Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1858-01-08
From the Washington Union.


Distribution of the Proceeds of the PupIic Lands.
At the close of the revolution the whole territory east
of the Mississippi except Florida belonged to some of
the States To pay the debts which had been contract
ed by the Congress on account of the war; and those
smed which had been incurred by the States to sustain
the common cause and to aid in meeting the expenses
of the new government the following cessions were made
to wit By New York in 1881 Virginia in 1854
Massachusetts, in 1885 Connecticut in 1885, and South
Carolina in 1887 to the government during the confed
Grafton and by North Carolina in $780, and Georgia
in 1902 to the new government after the formation and
adopton of the Constitution These cessions included
the territory now embraced in the States of Mississippi
Alabama Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio Indiana, Michi-
gan and Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota 1t is also
commended by that these cessons extended north of
Missouri to the Pacific including Oregon and Washing
ton and the territory between them and the Mississippi
river
Since these cessions we have acquired by treaty For
ia and Louisiana, with indefinite extension North
and West as well as California and New Mexico. We
have perfect and undisputed title to Oregon and Wash
ngtOn, but whether acquired under old British grants,
by purchase from Louisiana, by discovery by all
three, has been the subject of differing opinions. All
these acquisitions whether from the States foreign
governments otherwise subject to the right of
occupancy less extensive by the native Indians
which, through treaties has been extinguished
by payments from our common treasury The consider
alton for all these purchases has been drawn from the
treasury without reference to the source from which the
mainly from the customs certainly so in the first in
stance. It is disputed question, whether public
lands the whole, have produced us more than their
COST which properly includes the expense of surveys and
SALE of territorial governments of the and military
charges they have occasoned and also the interest upon
these various expenditures. It would require more
skul accountant than are to settle demopstrativey
this point though suspect if an accurate statement
were made there would be little left standing to the
dit of our land account
But with our views, this point is not of controlling
Importance indeed very little should be attached to it.
No denies that it is lawful for the national govern
men to receive hold and all the income derived from
the sales of the public lands however they may have
been acquired 1t has legal right to continue to do
what it has done since the acquisition of the differ
ent parcels. Its right to receive and use, without
change of the laws of Congress- has been universally ad
mted Does there exist adverse claim in relation to
the proceeds of the sales? small party insists that
such right does exist in the several States. Whence
is it derived? 1t is not found condition of the
slons made by the States in our acquisitions is it
among the stpulatons entered into with foreign govern
mens the Indian tribes. No trust has been created
| by words or implication, which is binding upon the
federal government, requiring that distribution of
all or any part of the derived from the public
lands shall be made The States in their cessons spe-
CITED no trust in their own favor; there decafa-
ton of such trust by the national government there
no pretence that fraud was committed by the latter
upon the cedng States which induced them part with
their legal title which equity could ought to restore
it cannot be alleged that the national government mis-
applying the funds derived from the cessions for the
reason that they have been applied only in strict conor
nifty with law The acquisitions from foreign govern
ments have been obtained by the Of means drawn
from the national treasury and there nothing anywhere
tending to show that the moneys derived from the sales
OF lands ought not to be paid into it. The purchase
was made for the common benefit and with our common
means If profitable, the nation is entitled to all the
profit that may accrue and if there shall be losses result
ing thereom the national treasury alone must support
and bear the loss If the government were acting as
trustee to the State governments relation to the pub
lie lands to ente them to the net proceeds accr-
ing theretrOm, those governments would be equitaby
bound to make good any losses that might If
both the national and State governments suable in
equity, upon what ground could the former make the
latter responsible for losses If the federal government
could not sustain bill in equity for such losses as might
occur the States could not maintain action pro
fits because the rights of both must be reciprocal 1t
would be nequabe for the States to demand profits if
any accrued without sustaining the losses if such should
occur The very essence of equitable adjustment in
where there fraud is that the trustee shall
make honest est s @ and h w66a nfe &c MeheyeE
to compel trustee to pay balance when found in his
hands, and not reimburse him for losses he might suffer
Now if the balance should be against the States not
one of them could be compelled to pay it, would one
admit its liability. It follows that the States have
neither legal equitable right to the proceeds of the
sales of the public lands and that they not liable
make good any deficiency or loss If they possess neither
right then what claim they have to moneys derived
from the sales Of the public lands They have right
under their cessons and under purchases by
any agreement account of any consideration paid
by them have they been defrauded of their proper
y
But, if the federal government is trustee, for whom
does it hold these trusts AS to the cessons by the sew
era States it would that they alone would be en-
titled to what may remain AS only seven States made
cessons distribution could be made to the other TWEEN
tyfour The funds accruing from lands purchased by
treaties stands clear of all rational preence of being
trust.
The government made the purchase, running the haz-
ards of profit loss The States have no stronger claim
to this fund than to derived from the sale of DANA
ged military stores the site of old fort 1t is clear
in either that the States have not nov any right
the proceeds of land sales It requires as all admit
law of Congress to confer it. Such law, if extended
to the revenues from customs, would stand upon the
same foundation Both equally belong to the national
treasury Is there constitutional authority for such
law? Clearly not The constitution provides that " the
Congress shall have power to dispose Of and make all
needul rules and regulations respecting the territory
other property belonging to the United States This
places the lands in the situation as other property
When sod the money for both lands and other property
must 60 into the treasury and when once there it car
only be drawn out in consequence of appropriations
made by law Money can only De appropriated for
constitutional object This conno mean that it can be
drawn out for distribution Those who claim that the
power of distribution exists are bound to point out thai
power before it is exerted No one pretends to find i
in the constitution it is claimed as result of the sup
posed trust No careful reader of the constitution will
contend that duties direct taxes can be collected fol
distribution The very terms of the power exclude al
! such meaning.
Ii money collected from any shall be distrbu
ted 1T will be done in violation of the constitution
There not line word in that