The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-03-03

nothing therefore, in the mode OF acquisition 10 author
ize the distinction which exists between the old and The
new States do not mean 10 that the old Stales
ought TO have made partition OF all the territory at the
close OF the revolution But il territory acquired
by conques--wrested from the hands OF the British
Crown Although OF the States had charters, they
would not have been worth the parchment which they
were written but Tor the conquest OF the territory by the
men of the revolution. Some OF the old States-North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia among the
berweTe regal Provinces and the unappropraicd lands
within their limits undoubtedly the property oil the
Crown prior 10 the revolution ! believe, nevertheless
should hold the conquered territory within their respective
limits the property Of the individual States In my
opinion il resulted as matter OF public law 1t may be
right that the territory ceded by the States for the benefit
OF the United States and that acquired from foreign
tons should be owned controlled, and disposed OF by
the United States; and consequently that the States
formed out Of such territory should be required TO
render all claim 10 the unoppTopriaed lands All mean
to say now is. that the new States have not the control
or management OF the land and in that respect as IN
Others they have not the sovereignty and inde
pendeDce accorded TO the old States
Mr. Rzasilsal kasssx-4hs. Asrisg %he-ren
dency OF the revolutionary war; when the confederation
about to be formed, Maryland refused to accede 10
it, claming-no that any territory within the reasonable
all the States, buttha the waste lands in the indefinite
boundaries claimed by OF them should become the
common property OF the confederated States.
On the 10th of October, $780, the Congress OF the
federation passed resolution inviting cession OF these
lands by the States. Ii is:
" That the unapgropriated lands that may be ceded or
pursuant to the m Of Congress Of the 9Th day
OF September last shall be disposed Of for the common
distinct republican States which shall become members OF
the federal Uaon and have the same rights Of sovereignty
After some provisions relating the size of the States
be formed and the expenses incurred in subduing the
ceded territory. the reso luton provides
Tbat the said lands shall be granted and settled such
times and under such regulations shall hereafter be
agreed by the United States in Congress, assembled
any nine more Of them"
rI,,tipu fort thu nf
minds OF senators to the original object OF the cesson,
and the disposition that designed to be made Of the
land and which ought to be made OF IL, in the opinion OF
Under that resolution cessons made by New York,
Virginia. Massachusetts. Connecticut and South Caroli-
na before the adoption of the constitution OF these
sons the deed from Virginia the only that contains
the clause much relied by the honorable senator
from Kentucky, and which he supposes creates dstnc-
ton and imposes obligation upon the United States to
make different disposition OF the lands within the North
west Territory from the lands acquired from other States
which have been ceded by the treaties with France
Span and Mexico That deed cedes the land "to be
sidered fund for the and benefit OF such
OF the United States have become or shall become
members of the confede ration or federal alliance OF the
said States Virginia included according TO their usual re-
specve proportions OF the general charge and expend
ture and shall be faithfully and bona de disposed of for
other purpose whaiever
lucky that This clause the lands in the Northwest
Territory now embracing live States and directs the only
use 10 which they can be applied His position is that il
was trust for the benefit OF the individual States
units and not the United States as a unit he referred
support of his Interpretation to- an ordinance passed in
1885, in which il proposed to make disposition
corresponding as he says with this clause OF the deed of
cesson of Virginia. But he forgot 10 say that in l7Ss,
by another ordinance of Congress, that clause was re,
pealed mpractcable We have, then, the opinion OF
The Congress Of the confederation that impractical
BILE conform TO the terms OF the Virginia cesson,
the honorable senator from Kentucky supposes they
must now be carried out
In the convention which assembled for the purpose Of
forming the constitution, Mr. Madison on the 18th OF
August 17S7 made proposition 10 add 10 the powers OF
Congress the following:
"To dispose OF the unapproprised lands of the United
Statesj to institute temporary governments ior the new
States arising therein"
This take IT, the origin OF the third section OF
the fourth article OF the constitution ii adopted;
and, to my mind, the second clause covers the whole
subject OF the power OF Congress the public lands
We have nothing 10 do with the deeds OF cession
That clause was assented 10 by all the Sates Virginia
included and ii became the law-the supreme law-on
the subject Of the public lands. It provides that
"The Congress shall have power dispose Of and make
other properly belonging the United States and nothing
In this shall be construed prejudice any
claim OF the United States, or OF any particular State.
What territory then belonged to the United States other
than the Northwest Territory, which is supposed TO
be covered alone by the deed OF cesson II il had been
designed 10 refer only 10 future acquisitions, and to ex
cude territory which was then owned by the United
States a very different phraseology would have been
adopted The clause OF the constitution, in terms, in
cudes all OF the territory then belonging TO the United
States and conforms ,s the resolution OF 1880 respect
10 the disposition OF the lands eposng IN Congress the
power make such disposition as they might deem ex
pedient.
Stress has been sometimes laid upon the latter part OF
the clause in question limiting the power OF Congress
over the territory previously ceded the mode OF dispo
son contemplated by the deeds OF cesson-an interpre
alion, in my judgment, forbidden by the plain import Of
the language employed. II the dams OF the States
and the United States respectively, they stood at the
time OF the adoption OF the constitution, but does not
limit purport to limit, IN any way, the poutr granted
Congress ito dispose OF the territory other property
OF the United States" however acquired AT that time
neither North Carolina Georgia had ceded any part OF
the unapproprsted lands Both claimed TO the Misss.
sippi, and both claims disputed Georgia had no
evidence OF title but commission OF the governor OF the
Province Virginia and Connecticut bad made reserva
tons Of lands their deeds OF cession. New York ceded
only her claim OF property reserving her jurisdiction.
The object OF the clause question appears 10 have been
the rights and claims OF the respective parties
they then were, without prejudice TO either, and not TO
limit restrain the power OF either over property belong
ing 10 them respectively.
Ii supposed by the honorable senator from Virginia.
Mr. HUNTER.1 that the obligation to dispose OF the
ded lands according 10 the terms OF the deeds OF
is recognised and continued by the first clause OF the sixth
section of the constitution, which declares that all debts
contracted and engagements entered into before the adop
ton OF the constitution shall be as valid against the UNI
ted States under the constitution under the confedera.
ton" But that Interpretation would supersede, by I'M
plicaton express power lin terms unlmited) over the
whole subject ratified By all the States, including the par
ties to the cessions II the authority OF Congress over
the ceded lands limited and controlled by The deeds oil
cession there AT the time OF the adoption OF The con
stituon no territory subject to the power delegated by
that instrument and satisfactory reason can be as
signed for tbeg grant
The clause in question cannot, think be regarded
al hy