embarrassing the pursuits of the people by burthensome taxation. The constitutional objection to the appropriation of the other revenues of the government to such objects has not been supposed to apply to an appropriation of the proceeds of the public lands. The cessions of that territory were expressly made for the common benefit of the United States; and therefore constitute a fund, which may be properly devoted to any objects, which are for the common benefit of the Union.[1]
§ 1322. The power of congress over the public territory is clearly exclusive and universal; and their legislation is subject to no control; but is absolute, and unlimited, unless so far as it is affected by stipulations in the cessions, or by the ordinance of 1787, under which any part of it has been settled.[2] But the power of congress to regulate the other national property (unless it has acquired, by cession of the states, exclusive jurisdiction) is not necessarily exclusive in all cases. If the national government own a fort, arsenal, hospital, or lighthouse establishment, not so ceded, the general jurisdiction of the state is not excluded in regard to the site; but, subject to the rightful exercise of the powers of the national government, it remains in full force.[3]
§ 1323. There are some other incidental powers given to congress, to carry into effect certain other- ↑ 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 12, p. 242, 243; id. Lect. 17, p. 359.
- ↑ Rawle on Const. ch. 27, p. 237; 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 12, p. 243; id. Lect. 17, p. 359, 360.
- ↑ Rawle on Const. ch. 27, p. 240; The People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. R. 225; Commonwealth v. Young, 1 Hall's Journal of Jurisp. 47.—Sergeant on Const. ch. 31, [ch. 33.]—Whether the general doctrine in the case of Commonwealth v. Young, (1 Hall's Journal 47,) can be maintained, in its application to that case, is quite a different question.
