Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1857-05-02

both those coded to it and those purchased
by it, have yielded gross revenue of only
S58 ,007 298; SO that it is impossible that
the ceded lands alone can yet have suficed
to discharge the Revolutionary debt. which
was upwards of 800, 600 coo. or that they
ever can reimburse TO the Federal Treasury
the amount paid out of it in discharge of that
debt, since not more than 40, 600, 600 acres
of the ceded lands now remain the property
Of the government But if an accsuut is
taken of the whole public lands, it will APP
pear that up to September 30th, 1899, they
had cost the government Sl8.S57 90 50
more than they had yielded. He had al
ready stated that since then the gross pro-
cceds of the public lands had amounted but
to SOS, 007 ,29S, from which, deducting
SIS, S57 045 SO, there remain something
upwards of $50, 600, 600, From this de
duct $25, coo, 600 paid by the government
to Mexico for our acquisitions from her,
next the amounts paid BY the government
for the extinguishment of Indian titles, and
the expenses Of surveying, selling, andother
proper charges, and it will appear that the
public lands have never yielded one cent Of
nett revenue, and are, in fact, still indebted
to the Treasury. Up to this time then,
there were no nett proceeds to distribute.
With regard to the great bulk of the lands
purchased by the revenues of the federal
government, Mr. Stuart had argued, that
since those revenues had been derived from
the people Of the several States, there was
a resulting trust IN their favor, to the lands,
and had likened it TO the case of land pur-
chased in the name Of trustee with the
funds of several individuals. But the anal
ogy was false. Where land was purchased
with partnership funds, and was held by a
trustee, of limited powers, to be administer
ed for the benefit of the partnership, he
(Mr Skinner denied that the trustee could
distribute the land among the several part
ners. To do so would be tantamount
to dissolution of the partnership, and
the tendency Of distributing the property Of
the Union among the several States was to-
wards a dissolution Of that Union. Con-
gress, under the Constitution, has power
''to dispose of the territory or other prop
erty belonging to the United States" It has
no more power to dispose Of the land than
it has to dispose Of the ships, forts, dock
yards, or anything else which is property
of the United States. II Congress can sell
the lands and give away the proceeds to the
States, it may sell all the other property and
give away its proceeds likewise. lie did
not know that any one would contend that
Congress could distribute the revenues de-
rived from taxation, and yet it WAS difficult
to perceive how Congress could, simply by
converting those revenues into the form Of
land, and then converting the land back a
gain into money, become possessed Of such
power. These were very old arguments,
but he thought very conclusive and he
would say i'll additions that any one who
would examine the reasons urged, at the
time of the formation Of the Federal Con-
sttution, in favor Of and against its adop-
ton, would find, that while it was strongly
insisted that the government of the Union
should be invested with Independent powers
to provide for It's orn support, it never seems
to have been dreamed, that the government
would or could, ever become tax.eatherer
fer the States, or be called upon to bear the
State. burdens
The publication Of the argument of Mr..
skinner against the cxpcdicncy Of Distribu-
ton, We must postpone until next week.