Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-05-20
(From the LyneAburg Republican }

H.
Speaking IN my last, Of the doctrine OF a special
trust and of reversionary interest in the public lands
consequent upon it, ventured to say that the assump
ton inconsistent piM ITSELF and promised to prove
it ask your attention TO the following consldera
tons in support of my position.
You say that the public lands having been coded in
the Federal Government for special purposes
Qhe payment of the Revolutionary debt, by hypo,be-
$751; and this purpose having been fulfilled, the lands
rcUcrt back TO the States matter of right This
theory is encountered with difficulties and EN-.
barrassments than you are aware of.
First.-lf the lands designed as trust fund
in the hands of Government, and that trust has been
fulfilled it is clear that The Government is Invested OF
all right whatever in regard to the subject The lands
by recersion, the property Of the States and the
Federal Government has more right to legslae in
regard to them, than it has to sgisate in regard 10 any
other portion of soil belonging to the States It's whole
right 10, and power over the subject at end
How then do you require the Government take upon
itself the further administration of the fund.- and to dis.
tribute the proceeds amongst the States If the lands
were pledged to ony specific object, (Which is your by
pohesis and that object has been accomplished the
Government has authority under the deeds of ces-
sion to act any further. The whole matter is at an
end. Here is manifest Inconsistency for, if the
lands were specifically pledged, and the application Of
the fund has accomplished the object then the Govern
ment has do with it, On the other hand, if
the lands NOT specifically pledged then your idea
of rerersonary interest IN favor of the States is
palpable paradox. In either case your whole theory
goes by the board.
Second If your doctrine of rerersionary interest,
legal equitable, be entitled to any weight whatever,
you will find, close examination, that it must involve
you in yet greater difficulties To which Of the States
do you propose to limit this rerersonary INTEREST,"
Undoubtedly, in plain, common sense, and, according
all legal lntendment, 10 the States which made the
cessons The Others (embracing eight out of the orlg
nal Mreen,) never had any tile to the lands whatever;
but only interested in the application of The pro-
..-Ie n the
cited in the deeds Of cesslon intended to be secured
by them You are forced by your theory to this con-
cnsion You cannot say that any rerersionary RICH,
nal objects of the grants have been accomplished; and
jecis Now, what they for | wish to
know WHETHER in fact, they have been accomplished
or not'
After you have gotten through this difficulty, you
will find another calling aloud for more labor. To
the States tina, made any ccssion of lands and
never had any lands TO eede how you TO apporton
this rerersionary right you speak OF If the right mp
ply to them at all, Qhough the word itself implies
precious, original right which BY hypothesis they
had how are you to npportion liz AS TO the lands
themselves it is clear they had any right whate
yer; for right order that it may rerert, must at
time other, have appertained to the party claiming it
Therefore they have rerersonary right to the lands
themselves Does the right then apply to the proceeds
of the lands: Admit it. and the difhcuyis greater than
before-for the question oapportionment, is no less
barrassing than the question right lfyou follow the
language of the deeds. Il mean those under tho old
articles of confederation the apporonment must be