Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-05-24

| as remain IN the ota'e.
for the very obliging and kind manner in which you
have discharged the duties assignee 10 you anu oe
lieve me to be,
Nj. VAN buren,.
TO RICHARD II. ToLER, E.a.-lNo. I'LL
Let us reason together as men, nave no o'sPosuoh
to battle your political aspirations Personally, my
feelings are any other than unkind towards you, nel-
Their have | any partisan object in view in these let
,ers Immovably fixed in opposition, as may be to
the principles and policy Of your party, am by no
means committed, thereby, to foster personal pre-
iudces look only to MEASURES, and not TO men.
In my last letter, promised to resume the consider
alton Of rerersionary rights, in reference to the claim
you set up for the States to the public lands; :,
lay down these positions as 'nconirover'oie f"s!'
No rerersonaru right can to those who orr
ginay had right conveys his property to as trus.
lee 10 secure debt he to c. BY legal inendment,
USUALLY erpressed in the deed selfD after paying The
debt, is compelled 10 pay over to a The balance
This is called AS rerersionary right to The subect:-
Second The objects of the deed must be fulfilled
that is the debt must be paid before any reDersonary
right can be claimed by A. These positions, founded
on the planest dictates of common sense, cannot be
controverted by any one .
in controversy. Fire States originally made deeds to
land in trust las you say, TO the Federal Government
What trust? What was the Government TO do with ii:
WHY the substance Of the deeds is, that 1t should sell
the lands and of the proceeds create "eommon tund
TO paw off the common obligations Of the U. s. Not the
obligations then existing only, but those that might be
contracted hercofier, for the deeds expressly extend
the benefit of the fund to States not parties to them
which might subsequently enter into the "Federat al
lance"
The "common fund" then was intended 10 liquidate
the "ycneraL charge and e1penditurc These are the
words of the deeds Now, Sir, what do the words,
"the general charge and expenditure" mean? Do they
apply only the Revolutionary Debt Was that the
1 rs Sha
States that uere and the States that SHOULD be :
Does The very enuncaton of the proposition carry
with it the proofs of its faacy' How could out
standing debt in the past be ranked amongst the "ez
penditures of the present and the future Does not
your understanding rev olt at such proposition
But Sir, granting you al, this and you are worse OIL
than you were before Assuming, las your leader, Mr.
Clay does that the lands eeded and pledged 10 the
payment of the Revolutionary debt only and your claim
TO rerersion is in infinitely condition. f that
be possible than il would have been without the adns-
sion. brief reference TO facts will show this
said in my first letter. that the deeds of cession spe-
Cited no mees and bounds. They only designated the
lands lying in their assumed respective chartered limits
In order ascertain the amount of lands cede, there
/ FORE we must look 10 these limits.
By the treaty with Great Britain in 1888, the limits
of the u States which included the cedcd lands, are
laid down the West beginning at the Lake OF the
Woods and Ito The words Of the treuty thence in
due West course 10 the river Mississippi; thence by
p until it shall nersect the northernmost part OF the
thirty first degree of North latitude; South, by line TO
be drawn due East from the determination of the line
last mentioned in latitude thirty degrees OF North
Of the Equator the middle OF the river Apalachcoa
or Catahooche; thence along the middle thereof TO its
junction with Flint river thence straight TO the head
of ST. Mary's river; and thence down along the middle
Of ST. Mary's river to the Atlantic ocean.
These were the limits. Now, Sir, take the map, and
run your eye over it, and you will observe that the
bolc ofE he q
ma and Mississippi, the whole of Louisiana, Arkansas,
Missouri Iowa Territory and the entire tract of coun
try West of the Mississippi, were out OF, and beyond
these bounds OF course of these lands were
died and reDersion in law or equity applies to them.
But there statistics yet more definite. BY reports
made from the Department 10 Congress the 9th of April,
1892, the Goth of December, 1888, the Both of Janua-
ry 1885, and the 9Th of February, 1885, the following
facts appear, to wit
The whole number OF acres OF ceded land included IN
the above limits, was 224 ,546,974
OF this amount 22,060, 200 acres are to be
deducted for grants, military bounties,
schools, roads, canals, private claims, and
| Indian reservations, leaving the amount
in acres 2o2, 466,7G5
OF this amount the Indians still held in
1889, in their own right 26,929, 73l
Leaving balance of 1854 ,O34
OF this number Of acres the Government
had sold in $780, and received money for 6967S, 9l5
Leaving at tha, time unsold TO-, SOS, lI9
| By statement made from the General Land Office,
at the time and communicated TO Congress, APP
pears that The whole gross amount of monies receired
by the Government for these lands
S9S, ,265 80
| This presents, in brief, the whole amount of
ceded, sold and unsold Now, Sir, let turn TO the
other side Of the page, and what the Government
has receoed and paid out for these same lands.
The credit side of the page shows the
| payt,le nts made from this trust fund
| as follows:
For extinguishment of
Indian titles, nclud-
| ing annuities, &c. $S3,746,ss2 "a
For payments made to
the State of Georgia,
| the FIVE per cent. to
the States,
Penses of surveys,
| &c, Sc, Sl6,4l6,5S9 IL
Showing a balance against the eedcd
| lands of 81, 107 306 %
| will not ask you, Sir, where the nett proceeds
| to be distributed amongst the States The inquiry
would be an insult and wish not 10 offend. But per-
nit me- Sir, say that your party has grossly deceived
the people the subject Of these eedcd lands. You
represent these lands having been coded in full fec
simple, and ,chou cost, to the Government. Nothing
is further from the fact The eeded lands cost the Co.
vernment much money any other lands it holds.
The States had in fact, possession of the lands,
clear titles TO tbem but claims such the Kings
of England pretended to the Kingdoms Of France and
Navarro They not, in truth, included in their
respective acknowledged limits You will see this TO be
true il you will look 10 the deeds of cession. N Carolina
for example, eeded her portion, certain part of Ten
nessee, from which the Government never drew cent.
Virginia did not cede acre of what is now called
Kentucky but certain uncertainties OF claim to lands
| North of the Ohio Massachusetts, and New York ce-
ded identcaly the territory, and did Conuecli
cut and South Carolina. The whole ofthem had just
well have coded many of land in the moon, so
far the General Government concerned; for the
cost 10 that Governmentjust as much as if they had
never been ceded at all This fact appears from off.
cia documents; and ask, why do your party leaders
msrep present them' But, Sir, will turn now TO