Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1839-01-31

der the generai law, tc extend the same
to Lynchburg, Buchanan, and Danvile--
the State TO take three filhs Of the stock
IN each company. The repor, of the com
mitee on The Public Lands, was taken up,
and the lst, 2nd. and 81 resolutions adopted.
THURSDAY, Jan. 24--The 4rh tesolu
ton of the committee on the Public Lands
was under consideration. There were some
propositions TO amend, and much discussion,
but the House adjourned without coming
TO decision.
FRIDAY, Jan. 25 "A message was re-
ceived from the Senate. stating tina, they
had passed the bill entitled an act to amend
an act providing for the construction Of
Road from Winchester TO Staunton, and for
other purposes, with nm amendment, The
amendment was concurred in by the House,
and the bill is now law. We presume
this is IN relation TO the States subscrip-
tion. The report OF the committee on the
Public Lands again came up. The question
being on the adoption o! the 4lh resolution,
which is in favor OF distribution, and sundry
amendments pending, Mr. Kinney thought
Ina. union and harmony could he best at
tanned by re-commit,al of the resolution
which was accordingly done by vote OF rs
to5l.
The following remarks were made by
MIR. Stuart in support Of the fourth reso-
luton:
MIR. Stuart said there was one single view
of this subject which he would suggest for
the consideration of the House He did so
in consequence of the request Oh The gentle
man from Pittsylvania, (Mr. Wiicher,)
that the advocates OF distribution would state
the ground on which they rested the power
OF the Congress of the U. S. TO distribute the
proceeds of the public lands.-Mr S. said
he regarded this as n question Of law. and 10
I've considered upon legal principles. TWAS
in that light he should present it,
The gentleman from Piltsylyania dis
eliminates between that portion of the pub
lie domain which was coded By the States,
and that part which was acQuir ed by pur-
chase from France and Spain. He admits
the right 10 distribute the former, on the
ground of the express trust contained in the
deeds of cession, but he denies the right TO
distribute the proceeds Of the latter, because
there as no such trust. Mr.. Stuart denied
that the distinction was ienahle. He cons
tended that the trust was the same in rea.
ton 10 both, though, in one case, il was ex-
pressed On the face of the deed, and in the
other, il arose by implication. He contend
ed, that in neither case die the trust depend
upon the terms of the deed, but that il re-
suited from the intrinsic nature of the con-
tracts, Independently of their particular
terms.
Mr.. S. said, he would illustrate his view
by reference TO transactions of a private
character, which were analogous in princ-
pie, and OF every day occurrence. IL was
a familiar principle oflaw, that wherever an
indlv idual employed another TO purchase n
tract OF land for him, and furnished the mo-
ney TO pay for il, il the agent made the pur>
chase and took the conveyance 10 himself, n
trust resulted from the nature of the trans.
action. in favor OF the principal who advance
ed the money, and he could at any time en-.
force It's execution hy resort TO The judI>
cial tribunals. Mr.. Stuart then asked the
House 10 apply this principle TO the contract
for the purchase of Louisiana and Florida.
Those Territories were purchased by the
money OF The u. s.. which were The proceeds
OF taxation, either direct or indirect.
They were purchased by the Government
WI thS ~. y, w uiCu Is lDe common agent OF
the several States, and of the people of the
States. The title was conveyed TO The agent
or trustee, but the purchase money was paid
by The States, or by The people Of the States
Mr. Stuart said he was ndifIer ent which
position gentlemen might assume. They
were at liberty TO say that they were paid
Tor by the money OF The States, considered
in their corporate character, or by The peo-
pie Individually. II The money was regard
ed as the money Of the States, then the trust
resulted 10 favor of The States, and they had
the right so direct The proper execution OF
The trust: in which aspect of The case, II was
clearly within the legitimate province Of the
Legislature, as the representative of the
State, 10 Indicate 10 the common trustee,
the U. ) Government, The wishes of Fir-
gina as 10 The manner OF executing The
trust;
II gentlemen thought proper TO take the
other horn Of The dilemma, and 10 COME nd
that the public domain was paid tor with the
money OF the people, who paid The taxes in
their individual character, then the princi-
rle applied with equal force. The trust re-
suited in favor OF The people ndividUally
and they had the RICH, TO direct The trustee,
either Immediately or by their agent, in the
iulhimeDt Of the trust. Dir. 5. then asked ;,
il this reasoning be true, in what relation
does the Legislature Of Virginia stand TO the
subject OF the public domain? IL not the
Legislature the agent of the people Of Vir
ginia in reference 10 this subject? Aud if
The people, The immediate bene 6ciaries On
der The resulting trust, have right TO di-
rect the trustee IN The execution OF The trust,
has not their agent, the Legislature, The
right TO give The same direction, And is
there moi correlalive obligation on the part
of the trustee, the u. S. Government, TO
c,,r for ~, f., S,,,I, J;,e,f;,,3