Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1805-03-13
who purchased the right Of soil to the Mis-.


NOR whether she sold the land to indivl-
FduaIs or companies; numbers and quaint.
ties lay out Of tho question, and conhne
myself merely to the enquiry, did she sell,
and finding that she did sell, and that tor
valuable consideration, my mind rests sa-
Etis6ed, and am compelled to render that
justice which the annulling act Of. Georgia
refused. Nay the price itself does not en-
ter into my contemplation; circumstances
may alter the relative value of the price to
the article viii any gentleman say that
the price at which Congress have sold their
hands to the great purchasers, such as
Simms and others, is cause to justify our
setting those sales aside? apsrshend not
why then do they measure by a different
standard in the case of Georgia.
Georgia under the old regime, was
called kings government the right
ofjurisdictien was given up to her exercise
from the first the right of soil remained
in the crown bu. when We acquired our
independence, Georgia took possession,
which she was justifsble ID doing, of the
soil as well as the sovereignty; and their
being possessed ofboth, it was competent
tor her legislature to dispose of the vacant
land, & no subsequentlegislatur could con.
sti,u,ionally say it avails not, and it shall
not hold am not ashamed of this opin.
ion; on the contrary It is corokorated by
the practice of all The states in the union.
4 grant Of land by the legislature is uni-
versaily held sacred. 1t is SO under the
government Of the United States also, vet
neither the state legislatures are all the cit.
liens OF the state nor are congress all the
citizen. Of the United States. which &C.
cording to the doctrine We have heard ad.
vanced are requisite to complete the con-
tract.
This being the case will not vote for
the amendment; 1t goes to destroy the
right which the petitioners have to he re.
served fund of FIVE millions Of acres; it
goes to defeat and overturn we'll establish.
ed security which the people of the United
States have for landed property. will
not vote for it because do not believe,
that congress have divine right to do
wrong. Mr.. Boyd said if all the specu.
lators were secuted from these walls, he
did not know who would remain-he had
no quarrel with them about the question,
but he should ever contend that every man
had arig ht to pursue his object in his own
way, the right grew out Of the moral
compact agreed to as fundamental in ev-
cry established and we'll regu atcd socie-
ETY..
Mr.. Clark faid, he was Gill ia favor Of the
Amendments on the table, and which he ycferday
had the honor Of fabnsting. He did not win it
TO be unde,eood, that tie amendment was in,
tended to give preference to any Description Ct
claims under the d!fefcn. acts of the f.te OF
Georgia and provided for by the general ,eloluti,
on : bur intended il lhou'd meet DIRECTLY ,hof-
which have excited the mot public attention.,
have been the m9f ardenty fnr(ued, the mott
zcaiouily advoeat d, and a,,ended with the n 1T
extraordinary circumstances. Ii the iatls which
have accompanied this mon(rous oulnef: from its
origin 10 the pIeient momen! we're publicly
known, CT i! it could be retaced through all its
cunning and willy mazcs, the claims would GEk
beneath the weight OF tonea Indignation ard
naead of now being urged before the Congrefs
of the Uaited States, would % gladly WITH
drawn from public view and buried in perpetual
dience. He peculiarly ~ifhsd on this occaGon
cool and ter2:rs,e diicuii"", to direft csrie YES
of all feelings either of improper connpaiEan or
prejudice, that equally tie d TO inaame the heart
aod n.Aead the judgments. 1t fhouli be his
hamt,Ie province to endclyer a lair iayeAigaslon
Of the naked qaef;on dftc1ing i, Of thofr riuiel
aas,ii,nents which have ben a:tfully thrown a.
round il for tae patpoie OF eoncc=ing its real de-
tormity.
Ire claims the amendment goes to rrjea, are
derived by pretended law of the aate OF Geor-
sia. fad to have been paaed in the month Of ia
MAR, 1875. He would contend this law was
aoioluteiy void, al, initio, not only becaufe the
Legislature had no roower to make iuch a Law, ear
from the circumstances under which il wa: made.
That thc grantees under this Law could have no
title to the land eithar legal or equitable, and
that there has been ne circumstances attending
the fubfeeuens ales, that place the fub purchsiers
under hyperion equitable Advantages.
Ito be continued.)