Rutland herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1823-1847, 1840-03-24

upon the proposed amendment. He would.
however, add n word or two upon another top
ir-a topic which was dwclt upon at much
length IN the report of the committee, and had
been much dis used in the debate he meant
the power OF CouGtess TO distribute among the
States the proceeds of the public lands. He
dill no, intend to enter iajo any labored argu-
men, upon the subject. The view he had Ia
ken Of 1t was n short one, and vet he hoped II
was comprehensive enough 10 ombr &c all
that was material 10 the question. At that
la'o hour, he should content himself with do
ing little more than merely 10 state IT.
The question depended upon the terms OF
TIE deeds of cession, connected with two pro-
visions of the Constitution 10 which he should
have OCCASION TO advert. lie would ask at
teu;ion Ia the terms of only ono Of the deeds.
tie leading and most important one. The
decd from Virginia declared that the lands
ccdcd "should be considered as n common
fund. for the use and benefit ofsuch of the L.
nited States as have become, OF shall become,
members nj the confederation or federal alli-
ancc OF said States, Virginia mciWSicc, accor-
eng 10 he usual rcspScfrc proportions in the
pci 4ral charge aud eypcnli urc and shall be
faithi'llv mud hmm tdc disposed of for that
purpose. and for no other use or purpose what
ever"
> Now, Mr.. p. asked, was not this clause, the
clause he haL Just read, a plain. unoquivocal
Declaration Of q trust in behalf Of the several
States composing The Confederation Was it
not declared, in SO many words that the ces-
sion was n grant 10 the use Of tho several
Siates1 What other meaning, he would ask,
could lie given to the words ''for the use and
benefit Of such Of the United States, &c. TU-
gLlia iHciHSirc."
But this was not all. The Use was not on
ly declared to the States as States, but the
proportion in which the States should share
in the use was also declared, according to
the usual respective proportions in the gene raj
charge and expenditure" Here was rule OF
appOriionment given-a rule for apportioninp
the fund among the States. And did not the
very declaration Of a rule Of apporiionment
necessarily imply a several, separate inlerc,s
IN the States in the Common fund.- They were
to share respectively in the fund; that is. each
States was TO have lis propotion, lis distribu-
tive share. according to the ratio prescribed.
If Continued Mr.. P,) it was intended to vest
the beneficial use as well as the title in the
States in their confederatcd capacity alone. to
be applied only 10 general joint purposes, why
was not the cGssion made simply to the United
States the name and style of the conicdera-
ION! Why were the words added ''for the use
and benefit of such of the United States, &c.
virginia inclusive, according TO the usual re-
~spectivc proportions in the general charge and
xependiture!" Upon any other supposi,ion
than that OF a trust, these words were without
meaning and wholly nugatory.
The plain, obvious sense was, that the ces-
sion was a grant to the confederation by one
member OF it, for the use and benefit ofitself
and the several other members of it, respec-
lively, to be shared by them in the proportions
Looking 10 the terms ofthe cession.
to the nature and structure of the confedera-
ton and, the relation the States bore to each
other under il, ii appeared to Mr.. p. that no
doubt could he entertained that the ccssion
a trust, and that the beneficial interest was
vested in the States, not in their united. but 1
In their separate character. |,
Mr.P.said, il he was right in saying that the
cesslon was originally a trust, lie would ask.
had 1t ceased to be sol Had the substitution
the present Constitution and Government,
n the place OF the confederation, effected any
in the rights of the States to the fund.-
What said the Constitution
1.-The Congress shall have power 10 dispose J
u and make all nccdiul rules and regulations '
'espectlng the territory or other property be-
onging to The United States; and nothilg in a,
his Constitution shall be so construed as to
prejudice any claims Of the United States, or !
any particular State" :
"Al debts contracted and engagements en- G
cred into, before the adoption of this Consii-
utlon, shall be as valid against the United
states under this Constitution as under the
Confederation
1t was evident, Mr.. p. said, from these I
ofthe Constitution, that it was not :
Intended 10 impair, in any degree, the obliga- >
ION OF the cOirpacts of cession, but TO pre-
ervc entire all the prc-eXislinp rights grow
lg out ofthem. The new Constitution super
eded tie old Confederation, but the beneficial s
lterest in the lands remained, as before, in G
ne States. G
But it was said that the mode Of raising rev. n
nue. changed; that, instead Of making assess I,
lents, according TO an established ratio, upon n
re States as formerly, the revenue was now r
objected by taxes, direct or indirect, upon ii
&c people, and that, in consequence Of this,
had become impracticable to execute the
ust in the manner prescribed by the deeds :,
ccssion. Admit this to be so, did it follow }.
iat the trust was therefore exlinguished l. u
hat was the rule IN such case Ii was the i
ale IN courts Of equity, and il was a rule of p
Nv and of justice, that if the trust could not G
executed IN the precise manner prescribed, 7.
should be executed as nearly IN that manner 81
was practicable, or in such other way as TO .
i've effect TO the trust. If they could not ap- u
1riIon the fund among the States in the mode ~
IN the decd Of C%ession, they were :.
ound TO adopt such other course rs would APP d
IN us results the nearest to thai 81
iode. This was the principle which prevail .
3 m The courts Of law and equity, and il was :.
&c principle which would prevail wherever A ;,
'nse Of right and justice prevailed. di
Mr.. Il. said he had one further remark 10 p'
IL had been said that tho I,.,.I III