Washington sentinel., 1854-06-06

presume, that u meets the point made by him
more fully thanany, ofthe others. 1t was exc
cuted in 1884, and its material part is as fol-
lows
That all the lands within ihe territory of the
nned States, and not reserved for or appro-,
prlsted 70 any OF the before mentioned purposes,
DR. disposed OF in bounties TO the officers and sol
diers ofthe American army, shall be considered a
common fund for tho mse and beneft of such Of the
United States as hare become, or shall become
oers ohe confederation federal alliance ofkhs said
States, Virginia included according TO their usual
respective proportions, in the general charge and
expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fde
disposed Of for that purpose, and for other use
or purpose whatsoever"
The President, as / understand him, takes
the ground that the stipulations of this deed
are part and parcel of the contracts and en-
gagements alluded to in the sixth section of
the Constitution, and that the attempt to give
ten millions of acres of land to the INDECENT in
sane being in violation Of these stipulations, is
consequently in violation of the sixth section of
the Constitution, and, therefore, void. think
this proper conception of the Presidents posi-
ton. | know that / have meant to state it
fairly.
Now, sir, suppose that this deed was actually
part of the Constitution; that instead of having
the power to dispose Of the lands without limi-
tation, as think we have under the Constitu-
ton, we had only the power to use them as
common fund for the use and benefit of such of
the States as belong to the Union, Virginia in
cluded, could we not even then pass this bill
DO we propose to employ this common fund
otherwise than for the use and benefit of all the
States The lands are spoken Of as common
fund in the deed. These lands or common
fundstothe amount of ten millions of acres, we
propose to divide among the several States, in
a compound ratio of geographical area and re-
presentation in the House of Representatives.
Now, if we SO use them, is not the use for the
benefit of all the States of the Union, Virginia
included2 Mark you, the language Of the deed
is, that the land shall be considered as COM
mon fund.- for the use and benefit of all the
States. When You take a part for the use of
schools in few States, another part for the
use of railroads in other States, and another
part for the use Of swamp drainage in other
States, as you have done time and time again,
are you employing common fund for the use
and benefit Of all the States? Of what use or
benefit is common school in Mississippi to
the State Of New York? And how is Massa-
chusetts benefited by draining swamp in Ar
kansas Ifthere be resulting use and benefit
to the old States, in giving lands to the new
States, how much more apparent will this use
and benefit become, if you give the lands
directly to the old States themselves.
To my mind this is the first land bill ever
brought forward in the true spirit of the deeds
of cession. 1t is the first bill that ever pro-
posed to divide the land among the States hav-
ing In them common interest, share and share
alike. The bill, to say the least, embodies an
equitable principle. 1tawards common fund
among the parties in interest, and says in plain
terms to the old States, and to the new, that
which we hold for the use and benefit of each
and every one of you, shall not be employed for
the use of one to the exclusion Of another.
But admitting this Interpretation ofthe deeds
to be correct, what becomes of all the lands ac-
quired by conquest and by purchase? They
certainly are not under the control Of the deeds
of cession from Virginia. Massachusetts, New
York, the Carolinas, and Georgia. All the
territory west of the Mississippi, river includ-
ing Oregon, Washington, Utah, and New Mex
leo, and the unsold lands in Louisiana, Arkan-
sas, Missouri, and other States west, was ac-
CURED otherwise than by those deeds ofcession.
Is the power Of Congress more ample over these
lands than over the unsold lands in Mississippi,
Alabama, and the other States lying within the
cessions from the old States 1t must be so, or
else the whole argument based on these deeds
falls to the ground. For by no torturing of
language can deed from Virginia or Massa-
chusetts be made to cover lands bought from
France or Spain, or conquered from Mexico.
am new State man, and am Just man.
And l now say to the new States, you have no
right to take from the common fund for col
leges, for schools, for railroads, for swamp
drainage, and for other special purposes of
your own, and then say to your older sisters,
you shall have no part for any purpose of yours
The old States having common interest in
common fund, have said to their younger sis
ters, take from this fund for colleges schools,
railroads, swamp drainage, and for other pur-
poses, and we have taken accordingly. Shall
we now say to them it is unconstitutional for
you to take for any purpose. Can we say so in
honesty and in good faith? Can we receive for
our schools and deny to the old States for their
asylums? And if we do will it not look as if
the violation of the Constitution consisted, not
in using The common fund for the particular
purpose designated in this BILL but rather in its
application to the use and benefit of the old
States? Who doubts that it is just as consti-
tutional to endow lunatic asylum in Missis.
sippi as to endow a college or university in
that State? Who questions that if Congress
may give lands in Illinois to educate sane chill
dren, it may give lands in the same State to
protect insane children? And can it he that
Congress may apply "a common fund.- held
for the use and benefit of all the States, to the
use and benefit of new States, to the exclusion
Of the old States? This must be assumed as
true, or else it follows rresistibly that the lands
being the common fund, and it being consti-
tutional to give to Mississippi and Illinois, it is
equally constitutional to give to North Caro-
lima and Virginia. And then, again, unless it
shall be shown that it is unconstitutional to en-
dow lunatic asylum per SO, it will follow that
if you can give to college in Alabama from
the common fund, you may give to an asylum
in Delaware from the same fund.
think it hardly necessary to dwell upon the
argument of the President, based on the pledge
of the government to devote these lands to the
payment of the public debt. With an over,
flowing treasury, and the government con-
stantly seeking sources of expenditure, it will
hardly strike the bondholders or any one else,
that there is violation of faith in disposing of
these lands in the mode proposed. If any of
the bondholders feel uneasy about the secur-
ties, they have only to present their bonds at
the treasury and receive their money.
The same argument employed by the Pres-
don't now WAC pmployed hv others wbap tho