The Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1849-1855, 1851-03-20
ST PAUL MINNESOTA TERRITORY THURSDAY, MARCH

to these measures, but / deem it my du-
iy to state to the House that the COM
mittec have had this matter for some
time under consideration, and discussed
the proposition at considerable length,
and decided against it. The proposition,
after having been rejected by the Com
lnittee on Public Lands, was brought be-
fore another committee, which had no
relation to this matter. 1t is my duty to
state to this House that the Committee
on Public Lands rejected the PROPOSE
ton.
1t does not follow, Mr. Chairman,
that because gentlemen may happen to
reside in cities, that they can know moth
ing about the public lands / would
merely say this, in Justification of the
course that committee, that several Of
them do not reside in the city districts
My opinion is that no project or measure
could be more unpopular in giving these
lands for the purpose recommended in
this proposition, than, perhaps, to come
here four years hence and ask Congress
to refund to the Territory of Minnesota
all the damage which had been done to
these lands by means OF our own legis-
atiOn.
Mr.. Siblcy said: Mr. Chairman, I do
not wish to consume the time of the
committee by discussing this matter
further, but | must say that the char
man ofthc committee on Public Lands
Mr.. BowIn has fallen into very Sc
rious error III regard to this matter be-
ing brought before this committee
This proposition has never been sub
mitted to that committe; there has been
nothing of the kind done, as far as |
know any thing about it. l brought Up,
at the last session, proposition that
the territory should have the right to
sell every thirty-sixth section, to be ap-
piled 10 the support of the schools in
theterrltory, which was referred to the
committee on public lands; hut there
was nothing said about leasing the pub
lie lands for the purposes specified in
this bill. That proposition was never
made. 1t was thought best to refer this
matter to the committee on territories,
because it was considered more ger
main to the business of that committee
than to the business ofthe committee on
Public Lands. hope that section will
not be amended as proposed by the chair
man fthe committee onthe public Lands
Mr.. Sweetser rose to make remark
but the chairman said no further debate
was in order.
The question was then taken on the
amendment Of the gentleman from Mis-
souri,. Mr.. .Bowlin, and it was agreed
to.
The chairman, asked if there was any
other amendment to The bill?
Mr.. Siblcy moved the following amend
ment, to come in at the close of the last
section ofthe bill:
| Proriacd, That whenever the lands now
reserved for military purposes in the vi
cinity of Fort Smelling, or any portion
thereof, shall be exposed to sale, the
proceeds ofsuch sale shall be applied as
part Of the fund contemplated by this
section, and the number Of acres thus
sold shall be deducted from the two town
ships secured to said territory of Min
nesota by this act, for the support and
endowment of University, and for no
other purpose whatever.
Mr.. S. wished simply to state, that
the purport of the amendment was to
give the Secretary of the interior or the
Secretary of War power to sell the
same number Of acres included in the
reservation around Fort Smelling as is
provided in the third section, if there
should prove to be that mnch good land
in it, for the purpose OF establishing a
University in the Territory as soon as
sale could be made.
Mr.. Vinton said: Mr.. Chairman, |
hope the amendment will not prevail.
The effect of the amendment viii be,
that these lands, appropriated for the
remaining permanent fund in the
shape of lands to be leased, and the
proceeds applied to the support Of Uni
versity, they will be sold and the pro-
ceeds applied TO other objects. Now,
if this provision is carried into effect
and authority is given to sell the lands
| will venture to say, the territorial
government will squander the money
for other purposes in less than two
years. am opposed to any such pro-
vision.
The question was then taken on the
amendment, and 1t was rejected.