The Yazoo City Whig. [volume] (Yazoo, Miss.) 1844-1851, 1845-11-28
vol. 10, No. Whole No. 40.

thing else i just what the buyer please 10
give for them. The power 10 make baT>
gain implies the power 10 make a bad az
well as good one, and the power 10 traffic
with the States for their land implies also
the power 10. traffic with them for all kinds of
public property y
The argument IS further illustrated By
Preference TO MARYLAND and PENNSYLVANIA
States which have no 5,,f whose
works OF internal improvement are valuable;
and 4 is urged that the principle upon
which Congress could assume the debts Of
Texas, ia return for a transfer of her lands,
would warrant with equal force an assump-
ton Of the debt Of Maryland, on condition
Iof surrender other interest in her works Of
internal improvement.
We shall not deny the correctness of His
analogy. Undoubtedly If Congress can as
sumo The Of Texas 10 consideration Of
her public lands. she can assume the debt of
] MARYLAND loi any consideration which may
be deemed valuable. In 1896 Congress did
assume the debts of all the States, and for
two fold consideration First, because
the debts Of the States had been mainly
contracted in the common war Of the reVol.
uuon; and, secondly, because the States
gave up their interest in the lands, and
agreed that the great property Of theirs
lshould be applied to the liquidation of the
aggregate funded war debt, State and Ma,
tional.
By The assumption law of 1895, a Sc
parate account was opened on the books of
the Treasury with each State. Can there
be any doubt of the constitulionality of that
law9 Can tlere be any doubl of the fact
thai the power 10 assume the debts Of a
] State, when an equitable case is presented,
does exist in the General Government A
State organization has a personality Of ifs
, own, 50 has an individual citizen. If the
properly of a citizen is taken By the Governs
; ment for public purposes, it istO be argued
) that there is no constitutional power 10
, make him compensa ion7 Inreference 20 a
State The same principles applies.
II is desiraEle ia al points os view that
the public lands Of Texas should be trans
; ferFed to the General Government, as the
great permanent trustee of the States; be
cause Il would be an anomaly that any Stale
should have separate land system of IFS
own. with the power Of making treaties for
the extinguisbment of Indian titles. These
things properly and Of necessity belong 10
the General Government. But is il inst or
right that the General Government should
take this Texian property and return equiv.
aienls
There are two modes by which the thing
could be equitabIy arranged. The General
Government might either hold the public
iands OF Texas, as well as those formerly
tFanterFed by the other States, and make an
annual distribution of the proceeds of sales
among the States; OF itmig ht hold the lands
: in IFS own right, in consideration of its as
suming the debts of the States, including
Texas The non-indebted States might
draw their annual dividends. or part with
their Interest in the public lands, FOR sum
proPortionate to their respective shares. II
this were done, a long-vexed question
I would be settled; the relation Of the States
with the General Government would be har
moniousiy determined, and the general pros
perlty would be vastly promoied.-Ba An