Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-01-19

The proposition WIS opposed by Messrs
SAWYER and NELSON ut Maryland, to whom
MIR. Cook replied, when thu question was Ia
ken, and the amendment lost.
The question then required upon the ori-
ginal resolution.
Mr.. GoRnAM opposed the resolution He
thought it would be unjust to adopt -. The
N W states bad not received any thing as a
donation. When the inhabitants moved 10
the west, the allotment OF portion of land
for the purpose of schooling their children
was held out to them as an Involvement 10 en-
i5ratc. Ii became part OF the consideration
at their settlement ii the wilderness and was
rather matter of purchase on their part, than
of gift on the part OF the United States.--
| But, whatever might he their title, the states
had none. They had neither the uslfruct
nor the fee OF the land. The former was ia
the settlers, by virtue of the original compact
and if the latter did not belong to them also,
1t remained IN the government aad was never
parted with To the states That is now asked,
therefore, by the old states, as equivalent
| Tor what the new states do not possess. An
other difficulty equally mslperable presented
Itself To his mind. 1t would be difficult not
To say impraciicable, to make the appor;ion-
nrn', e'en were the principle secured. Mr.
q. then adverled to the three bases of apnur-
tlonmcnt that had been proposed, viz: terrific
| ry, population, and revolutionary dishpWse-
ments, and showed the extreme difficulties
| that Were attendant on each. Ii would be
! impossible for human ingenuity tn devisp
plan that would not bear uneq'iay-a such
a rule would naturally produce ealOusies
and dlSSentluns. There were already Ieal0ls-
les enough among the members OF thu UDihn,
without adding To the causes that produce
them. There Were also difficulties respecting
the location of the lands. The different states
would become entitled to unequal quantities.
1..ln 4
Of the quantity Belonging to Virginia; yet
surely, / would not do To turn off Delaware
! with any convenient nook or corner that
| might suit the convenience of the rest. Per-
maps, the least Objectionable course would
b., To divide the lands into lots of size
not less than the quantity 10 whic! the small
est state would be entitled, and then to equal
lie by drawing lots In this way il might
! happen that on,. state would own one por-
ton at the mouth of the Mississippi, aud am
other on lake Michigan. Land Offices must
be opened not only for each state, bat for
each parcel OF land. This would he 81 expen-
slve and burthensOne as naturally To throw
| it back upon the General Land Office Com
| missioner, rs an universal agent--irom whom
the states would receive the avails of the lands
as they snail be collected, which would be
equivalent to receiving ii from the Treasury,
or in other words To collecting by tax for
the purposes nf school fund. Mr. G. ques-
toned the authority of Congress TO apply the
public funds This manner for it would be
as correct To apply other moneys in the Treas
ury 10 this purpose this. 1t was obvious,
thai II SO applied, the general government
would have no further control oft, and it
might be applied t" any other purpose than
that OF education, il the states thought proper
so to apply ii. Mr.. q. also contended, that
: ii would be manifest violation of the plrdg-
es that had been given, less than three
times, of these funds 10 the payment
ofthe public debt, and he could not see any
way admitting AL other objections were re-
moved, in which it could be done without
hLgrant violation of the public faith.
! Mr.. NELsuN, OF Maryland, was unwilli1g in
this stage of the subject to debate the question
, of its merits. At Il proper time he thought
he should bc able to give satisfactory answer
to all the objections which the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. GOrian) had Urged The
L proposition he remarked, does not ask for
commitment of any principle or any fact. 1t
only contemplaics an Inquiry, aud he could
! not bul hope that this House would not turn
e 10 hack uon the memorials Obstacles, admitted
on all hands to b, respectable, SO fur 10 pro.
: hihit AZ inq TRY.
p Mr. Baldwin proposed 20 amend the res
oiuion by striking out all that part of the reso-
Z luton which proposes grant of land tn those
= states which have received none, and insert
;; " The sey eril States" so as to make the era n
II general among all the states.
r The SPEAKER decided this motion to be
g out of order, on the ground that it was essen
TALLY substitute for the original proposition,
r, within the meaning of the rule inasmuch ~
u il was Incompatible with the original PROPOSE
Ii ton, and went to change its principle and ei-
% feet.
5 Mr. BAssETT dissented from ihe correct
n ness Of the decision of the chair, and after
c some Remarks, and "a reference to several pre-
h cedents, be appealed tbereirom.
The SpEAKER explained at some length the
i reasons for laying dDan the rule, as be had
ir dOae, referring to- Parliamentary aud Congress
sona history To sustain his posItion--and SUM
p med up his reasons in the general remark that
Us any amendment which would have the effect
to make the friends ola proposition its foes
n, must be in its nature iutrincicay substitute
u Mr.. BALDwIN spoke Il short time in oppO-
ar sition to the decision OF the Chair, aud Mr..
al RdrdOiph offered some arguments in support
Of the decision when
j. The question was put on the appeal, and
Il thu decision of the Speaker was affirmed b.
IL a large majority.
u Mr. CANpBeit, Of Ohio, would not usual,
t. object 10 cali, for iE.ormadon-hut me though
n this contained by implication, an affirmative
J. propositions, IN relation 20 gratuitnus grants e
~ the new states, 10 which be could not ylel'
lc bis asseDt
5. Mr.. WALwoRTn thought there was dis
IN position in the house 10 discuss the merits &
Of the question, and .in order that members Nigh
D. have an opportunity, he moved To refer il to
as Union. The motion was Dcgatiyed. Aye
n