Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1840-03-30
MONTPELIER, MARCH 30, 1910

Denenc'ui use as well the title in the Suites in
lheir conIederated capacity alone, TO he applied
only TO general joint purposes, why was not tho
cession made simply the United Siaies The nsrne
aud style OF the Confederation Why were the
words odded for the use and benefit Of such of
the United Stntos, &c. VIginia inclusive, accor-
ding TO the usual respeciiue proportions in the
general charge and expenditure p Upon any
other supposltion than that OF trust these words
were without meaning and wholly Dugatory.
The PLAIN and obvious sense was, that the ces.
sion was grant to the Confederucy by one MEM
Der of for the use and benefit of itself and the
several other members of it, respectively, to be-
shared 10y them in the proportions specified
Looking TO the terms of the cesson to the nature
and structure of the Confederation ard the re-
lation the States bore to each other unher it, it.
appeare 10 Mr. p. that no doubt eouhl be enter
tanned that the cession was a trust, and that the
beneficial interest WINS vested in Ihe Stotes, not in
their united, but in their separate character.
Mr.. L. said II he was right in saying that the
cession was originally trust, he woWl1 ask, had
it ceased to he so? Had he substitution of the
present Constitution and Government, in the place
of the Confederation, effected amy change ~ the
rights of the States to the fund II What sail the
Constitution
"The Congress shall have poser to dispose of
and make all needful rules and regulations res
pectlng the territory or other property belonging
to the United States and nothing in this ConstI-
tuition shall be so construed to prejudice any
claims Of the United States, Of any particular
State"
"All debts contracted and engage ments entered
into, before the adoption of this Constitution shall
be as valid against the United Scales under this
Constitution as under the Confederation
1t was evident, Mr.. p. saiG, from these provis.
ions of the Constitution, that it was not intended
to impair, in any degree, the obligation Of the
compacts OF cesslon but to preserve entire oil the
pre-exlsling rights growing out Of them. The
new Constitution superseded the old Coagedera-
ton, hut the beneficial interest in the lands le-
mnined, a. before, in the States.
But 1t was said the mode Of r,lisng REVENGE was
changed that, instead of making assessnlents nc.
cordng to established ratio, upon the States as
formerly the revenue was now collected by taxes,
direct or Indirect, upon the People, aud that, in.
consequence of this it had become 5nprarticable
to execute the trust in the manner prescribed by
the deeds of cession Admit this 10 he so, did il
follow that the trust was therefore extingushed?
What was the rule in such case? 1t was the rule
III courts of equity, and it rule Of law and
OF justice, that fine trust could he executed in
the precise manner prescribed, it shoHld be exc
cuted rs nearly in that manner US was practicable
or in such other way as would give effect 10 the
trust lfthey could notapportion the fond among
the States in the mode specified in the deeds of
cesrlon, they were bound 10 adopt such other
course as would approximate in its res ut The near
est TO that mode. This was the principle which
prevailed in the courts Of law aud equity, and it
was the principle which would prevail wherever
a sense of right and justice prevailed.
Mr.. r. said he had one further remark TO make.
1t had been said ihat the United States were The
owners of the lands, and that being owners they
had power to dispose of the lands in any way AMI
| for any purpose they chose He denied that any
such unlimited power the lands exis te, in the
General Government. If the United ST. ties were
owners, they were owners in trust, and Congress
was restricted and tied down Ivy the terms and con-
uiliOns of the deeds of cession d;spo. oI If rho
lands for any other purposes than those contenn-
plated ny the deeds OF cessiou, would he a breach
of trust and violation of firth.
TINS, Mr.. L. said. was his j dgtnent u pom the
question, this was his opinion upon the matter {;
aud he had only TO say in conclusion, that when
the fourth resolution should come up he in tended
! TO move an amendment, corresponding w th the
views he had now expressed.
Mr. Knight of r. I. appealed the chairman tf the
committee who reported the resolutions to assent to the
amendment Mr.. K said he against assun1i Nc the
debts Of the states and he desired this res citation
put in such shape that he could for it.
MI. CSrundy chairman of the committee chose to retain
he uorr}s If the resolution.
The question was then taken on Mr.. PREMISE amend
: meni, and it rejected, % to 6.
YEAS-Nlessrs Belts Dixon, knight, Pelps Prcr,iss,
Rugs'es-6. All Wings, bat the las named.
i NAYS Messrs Allen, Anderson Benton Brown Blu
chanan Calhoun, Clay OF Alabama Cutbert Fulton,
dy, Hubbard King, Linn Lumpkn, Mouon Nicholas Nor
Sirong', Sturgeon, Tappan all Williams Wrieh t-2s
IAN ,co1cos but Mr. Smith, and he subsequently Va ted
gains The resolution Several Wing Senators were al sent
Mr.. Prenliss, after the adoption If sundy of the resou
tons against assuming the debts by nearly una nmous
votes proposed the following addition:
"But nothing contained in the foregoing resoutio, IS is 70
be understood denying questioning the right
of Congress make equal distribution of the % ocerds
Of the public lands among all the states, according to the
terms and conditions Of The deeds Of cession."
This amendment was rejected, as follows,
AYES-Messrs Belts, Dixon Preniiss Robinson , Smilf
= NAYSMessrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brow n Cal.
houn Clay of Alabama, C,hber Fulton, Grundy Hem
derson, Hubbard King, Linn Lnmpkn, Mouon n cholas
D Wall, Wright-25 All administration men but or e
From This record the following differences may be drawn:
LIST From the refusal Of the administration Sen aors ia
adopt Mr. P first amendment that, under of pre-
tended hostility assumption Of the Stale IT'S the,
ea designed prevent distribution Of the pnt lie land.
10 the states.
Cd From their rejection of MI. Ps last anendn en lha
he deny the lille If he states the lands also deny
power and duty Of Congress to distribute hem according
e TO the terms of the deeds Of cesson.
The interest Of Vermont in these lands mil
lions of dos she has The title, and her rights be
Ined without doing violence 10 the deeds of Ion the
Constitution and the requirements of Justice. I'll thank
Of the people of this due Senator Pre- miss 70
ably setting forth their rights, and forcing the ocofoqo
= to define their position" on this subje ct.
n REPLY OF MIR. DAVIS TO MIR. Blu.
CHANAN.
:. Mr.. PRESIDENT: The morning followi ng the
4 remarks made by the Senator FROM Pennsy vania
i (Mr. Buchanan) upon my printed speech in reply
u TO speech OF his, asked permission of tn SEN