Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-05-25

obtain ior them lille more than they are entitled
to.
From The LuHeh6urg J'irgiaiGn, Nay D.
THE PUBLIC LANDS.
Tn, CoRsfrueHon Of ~ Desds II Cesson-T The ord,.
nance Of lsSJ.
We have the pleasure oflaying before our readers
an able though condensed argument, IN reference
To the true construction of the deeds Of ccsson from
the several States, conveying the Public Lands in
trust to the general government II is contained in
.etter from q. H. smith, Esq, of the Sena-
tors from Indiana, and the distinguished chairma
OF the committee OF Public Lands, TO a gentleman
in the neshboriug county, who has permitted us to
present 1t to the public through our columns
WAsnIscroN CRY, iith May, 1919.
Dear Sir,-Tour letter of the 3Oth ul,. has been
received. md would have been answered before
this. but for the press of matters requiring my at
tenton; hnd even now, | can do little more m, N
upon the questions arising under the deeds OF ces
sion. | expressed very fully my opinion in nv
expose on the Land Bill at the Extra Session. In
my speech at the present session my objec, was not
50 much TO give construction TO the deeds OF ces
sion. as they cover only part Of the Public Lands,
as tn meet the general argument OF want of power
TO distribute the proceeds of the lands not embraced
by the deeds OF ccssion, ms you will see by a copy
OF the speech which ! send you and which was
satisfactory at least 10 the friends OF the measure.
MIR Calhoun and others, | understood, had assum.
that 1t IS constitutional TO grant the land, TO the
States and authorize them TO sell and distribute
the proceeds; but that 1t is not constitutional TO sci
| the lands and distribute the proceeds amonr the
States. You will see how met this position In.
| deed, as Col. p said, believe the consti-
tutonal question is considered here as settled and
that the expediency o: the Distribution act. and no,
IT'S eonsuiuiionaiy will be the only question here.
/ after
As to the construction to be given to the deeds OF
cesson, have thought, and still think that there
/ should be no reasonable doubt. A single consider
/ alton IS TO my mind conclusivc-I have never heard
II answered from any quarter-and that is this.
The deed executed by Virginia bears date before
the adoption ofthe federal constitution; the deed of
Georgia bears date after that timc and yet the Ian
guage OF the two deeds is similar The former rro
vlded that the coded lands "shall lie considered n
common fund for the use and benefit of such of the
Omitted States Us have become or shall become
"members OF the Confederation or the Federal al.
"liance of the said States. VIRGINIA INCLUSIVE.
according to their RESPECTIVE PROPORTIONS in the
| general charge and expenditure" At the time
this deed was executed Virginia was a a member OF
the confederation or federal alliance. Now, If the
construction that our opponents contend for be the
| true one, | would Ike some one to answer these
questions-Why did the deed of cession convex To
the use OF the RESPECTIVE STATES, and not to the
CoSFEDERATIoS And why was VIRGINIA in
elHdsd in TERMS when she was AZ the time n member
OF the conf. derlton f tic deed merely intend
ed TO convey the property to the 10 Mt use Of the
members OF the Confederation And why was Il
inserted that the use TO he tn the STATES IN
PROPORTION 20 their RESPECTIVE chlrges in tho
general expenditure, If II was JOINT concern for
JOINT benefit This position is still more srone.
I ly sustained by the deed from Georgia. That deed
was executed on the 10th ofJune, 1902 and is SINH
lar 10 the one have noticed. IL also includes the
cEnISc STATE IN express terms-"GEoRGIA IN
cLUDED"-and yet Georgia at the time was one of
the States OF the Union Now # the object was n
common one, would not the de'd have conveyed to
the use OF the United States, and not tine STATES
OF THE UNION, including the ceding State 2-Whv
lnende the State in terms, when a conveyance to
the unred States for their use would have included
such State, If the object had been a common object
for the use and benefit of the Union and not Sc ~
araie one Tor the benefit of the States in proportion
To their share IN the general charged Such was the
course OF reasoning and such the facts that brought
my mind satisfactorily to the conclusion to which It
/ has a. various times arrived on the subject.
The argument you have introduced to nv notice
clearly sus'ains this view. The Ordinance to VIII ch
you refer, passed May 30, 1855, after the exerutiop
OF the deeds Of cession Of virginia and MassacLu-
sets, may he considered giving coiemporaneous
exposition Of those Deeds as TO their true intent and
meaning notwithstanding that ordnance wasdeclar.
ed 10 be nconvenien in practice and was repeaed bv
the ordnance Of 9Th July, 1888. The former ordi-
nance, after providing for the continental army from,
certain lands, declared that "The Board Of rreasu
'rY snail from time 10 time cruse the remainino
numbers, as we'll those to he sold entire as those
w ut Solu W lO'S, 10 DE uraWn Tor, The
me THIRTEEN STATES RESPECTIVELY, according
10 The QUOTAS IN the LAST FRFCEDI.e Egoutst-
"rioS on oil the States: Propidsf that I'm cnse
MORE LAND thin is proportion IS allotted for sale
IN any state al ANY DTlTRIBUTGoN a dsdpetioH be-
made h,refor al TIVE EEST." There are > aues.
IONS presume, under this ordnance upon which
you desire my opinion. The frs, is-xas this
DisrRIBUTioN among the States ofthe land agreea.
bly, 10 the provisions OF the deed of cessinnl have
no doubt that It was 50 IN principle though it prov
ed as should have supposed, "lnconvenIent" IN
practice. STILL II gives what | conceive TO be the
construction OF the deeds Of cesson as understood
at that time, nndas still consirue them The next
question ~, whether the particular State under a
lar construction Of The ordnance, would be entitled
to credit for the amount received from the sale of
the and, crnWn in the name Of such State, for so
much m discharge ~ the rcquisition of the Conied
erniion upon such State Tor her proportion or the
general charge and expenditure Such would seem
TO bo very clearly the cise or tho ordinance was Of
no force or use whatever. I have last briefly
touched this question, my time no, permitting me
to 60 SO fully into the subject as you may have de.
/ sired.
Very respectfully
Your obedent servant