OCR Text |
Show 30 a part of the Constitution during debate relating to the admis- sion of new states into the Union.114 Thus did this "vastly important clause" come into being almost as an afterthought.115 Public Lands.-By the Property Clause, Congress is en- trusted with unlimited power over the use of federal public lands, and it is for Congress, not the courts, to say how that trust shall be administered.116 Thus, Congress alone can prohibit absolutely the use of public lands, or without limitation fix the terms on which they may be used.117 111 Id. pp. 496-497. In the Dred Scott ease, discussing the, historical pur- pose of the Property Clause as a means of providing for control by the Federal Government over property held in common by the states and princi- pally as a means to sell lands in order to pay the war debt, the majority of the justices took the view that this proprietary authority was confined to property "which the States held in common" at the time the Constitution was established, having no application to property which the Federal Gov- ernment might subsequently acquire. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 435-442 (U. S. 1856). In this respect, however, the decision has been regularly disregarded by the Court. See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244. 272-275 (1901) ; Dorrx. United States, 195 U. S. 138, 139-149 (1904). ** "The latter part of the motion was intended to calm the fears of those who thought that by requiring consent of a State to erection of a new State within its jurisdiction, the Constitution might be favoring the claims of some State to vacant lands ceded to the United States by the treaty of peace with Great Britain. Morris' motion was carried, with only one dissenting vote (that of Maryland); and it became the second clause of Article V, section 3, of the Constitution. In this way, this vastly important clause, under which the United States has governed all its territorial possessions, came into being, almost as an afterthought, and towards the end of the Convention." Warren, The Making or the Constitution, p. 600 (1937). 118 United States v. City and County of San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29-30, reh. den., 310 U. S. 657 (1940). 117 Light v. United States, 220 U. S. 523, 535-537 (1911), recognizing the constitutionality of the authority to establish national forests; United States v. Orimaud, 220 U. S. 506, 521 (1911) holding constitutional the delegation of authority to make rules and regulations relative to national forests; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 410 (1917) holding that the United States may require a license for use of public lands as sites for works employed in generating and distributing electric energy; Buddy v. Rossi, 248 U. S. 104, 107 (1918) holding constitutional a provision in the 1862 Homestead Act that no lands acquired thereunder shall be liable to satisfy any debt contracted prior to issuance of patent therefor; Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423, 464 (1931) holding that a state has no constitutional right to use, in aid of appropriation, any land of the United States, and it cannot complain of a provision conditioning the use of such land. See also |