The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-28

State Of MARYLAND derived the local advantage from
to restore 10 them this money, thus offered donation,
fha, would pre- -ent different question. But this de-
mand is made claim, and that presents the ques
ton in my judgment, upon which we 10 act. Ii
ia treated here clam. In that view OF it, in my
opinion, il has no foundation in justice.
Mr. DAWSON The charge seems to be that the
State Of Virginia is not acting n good faith in asking
that this money be refunded. Now, beg 10 say that
the proceeds OF the public lands divided among the
States and that the share belonging Virginia has
been received BY her AS erstand il, her proper
ton OF that money is in the possession OF this gov
ernment The interest upon tina, money thus LEFT IN the
hands OF the United States would be, from the time when
Virginia might have claimed II, more than the amount OF
this claim perhaps five times much. In case Vir-
gna asks for and receives the money thus coming 10 her
from her share OF the public lands, che only
the sum ITSELF destitute OF interest. Viewing the matter
in that light. there would be improperly, in my judg
nfent. in paying This claim for I Virginia were 70 open
interest the so lei; IN our hands, While this gov
eminent has been paying from four to SIX per cent in
the money in question: see dshonor want OF good
faith and no want OF bera,y in her asking us 10 refund
this amount 10 her.
The yeas and nays being ordered,
Mr. BERRlEN said: Mr. President desire to state
very briefly the grounds upon which shall Not
wihstandng what has been said upon this subject. in
the OF this discussion am forced to consider this
q claim which the State OF Virginia justly has upon
this government When look at The original resolu {.
ton passed by the legislature OF Virginia, find there
stated advance which the State OF Virginia pro-
posed to make to the United States In the act which
WA subsequently passed, by the terms used de-
nominated grant. which was in that particular de-
parture from the offer the original resolutions
and upon the passing OF that bill lis title was altered
% make il conform with the terms OF the original
proposition; and instead OF an act granting 600
made act concerning advance OF $4,000 to
the United States
Now sir this act OF the secretary Of the State of vir.
gina ascertans the terms upon which they proposed
10 transfer this money the treasury of the United States
and It ascertans distinctly thar, in their vew II was an
advance and not agrant There was purpose, unques-
nnohl in rha nUlp fha arr a N al
purpose which they had full right to enter
tam and effect since they could do it consistently with
the terms OF the original ofer which related not to
grant. but to advance 1t rested clearly with Virginia,
and with the general government, to determine the
terms upon which this money TO be appropriated to
the of the United States Virginia the party ad
vancing She had the right say whether il should be a
grant advance, and the books of the treasury OF the
United States have nothing TO do with the question
believe advance made by Virginia. liable 10 rec
lamaton; and, distinct time specified for fund
ing this money, advance liable TO be reclaimed
on demand. and no time which might run against 1t
could be bar TO its recovery Now, can readily con
ceve why Virginia is not disposed to make this demand
There the pride natural to that State She aided the
government when it comparatively poor, furnishing
means for the erection OF the pubic buildings The
money appropriated. No doubt the advance was
influenced by the fact that the seat OF was to
to the terms OF the law by which this money was adj
yanced, upon demand, to reclaim it, She would have a
legal right to the money She may not choose TO make
this demand for her benefit but she may choose to
assign il for beneficial purposes 10 internal Improvement
and finally for the benefit OF public schools The fact
that she does so furnishes in my judgment, sufficient
justification for asking that the money advanced TO
should be refunded, while 1t furnishes the government
opportunity 10 relieve herself from the imputaon Of be-
ing the object of public charity. AS understand the
matter, Virginia is transferring this fund--fTst. 10 the
Alexandra railroad for the benefit OF that enterprise
and. finally, when il shall have been refunded from that
TEMPORARY investment is 10 80 10 the establishment OF
public schools Virginia them exercising her right re-
claims this money first for useful public work, and then
for the benefit OF the cause OF education
Mr. pta.tdou mya pIyaa rail- l
10 this subject months ago, wnen examined il very
thoroughly. do deem it necessary present views
which have been already 50 well presented BY Others
simply TO declare that entertain doubt that the
claim Of the State of Virginia is good claim, just
h. vo,s ~, ah ha 9nues an s eorday
Mr. PRATT Mr. President, Alexandria, the point to
be most benefited by the action Of the Senate in favor OF
this hill is the natural market OF the people OF native
county The question: therefore, 10 one with regard 10
which may be excused for saying word Now, sir,
to new the question with all It's surrounding circum-
Stances which think necessary TO night
ing Of IT, as II presents itself to my mind, II is this: Here
contingent, appropriation upon the part OF the Sale OF
Virginia towards the construction OF railroad running
from Alexandra westward through the State Of Viz.
ginia-a road not only beneficial to that town and that
State but beneficial to the District Of Coumb and to all
the adjoining portion of Mary landa road that gen.
tlsen only acknowledge TO be beneficial to that par
tcular town city, but to that part OF the District OF CO.
lumbia which ceded by the State OF Maryland and
which still remains the District OF Columbia
Now, sir il is said by the senator from New Jersey
and Others that Virginia does make the claim TO the
government She has assigned this claim, and this AL
exandna company here and present II TO the
government claim. Now, for the life OF me-
/ cannot see, where assigns claim TO an
other one, to set it up claim against the gov
eminent, and when the assignee OF that individual OF
government and claims of the party against whom
the claim supposed exist that is not much the
claim Of the assgnor the assignor in person
Where is the distinction between Virginia setting up
claim against this government Tor the amount OF S20 900
originally appropriated 10 construct public buildings and
assigning il claim this government, To be used in
the construction OF this road Does not the asslgDor
here when this assignee comesl Is not, there
FORE claim upon the part of the assgnor They have
asslgned to this company with the expectation that
from this government they might receive the money or
the purpose OF constructing this work oil internal i'm
provement Now, sir, any point OF view in which my
mind has been enabled to look this question: it seems
to ought to pay it. Take the view just given by
the honorable senator from Connecticut, tMr. BALDWIN
He says that il donation, and that IL was entered
fifty years ago upon the books OF the treasury dona-
ton. and IL is set up donation on the part OF
Virginia and then ask any senator to say whether,
donation having been made TO this government when il
was wanting this donation, and when willing 10 accept
H. and when the party which made the donation
dcaies willingness accep, back the money il is
proper Tor the government TO restore that which the
senator said was donation. Now, do not think the
fast that it donation is strong argument as
could be made why this government is bound restore
IT, One word more, and IL is all intend to say. Upon
tbs pan Of Maryland 60 moi apprehend there will
Be claim for that part she has advanced She is not
divorced, does she wish TO be divorced from that
pa Of her marriage portion Ii has been received and
sto does ask To be returned shall vote for this
with great pleasure, and hope II will pass.