Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1823-01-18

vi Efdltibg pfC-Sih I'tf'io' PtiAS' 10 ~
reasons fer it had ceased, ilis,was case
in which he thought it tight, inasmuch
as it was agreeable TO precedent IN the
case of Ohio, and would be decidedly
advantageous TO the interestslofthe Unit
ed States.
M. r. then moved though he did
not know that, in any iIstasce, the State
of Mississippi would avail itself OF the
provision, that the Stat OF Mississippi
should be added to the free other States
mentioned in the bill; which amendment
was agreed to.
Mr.. Cooke, of Tennessee, said that the
| United States had some lands in Tennes-
see, as we'll as in othe Estates, in whichnew
counties we're TO be lad Of. The House
bad been told that thl State Of Missis-
sippi would probably Sot avail herself Of
The benefit of this bltl.\ He would move
10 add to the bill the State of Tennes-
see; and, when he did 50, he declared
ia-i7-,1-iiet tfiat That stare gooaii avail il
self of the beneii, OF the provision He
saw no reason, he said, $ rs lands should
be sold al the miniaum price to one
State, and the same privilege be withheld
from others. Ths portidl Of the State
of Tennessee in which tho United States
held the land was small, y as true, but
he did not see why ii shou d be debarred
the same rights as were allowed to other
States.
This motion gave rise toIsome debate.
1t was opposed by Mr.. Hrukin, on the
ground that the circumstances of Ten
nessce did not resemble thqe 81 Missis
sippi, which latter State con- aimed in one
body something like four millions OF
acres Of unseated (Choctaw) land, &c.
He again adverted TO the example of the
privilege granted To the State Of Ohio,
and declared that the bill could do no in
Jury, bur rather service, to Tie interests
Of the United States.
Mr.. N Coy was opposed to the bill
| altogether, principally because ii would
lead TO many other bills. In the case OF
Ohio, the privilege to her had been
clogged with SO many PROFESSIONS, she had
not ayailed herself Of il. lie could not
see why greater priviid ges should BE-
granted TO counties in the States whose
SEATS OF Justice were not Fet located than
to others. His idea APPEARED TO be, that
all parts OF the country should stand. in
this respect, on The same footng. Why
was il moi proposed to embrace 10 the
bill Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, as
we'll as Alabama and Arkansas :
M Ca4,fs5rit, u 81t5.-isaSe history
Of the application from the s ale of Ohio,
and of the reasons why She did not avail
herself of the provisions pf The act OF
Congress in this respect ltwss c'oggsd
with such conditions as m!de ii dlsaG-
| vanlageous to her; and bhe did not
choose to go to the expenle of sending
Commissioners into fourteen new coun-
ties to lay off seats OF justice, when no
advantage whatever would arise to her
from doing so.
Mr.. Rankin replied to llr. AfCoy.
He did not know that Ind ana or Hi
nois had applied for this risht. Ii they
did apply, he should consider them equal
y entitled to il with other States. Mr..
R. SAID he felt no anxiety himself on ths
subject of ibis bill, bat he was persuaded
It's adoption would be beneficial to the
United States.
The question was then aiken on the
insertion OF Tennessee in the bill, and
decided in the atlir native.
Mr.. ITutworth said, il this measure
was calculated, as had been REPRESENTED,
to increase the value Of the public lands,
it ought TO be general in its operation.
II therefore moved to ajnend it so as to
make its provisions apply "to the seye-
raj States and Territories in which there
are public lands belonging 10 the United
States"
Mr.. Sterling, Of New York, said he
hoped this amendment would no, pre-
vail. No other Stale but those named
in the bill, had made application to Con-
eress on the subject, and it would be
time enough TO embrace them in the bill
when they did apply. The State Of A la
bama and the Territory Of A kansas
were peculiarly situated, the lands not
having been exposed 10 sale in the new
counties, &c. He was willing, when
other States applied, under similar cir
cumstauces, bat not before, TO extend to
them the same privileges.
Mr.. Cook, OF Illinois, was in favor Of
the amendment. He was in daily ex-
pectation Of proposition Oh this subiec
from the state which he represented
and, inasmuch as the principle tthe bill
had been fairly shewn to be beneficial to
the United States, he hoped it would be
made genera. in its operation. Mr.. c.