodbury, in a well-considered case:--
"Where the United States own land situated within the limits
of particular States, and over which they have no cession of
jurisdiction, for objects either special or general, little doubt
exists _that the rights and remedies in relation to it are usually
such as apply to other land-owners within the State_."[76]
[75] See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania _v._ Young. 1 Kent's Com.,
431.
[76] United States _v._ Ames, 1 Woodbury and Minot, 80.
After setting forth certain rights of the United States, the learned
judge proceeds:--
"All these rights exist in the United States for constitutional
purposes, and without a special cession of jurisdiction; though it
is admitted that other powers over the property and persons on such
lands will, of course, remain in the States, till such a cession
is made. Nothing passes without such a cession, except what is an
incident to the title and purpose of the General Government."[77]
[77] Ibid., 83.
The Supreme Court give great eminence to the sovereign right of
taxation in the States, saying:--
"Taxation is a sacred right, essential to the existence of
Government,--an incident of sovereignty. The right of legislation
is coextensive with the incident, to attach it upon all persons and
property within the jurisdiction of a State."[78]