Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1842-06-02
stsrom the Lya,h5aes virsinian, Nay 2s.)
THE PUBLIC LANDS.
Ifas Construction Of Tie DGsas Of Csssioa-Ta.
Erliun


Ifas CONSTRUCTIONS IF he Dseds Of Ctssioa-Tas
Ordnance IF 1885.
we nave The pleasure Of laying before cur rea-
,e's an aoie though condensed argument, in re-
ference TO the true construction Of the deed, Of
cess,on. from the several States. CONVEYING IN.
uohc Lanis In trust 10 the general government
IL Is contained In letter from .. ii. Smith ESQ
one OF The Senators from Indiana, and the distin-
Pa'shed chairman of the committee of Public
L. anus to gentleman in the neighborinw county,
VINO has permitted us to present i, to the pubic
through our columns
WASHINGTON CRY, ii,a May, 1872.
Lear Silly our letter OF the seth uit. has
oosn received, and would have been answered be-
fore this, but for the press OF matters recurring nv
a.tention and even now, can do little more than
gtancs at the subject which you bring t. my no.
uce' upon the questions arising nnlcr the deeds
VI ccssoh. expressed very fully my opinion ia
my expose on the Land Bill at the Extra Session
IN my speech al tn" present session my object
was not SO much to give construction TO the
deeds OF cession, as they cover ONLY part Of the
tuo.lc Lands, as to meet the general aruuynen, OF
want OF power TO distribute The proceeds OF the
lands, not cmbraced by the deeds OF cession, as
YOU VIII see by copy ofthe speech which ]
send you, aud which satisfactory at leas, TO
The friends OF the measure. Mr.. Calhoun and
DINERS, understood, had assumed that it is con-
stintonai to grant the land 10 the States and a,-
thorlzo them 10 sell it and distribute the proceeds;
but that 1t Is not constitutional to sell the lands and
distribute the proceeds among the States. You
VIII see how met this position. Indeed. as Col.
p said, | believe the constitutional cues
ton Is considered here settled and that the ex-
pediency oil the Distribution act, and not its con-
sutuuonal''y, VIII be the only question hereaf-
ter.
AS to the construction to 30 given t. the deeds
oil cesSon, have thought, and still think, that
N IN rn.S 4, In ln,,bt 4
consideration is to my mind conclusiye-i have
never heard II answered from any ouar,cr-
ana That Is this. The deed executed hy VIRGINIA
pears date BEFORE the adoption Of the federal con
s'i'uiion; the deed of Georgia bears date AFTER
:"a' ''ine; ana yet the language OF the two deeds
- s,"iiar. HE formcr provided that the ceded
Janus ''shail be considered common fund for
tho use and benefit otsuch Of the Quilted States
las have become or shall become members oil the
"Coniederation or the Federal alliance of the said
Estates, VIRGINIA INCLUSIVE, according TO their
IRRESPECTIVE PROPORTIONS in the general ch,rre
lana expenditure" At the time ihis deed was
executed Virginia was member oil the couIeder.
alioa or federal alliance. Now, if tie cons,ruc-
ZION mat our opponents contend for, be the true
one, wond like some To answer these cues
',ons-Hhy did the deed of cossion convey to
the use OF The respective States and not ~ the
Confederation Aud why was yiRsls,A i'm L,,i
ca az terms, when she was at tie ,ne a member
OF the confederation, if the deed was merely in
tended TO convey the property to the Join. use of
inc members CT the Confederation And why
was IL inserted that The to be to the States
In proportion to their respective CHARGES in the
general expenditure, il it was "A Joint concern for
d JOINT benefit !-IhiS position is still more
strongly sustained by the deed from GEORGIA.
lhat dced was executed or the Stu orIuno, 1902
and is Similar to The one have noticed |, also
Includes the ceiing State in express terms
Georgia inc!u2ed'-and yet Georgia AT the
Time Of the States tc liz. Iniop M,
i! Inc object was common one, would not the
deed nave conveyed TO the of the United Slaies
and not the States Of the Union, including the
ccding State !-Why include the State in terms,
when conveyance 10 the United States for their
use would have included such State, if the object
had been common object, for the use and bene-
NJ VI inc Union and not separate one for the
Deneht OF the States in proportion to their share
In the general charge Such was the course of
reasoning, and SUCH the facts, that brought my
mind satisfactorily TO the conc fusion 10 which It
has Fat various times Arrived on The subject.
The argument you have introduced to my no.
lice clearly sustains this view. The Ordinance
10 which you refer, passed May 20, 1895, after
tho execution OF the deeds of cession OF Virginia
and Massachusetts, may be considered as giving
cotemporaneons exposition Of those deeds, as to
N'elf true intent ard meaning notwithstanding |
that ordinance was declared 70 be aconvenient in
pracuce and was repealed by the ordinance Of 9th
Juiy, 1883. ihe former ordinance, after proyid- |
Ing ior the continental army from certain lands, |
deciafed, that 'Ihe Board OF Treasury shall from
'iine 10 lI:ne cause the remaining numbers, as !
'weii those to be sold entire, as t!osa to be sold
IN lots, TO be drawn for iD Mc name al the T:iIR-
TEEN STATES RESPECTIVELY, according to the
QuoTAs III the LAST PRECEDING REquiSITIoN on all
1.-The States: Froviied, that in ease MORE LAND
''than MS proportion is allotted for sale in ann
''5tae at ANY DISTRIBUTION, q deiucti0n be mode
'Merefor al THE NEXT 'fhere are : questions |
l presume, under this ordinance, upon hich YOU |
desire my opinion. The first is--was this DIS |
TRIBuTIoN among the States Of the land, arreea- !
by To the provisions CT the deed OF cession | |
have no doubt that it was SO in principle though |
1t proved, as should have supposed, 'inconveii-
lent In practice. Still it gives what conceive !
10 DC the construction o! the deeds OF cession as
understood at that time. and as | still construe
tnem. he next question is, whether the particu-
lar "late under iaIr construction Of the ordinance
would be entitled to credit Tor tie amount Ie- |
ceIVed, from the sale ot the land, drawn in The |
name o! such State, for much in discharge Of !
the requisitoH of the Confederation upon sach !
State Tor her proportion of lhe general charge and
expenditure Such would seem TO be verv clear !
ly the case, or tie ordinance was Of no force or
use whatever. ! have just briefly touched this
question, my time not permitting to go SO fui-
ly into tie subject as you may have desired.
very respectfully,
our oGedcni servant,
o. ii. SMITH.
The argument Of Mr.. Smith. based upon the
piiraseoIogy OF the deeds Of ceSsiUn. in wlicI the