Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-04-06


some form asserted the right Of Congress TO dispose
Of the public landS-in short, to the express words
OF the Constitution, which gives to Congress, in
express terms, the right to dispose oi this fund.
will now reply TO that portion Of the gentlemans
speech, IN which he discussed this question as
neeted with the deeds OF eession executed | v Vir-
gina and other States. Tbs gentleman, may re-
marx, has saved himself the trouble OF gong into
history Of these deeds in order to show the obga-
ton OF Congress TO comploy with then provisions
lie admits the trust imposed upon Congress by those
Deeds and the obligation it is under to carry into
ehect the intentions olthe grantoIs in the deeds but
contends that the Distribution Law is a violation Of
the deeds OF cesson and that the only way Of carry
ing the intention Of the grantors into effect is to up
ply the proceeds Of the sales Of the lands TO the
current expenses OF the Government. I merely
wish TO state his argument on this point; for the
subject has been so frequently discussed by the
ablest men OF the country, that shall be excused
from going into details. The point between the
gentleman from Louisa and myself is simply this
He concludes that the lands, being the common
property, should be applied to the common purposes
OF the common Government on the other hand,
though admitting this land fund TO be common
fund Tor all the States, contend that 1t the in
tenton OF the States that this fund should be app
cd by the National Government to their separate
use. This question, therefore, turns mainly upon
the deeds themselves. That which wss, executed
by Virginia, in 1854, cedcd more territory than any
other. The deeds from other States were drawn in
stated that the lands should be ccded as "a COM
"mon fund for the and benefit OF such of the
United States as have become shall become
members Of the Confederation or Federal alliance
ot the said States, according 10 their usual respec-
tive proportions in the general charge and e. pendi
ture, and shall be faithfully and bona 6de disposed
o for that pu-pos', and for no other purJ ose
"~hstsoever." Could and language have been used
which would have been palmer; and which would
have more clearly indicated the design OF the gran
ln- ~ h., E,l..
The deed specifies the Ratio Of contribution TO the
general charge and expenditure. as that by which
the proportion which each State shall receive is 10
be settled. Ali the deeds contain the remarkable
phrase, Virginia inclusive" Georgia inclusive"
Sc. Why was u necessary TO USE this language If
II was the intention of the gTsntors that this fund
should nc used bv the FeJ,ra Union ia its current
expenditures II had been their intention TINT
1t should he ihus used, Virsnia OF he States
would have enjoyed portion OF the fund, and GER
taIn'y there would have been no necessity for the
insertion III the phrase. The same caution is how
ever observed IN all OF the deeds and therefore the
inference Is irresistible, that was tie intenton Of
the States cedIng these lands that their proceeds
should Ie ior separate use and distribution among
the States that were ct that time and that should
become members OF the Federal Unlonn
AgNn, ask the attention of the gentleman 10
another view oil the question, which I think ought
10 settle u. At the time these deeds were executed
the General Government had not been established
ration. How was that Confederation supportel1
BY contributions from the States. These conttibu-
lions were made IT, compliance with reuusitions
rom the Congress Of the Confederation and each
state pad m proportion 10 the assessed value OF
Tho lands within its limits. SUPPOSE n reauiSI,on
had been made upon Virginia for her proportion of
he amount required for the general charge and ex-
penditure suppose there was required Of oil the
States Sl,OOO,OOO, and Nirginla's proportion was
500, 1000: Virginia might pay into the National
10 H.. 4
express terms Of the deed would he entitled to
portion OF the public lands, amounting To her pro
portion OF the general charge and oxpen6iiures.-
In the case supposed her share would be one tenth
d that sum OF Sl.OOO,OOO. Suppo'e IN the same
year there had been sold 81 900 900 .yorth Of the
public lands, Virginia would be entitled TO her dis
nbuuve share OF 100000. | regard this view OF
he subject as conclusive: because from the nature
d me Government To which the grant of this fund
lad been made, there could not have been a com
ollanee with the terms Of those deeds except by
distribution amongst the States. In the examina
ION OF this subject, have referred 10 the lourna! Of
he Congress OF the Confederation and find that
n l'S5, there was complete contemporaneous ex
position OF the inienuon OF the scs OF cession -
The House will recoect that the deed from the
State Of Virginia was executed in I7si Al the
lrst session OF the Congress of the Confederation
fter The execution Of this deed, an ordinance was
'assed hTing the price OF these lands at per acre
n certificates of public debt. This ordinance di- |
cCttu lheu 10 oe OlNiueu as last as SURVEYED /
portions, according TO the quotas OF the States
n the last acquisitions distributed among the diff |
erent States, and offered at every county court
louse- This ordinance, II should be remembered |
vas passed at the first session of the Congress of
he Confederation after the execution of Inc des5
IF Virginia. The deed Of New York bears date
IN the year l7sl. Here, then, was n legislative |
settlement Of the construction OF these deeds made |
iOout the time oil their execution, showing beyond |
doubt that distribution OF the proceeds OF those |
ands was intended by the cedins States.
The gentleman from Louisa however. contends
hat the Distribution law violates ine trust irn posed
" ,he deeds OF eesson, which provide that thes.
ands shall be a common fund for the use and bene
u OF such OF the States" as "haye become, or as
hould become, members ofthe confederation III. |
ontends that this trust IS violated, because the Ter
torres and the District OF Columbia are 10 have |
portion of the Distribution fund. He admits the |
obligation Of Congress, TO carry out the intention Of
he deeds, and contends, that IN applying the land
und TO The current expenses Of the Government the
Intention OF the granOrs is carried out. Well | |
should like TO know OF the gentleman whether there
IS not the same objection TO his mode Of executing
The trust imposed bv those deeds as there is to The
Distribution law. According to his orgument. that
la" admits the Territories and the District Of Co.
.pm0a' ana merely violates the provisions OF the
deeds OF cession. And he proposes 10 onplv the
fund TO the support OF the General Government-
10 not all the Territories and the District of Coum
bra receive portion Of the fund under tie system3
ARE not the expenses attendant upon the Govern
ment OF the Territories we'll as the District de-
irayed out OF the National treasury The gentle
man must see that there the objection TO ms
plan as TO that proposed IN the Distribution law.
lie made another objection TO the Distribution
lav-ihnt provision by which the new States are %
receive 100000 acres OF and and 10 per cent on
the amount OF sales within their limits There NAV
be some inequality IN this; but IL Is not so prnssi,
unjust ne supposes. The object OF the Inyv i ~
make a distribution according 10 Federal nurrhsr,
the ratio being based on the census Of 1910 Tho
increase OF population IN some States is but ne,
cent IN ten years, whilst in others II is several hun
bred per cent large allowance, then, should b,
made to those States which increase so rapidIv i,
population. II the gentleman will examine he ma
ter he will ind !he concession 10 the new States MOI
to be great as he supposes. lie should alec -
collect that the new States have no mower IN IN,
the lands Of the Federal Government within tber
limits.
There is another conclusive answer 10 the orsu.
meni - the gentleman this branch Of the subisrt
HIS objections apply only TO the details of the men
sure and DO not justify its repeal, as his resolution
proposes.
| Illvlng considered this question in reference IN
the Constitution, as we'll TO the deeds Of eess,or
will now ende1vor 20 show, that there nevsr o.,
a more bald humOug Than this, now attempted 10
De palmed upon the people Of the u. S. 4 bev
have Teen told shat this fund Is wanted 10 det,,y,
the actual expenses Of the Government. and ,b.,
whilst this IL the state Of the Treasury Inc Wb,ss
propose TO give up this fund 70 the States ma ~
supply the deficiency by an increased Thrift unon
imports. ] will now proceed TO establish. Law an -
contTotertble evidence, that the large maio,tv y,
the political friends OF the gentleman from LONE,
never looked 10 tho public lands to defrny he or.
binary expenses Of the Government IL will be-