Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-02-16

!
services were known and appreciated by every
nan on the whole western frontier OF Vr-
,ini. This man thirty or forty years ago
ocated about 100 acres of land, worth then
10 the eastern owner l2, cents, and now 81
cents per acre. He had improved it at grea;
expense, perhaps eNpendng every thing he
was worth upon it. His family were no "
called on To give it TAP as included in larger
grant to anuiher person, aud were to be turned
out bcsSars upon the world. The land was
now worth $40 per acre. Thus the family
had an interest of 50 IS, and the owner ali
interest in truth, of only % cents per acre.
There was another argument drawn from
the able report and resolutions Of the Ken
lucky Legislature, touching the encroach-
ments of The whites upon the savages of the
wilderness We drive tsem farther to the
west, on the ground that the earth is the
common mother OF mankind, designed for our
use and not abuse, and that M one has right
to appropriate more OF it To his own use than
IS necessary. The opinion of the Supreme
Court, he commended, was an erparfe adjudica-
ton. Let any one look into ii, and they
would be convinced of the fact Ii he did moi
know 1t himself, the opinion would have shown
1t to be so, for it refers To the 7t article of the
compact which says that the land titles of Vir-
ginia should be decided according To the laws
of. Virginia Now ifths was the only article in
the compact, the opinion would have the sem
blance of right. He called the attention of
the House To the 8th article, aud would wish
to know by what argument the court would
set 1t aside. The 9Th article he thought did
not limit the 9TH; but related to different sub
jects.
Mr.. Bropne, of Williamsburg, said il was
not his intention TO have obtruded his views
ftnp
had presented his proposition to prevent
discussion but in this respect he found
himself disappointed, and was imperious.
iy called on to trespass on the patience of
the Committee. He iamented that hi was
compelled to object To the substitute ut the
member from Hanover, and especially as it SD
nearly correspondent with his own views as to
the impolicy of appointing Commissioners
He disclaimed all pride of opinion on the oc-
casion, and regretted that as they both came
to the same result, they did not do it by the
same means. The substitute, he said, began
by saying that the Legislature had bestowed an
F" Gttentipe consideration" on the subject Ii
was not his good fortune to bestow such IA
consideration upon it. He had investigated
1t with great care, and the more he looked
upon 1t, the greater were the difficulties which
presented themselves and the more he was
which had at first suggested itself to him. He
could not concur in the system of reasoning
adopted by the member from Hanover, by
whom it was affirmed that the question was
before the Judiciary of the United States. aud
that the decision of the Commissioners could
have no influence on ii. MIR. B. conteuurd
that the constitution of Kentucky and the
compact both recognize the decision of such
commissioners aud if they should consider
the law of Kentucky not violation of the
compact, it would be constitutional inter
probation of the law. But he would no; liaz-
card AN opinion that such Il decision of Com
missioners would influence the Judgment of
the court. He maintained that the substitute
would lead to different conclusion from the
made by him. Ii You affirm that
The acts OF Kentucky are in violation of the
compact, you create at once the case not ONLY
authorship, but requiring you To appoint
Commissioners. So far, the reasoning of the
preamble, Mr.. b. thought, went to confirm
the position of the member from Kanawha,
(Mr. L. and made out case OIL the part of
Inc legislature requiring them To act. prnc-
pies OF policy were involved III the agitation
Of the question at this time. He asked If Ken
lucky, from the year '97 ever applied to Vir-
gina fot the appointment of Commissioners !?
Were they not appraised of the fact, that in the
opinion of many persons their laws were a
violation of the compact? Her own ciiizpns,
and even some of her own Courts entertained
that opinion. 1t was matter of notorietv
that Governor Scott made his written obiec-
tons to the law OF 1912. Kentucky thea was
well appraised of the dissatisfaction which her
laws had produced but she was &C tuated by
polcy else why dIdJshe not come forward
with irankness, when the first com plants were
lax 81,
ment of Commissioners But now that the
supreme court has decided against the validity
of those laws, and your citizens are likely TO
get proper decision upon their rights, Ken
lucky Is willing enough 10 receive IA commits
sion He asked if the House would interrupt
that decision They ought not, either on
principles OF policy or of right To DO So. For
one, he was not prepared to- give any decision
on the propositions which had been made by
the Kentucky Commissioners.
Mr.. blackburn rose and spoke for more
than an hour and half in support of the sub.
stitute. The variety of views which he took,
aud the eloquent and feeling manner, in which
he referred to the neglected claims of the
soldiers of the revolution, the handsome eolo
Gies which he passed upon many distinguish
ed individuals, TO whose characters and CON
duct he had occasion 20 refer--ihe Indignant
strain IN which he enveiShed against the poll
cy Of Kentucky, and the mnutencss of lis de
tails In giving the history of the legislation Of
the two states on the subject-all these views
we lind 1t impossible to present to The reader
with any degree of justice to the speaker, in
briei sketch intended merely to represent The
grounds taken by different gentlemen, Oh ii
subject OF such deep interest toNirginia
Mr.. Il. regretted that il had moi been in his
power ia M
they had closed their arguments. He was
the more anxious 10 have done SO AT that timt
ia consequence ofthe inspiring power which
eloquence never fails To- exert ever the audi
tor, making him think himself equal 70 the
Orator hinscIf. II was undnr tl,;a nlnnlc..