Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1857-03-27

But IL is said that the only constitutional appro-
priation in this regard Is the putting of the proceeds
of the land sales into the general treasury, 10 make
there part of the fund for the payment of the com
mon liabilities of the Union; and that there Is
press grant of power in the constitution apporon
the public lands in kind, or to distribute their pro-
ceeds among the States
Now this argument proves too much. There is no
express grant Of power put ss land saie, INTO
fis treasury. When Congress orders them to be put
there, IT does not by virtue OF any express grant
TO that effect hut by the exercise of power ineiden
tai to- and necessarily resulting from, the express
| power ITO dispose fand make all nee1fl regulations
respecting the territory other property belonging
10 the United States" II Is an implied power alto
gcther--a means to accomplish end-a thing nc
cessary and proper to give effect to express sub
stanive power and the means being strictly afpro-
pirate to the end, il Is constitutional
This argument then. all are that prove 90 much
is utterly worthless Indeed carried literal ap-
plication il strps Congress OF all authority over the
public lands aud leaves fund in sort Of perpetual
allegiance.
And here, sail Mr. s. 1t may not be il-timed to
introduce important item of history bearing direct
ly on the point in issue
When the subject Of land distribution was under
NlrtNrNioH III lht ilbuat VI pi IN
the year l539, a proposition was submitted by Mr..
smith, OF Isle Of Wight to The effect that the placing
OF the proceeds Of the land sales in the federal rea
sury was the mos. equitable mode Of disposition oil
them aud it voted down by large majority
The proposition in the form of the following
resolution:
Rcsoioed That the application OF the proceeds of
the sales of the public Lands Of the United States 10
the general purposes ofibo Government in carving
into effect the powers granted by the Constitution, Is
that disposition OF them which IS most equitable ard
which will most elicetuaiy and equally enure TO the
use aud benefit Of all the States
Now this resolution WIS offered a. substitute for
certain resolutions of a committee which affirmed
that the most equitable plan of disposng of the
nett proceeds of the public anda Is by distributing
the same in just proportions among all the States
And the substitute was rejected by vote of 80 to
al-a vote which not only affirmed the constitutions
atty Of distributing the proceeds of the public lanas
among the States but the preference Of this mode OF
disposition all others. Among those who voted
against Mr. Smith substitute we're Messrs Gilmef
Bayly Carson, Armstrong Tyler. Crutehdeld and
fothers of the less distinguished Of the De
mocracy.
Both ofthc political parties then, in this State aro
committed to the consttnlionality and expedency of
the policy of distribution
1t Is further said that If can call upon Congress
TO distribute the present future proceeds Of the
bud shlcs, we may 50 bta. and lem md our proper
Tomato share OF the lands already disposed oil by par
tu appropriation True, snid Mr. $. and ii would
be but eyenhanded justice And so thought the
popular branch Of the Legislature of Virginia n lew
years ago, whenpary spirit had not reached its pre-
sent maldeninR height.
In 1889, Mr.. Nennbe, of Prince Edward lead
Jag Democratic member, offered the following resolu-
ton.
Reyolred "'rhat the principles OF Justice aud eqot,
require that the government OF lie United Statrs,
should account With such Of the Stttos as have re-
cciyed no appropriations from the public lands, Of
money arising from the sales thereof in such
MS viii place said States an equal footing IN this
respect with the States that hare received nppropra
tons
Aud this resolution adopted by vote of II 10
-.
Among those who thus voted for retropsctire dis
Iribudln, Mcssrs. Gilmer Bnyy, Vaughan,
Watkins, armstrong, fyer, Ratejie, Yenable Crutch-
ield Goodson, aud other prominent men of the De
muCrAcy.