The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-08-01

10 look into the subject not in regard 10 this case bu in
reference others, very carefuy-l am not aware OF
single instance IN which Congress has passed under
taking 10 dlven The school authorities OF any State OF
their titles TO school lands alter their selection aud
] hrmailon.
/ Mr. DOWNS. This Carson case is one TO the point
/ MIR BORLAND. | am not acquainted with that case !;
II has escaped my observation But think can under
take to say, regard question of law, though am
no lawyer. that ii Congress had passed such ac IL
would be Of force ALL and the Stale authorities
the school authorities apy time enforce Their ule
and claim their land. matter into whose hands II may
have passed in consequence OF the law which Congress
had no power TO make A md when Congress has made
grant OF land, and that land has been selected and the
title confirmed. whether the grantee be individual
Slate, school, they have authority 10 pass
act to take back that property without the OF
the than they have go into any State
in this Union, and by any act they may pass dives any
individual OF landed property that he may have been pos
sessed Of for fifty years.
But rose principally to make inquiry of the
ator from Louisiana Mr. DowNs] upon this subject 1t
proposed understand that this grant of land shall be
made to this individual upon condition that the school
authorities OF this township shall consent to it, Is that
| Mr. DOWNS. The proviso in the bill is as follows
Provided, That nothing in this shall be construed
reduce the quantity OF land to which said township
| Mr. BORLAND The inquiry intended to make was
in reference TO the that be required from the
town authorities. Now, as understand this matter, in
the State of Louisiana the township has nothing TO do
| with the school lands. BY provision of their consu
lion. that land is 10 be made into fund-It is now
consolidated fund by the legislation of the Stateand
vested in the town authorities And nothing hut an ac
OF their legislature, together with act of Congress-
would be competent to make such grant as this valid
| Mr. DOWNS. think that the provso will show that
the point of both the honorable gentlemen Messrs
SHIELDS and BoRLANDl fails entirely. Their argument
is as understand it, that il is not competent for Con-
gress lake away from this township the particular
quantity of land which has been given them. Now,
the bill is 10 be passed with express provision in it
that it shall not diminish the quantity OF land given TO
them Does no, that remove al the force Of that objec-
/ Now. If be UOssible--anu ii IL be DOssibe.
there is in passing this aw-o give this indvld
ua his right preempiioner and not dvest the school
authorities OF the amount OF land given to them, there
will be injury done TO tbem-not the least The bill
deprive The proper school authorities OF of
land and yet the gentleman says the bill ought not to
pass Why, sir, the provisions of the bill answer
every objection that has been made against it,
i Mr. BORLAND The senator is mistaken if he sup
poses that the mere allowance OF the same quantity of
land will be equally beneficial TO them. The honorable
senator from Louisiana Mr.. DowNs] knows very well
that the value of land does depend much upon the
quantity upon the quality and locality OF it. And 10
show this, will state that in my State there
exchanges made by act Of Congress OF school lands for
other lands which very seriously injured the school in
erest There two Instances that call TO mind
but they were before the title the lands had been per-
ieced and while they mere reservations In one
case, the 10th section was deemed proper one on &C
count of its situation upon which 10 locate town-hat
was in the county of Washington the western part OF
Arkansas The county authorities desired TO have this
10th section the location for the seat OF justice Tor that
county, and application made 10 Congress for II and
this 10th appropriated to that county accord
ngy for that purpose, 10 be laid oil in town lots and TO
be sold for the purpose OF building courthouse and
lail, and the school commissioners permitted 10
make a selection of section somewhere else Now, the
proceeds OF The sale of the 10th section upon which the
town built sufficient TO have endowed a col
ege, while the other section, which was obtained IN lieu
thereof did not yield enough to establish the commonest
sort of common school, So IN the other case Con-
gvess passed act she 10Th section ~ the coun
ty of Crawford for the tishment OF military depot
and fort--Fort Smith-and the school commissioners
allowed TO somewhere else and get another sec.
of I.nI Nn,u al N 1hp Ian L N
Fort Smith aud its orlhcatons stand would be sut
6cient endow college, while 10 this day they have
not derived enough from the section they had at last to
establish school IN that county II IS for that
reason that | opposed to making these changes oil
reservations 10 say nothing about the want OF power to
do so in this
Now know nothing OF this particular case-I know
nothing of the party be benefited by this ball But APP
prchend that il fact that this piece OF land TO which
this individual seeks a pre-emplon right is worth
four times much as any other piece oil land IN mat
county.
u Mr. DOWNS SO it was 10 the of Carson.
Mr.. BORLAND So, II you grant pre- -empuon to this
individua-hat is If you have the power 10 do so-you
will give him land al 81 IS per that is worth $40 OF
$780, 25 per and force the school authorities ogo
and select piece elsewhere in lieu OF this you will
have taken away from them, which is not worth even
ST. per all events is very certain not 10 be
worth than that because IN that region OF Louisiana
all the land which is saeable has been taken up In
that ay you defeat the benebcent object OF Congress IN
making this reservation of land for the purposes oil
schools You give for the benefit OF individuals the
most valuable lands, and you the schools off upon
lands which will not SELL and is not sold Tor years. or
81 rs an acre. thus making the grant altogether lneth'
cen for the purposes for which II originally made
There may be of individual hardship. individual.
may has been the settle by mistake upon school
lands In all these would 60 as far as had law
ful authority go TO relieve them. But when am met
by an obstacle, think this where IN The
first place find want OF power, and an ACT for this puf.
pose if passed. would be worth nothing il the school
authorities think proper 10 contest IT. and, IN the mex
place. we should be doing wrong 10 the schools
for the benefit OF individual, cannot go for It'll dc
, not feel a, liberty TO vote for any such bill.
Mr. RUSk | can no difficulty IN the passage o
this bill have inyestgat the facts and the discussion
seems TO me TO have been based upon wrong idea to
the actual facts The bill Affects this individual, and
nobody else and by failing TO pass IT, an injury may
possibly result the settler upon the land understand
iba, he has been there number OF years. As 10 the
pre- empon right given him under this law, IT II be moi
absolutely school land he is already entitled to pre- emp
ton. II il be school land and vested in the proper
authority by of Congress- and the consequent act o
the officers of releasing the title does not give
him the title II the bill stood merely upon that footing
think ii ought to pass. But II IS guarded. There an
express proylso to the BILL which prevents him from
claiming il at all it within the quantity OF land
to which the school district is entitled Under these cir
cumstances, have difficulty whatever 10 voting fo
the bill.
No amendment being offered the bill reported 70
the Senate and ordered TO be engrossed for third read
ing.
| JOSHUA HENNEDr.
u Mr. CLEMENS. | move that the Senate proceed q
the consideration OF the Senate bill No 257. hsa b
which has been several tunes reported IN favor Of by
Senate committee IL has three times passed. the senate
and has passed the House of Representatives al an
ept sessions think there can be no oblecuon TO IT,