Proceeds of the Sales of the Public Lands. [23d CoNG. 1st SESS. ing on this warfare, has been cruelly imputed to the wan- The framers of the constitution, anticipating the possi ton action of the bank, though struggling for its own ex-ble attempts of a Chief Magistrate to defeat the passage istence against the most formidable efforts to crush it. of bills which had passed both Houses of Congress, by The calm and dignified tone which characterizes the retaining them an indefinite length of time, prescricommunications of the committee of directors, under cir-bed a period within which they should be returned by cumstances like these, is, to the undersigned, a satisfac-him, or become laws, without his approbation. "If any tory indication of their integrity and conscious purity. They have placed themselves where, as American citi. tens, conscious of their rights, of their injuries, and of their innocence, they had a right to place themselves, under the protection of the law. Firmly believing that they are innocent of the crimes and corruptions with which they have been charged, and that, if guilty, they ought not to be compelled to crimimate themselves, the undersigned are clearly of opinion bat the directors of the bank have been guilty of no conempt of the authority of this House, in having respectfully leclined to submit their books for inspection, except as equired by the charter. All which is respectfully submitted by EDWARD EVERETT, WILLIAM W. ELLSWORTH. IN SENATE, May 2, 1834. The Committee on the Public Lands, to which was reerred the message of the President of the 4th December, 1833, returning, with his objections, the bill which had nginated in the Senate, and had passed both Houses of Congress at the preceding session, entitled "An act to ppropriate, for a limited time, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands of the United States, and for granting and to certain States;" and to which has also been refered a new bill, with the same title, introduced into the jenate at the present session of Congress, has, according o order, had under consideration both the subjects thus eferred to it, and begs leave now to report: bill (says the constitution) shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." If it should be argued that the bill in question, having been presented to the President on the 2d of March, 1833, and the session closing on the 3d, Congress had, by its adjournment, prevented its return within the period limited by the constitution, two answers present themselves: 1st. It was not an adjournment, but a dissolution of Congress. The termination of the alternate, or, as it is usually called, the short session of Congress, is fixed in the constitution. It is the end of the Congress; it is on that day dissolved. The day never comes by surprise or unexpectedly, but is known at the commencement of the session, and throughout the whole progress of it. It cannot therefore be said, in the language of the constitution, that Congress, by their adjourn. ment, prevented the return of this bill. That provision of the constitution must be understood to refer to cases of adjournment depending upon the will of Congress and to have been designed to guard the President against the effects of a sudden and unforeseen adjournment ordered by Congress itself. A consideration giving additional strength to this ground is derived from the fact of a change of the presidential incumbent. This bill was presented to the President the day before the expiration of his othcial term; and, constitutionally, he had no right to communicate this message to the Senate. Suppose he had been succeeded by another, who would have had the right to the possession of the bill? Not the old President, because he was out of office; not the new, because he was not in office when the bill passed; and neither of them, therefore, could have returned it to the Senate, with or without an accompanying message. On the Sd of March, 1817, the day of Mr. Madison's final retirement from the office of President, the bill setting apart the bo nus of the Bank of the United States for internal improveThe committee, in the first place, must express its re- ments was presented to him. Although it was a highly gret that a bill which had been passed by the last Con-important bill, involving a grave and much controver ed gress should have been retained by the President until constitutional question, short as the time was for a due The commencement of the present. By the constitution, consideration of it, he examined and returned it, with his the President is invested with power to negative any bill objections, probably, among other reasons, because he which shall have passed both Houses of Congress; but knew that his successor could not act upon it. this power, which was conferred not so much for legisla. tive purposes as to enable the Executive branch of Government to protect itself against encroachments which might possibly be attempted upon its lawful authority, is limited and qualified by the express provisions of the constitution. According to these, when the President does negative a bill, he is required to return it, and, if it again pass each House by a majority of two-thirds, it becomes a law, notwithstanding the President's negative. By retaining this bill, and not returning it to the Congress which passed it, the qualified veto of the President was converted, in effect, into an absolute veto. Congress has lost all power over the bill; the last Congress having ceased to ex st cannot act upon it; and the present Congress cannot act upon it, because it did not pass it. By thus retaining a bill, its passage into a law may be defeated by the President, although, if he were to return it to the Congress which passed it, with his objections, it might be again passed by a constitutional majority of two-thirds; and such the committee believes would have been the case if the bill in question had been returned by the PresWent to the last Congress. That the committee has examined and considered the nessage of the President with all the respect and attenion due to a co-ordinate branch of the Government; and being, after mature and deliberate consideration, unable n coincide with the President in all his reasoning and conclusions, the committee requests the indulgence of he Senate in submitting the views and opinions which it Entertains on the several matters presented or discussed by the President. 2d. This bill had passed at a previous session of the Senate (1832-'33) in the shape in which, with one modification, it was presented to the President. Copies of the bill prior to its passage, at both sessions, had been laid before the President. He had treated the subject, and demonstrated his possession of a knowledge of the bill in his message at the opening of the session in December, 1832. When, therefore, the bill was presented to him for his approbation on the 2d of March, 1833, he must have been familiar with it. The committee, therefore, thinks that, under all the circumstances of the case, the bill ought to have been returned to the last Congress By withholding it, the President deprived that Congress of its constitutional right to reconsider the bill, and determine whether it ought not to pass, after giving due weight to his objections. Passing from this view of the subject, which the committee thought it proper to present in respect to the constitutional rights of the Legislative and Executive branches of the Government, it will now proceed to consider more particularly the specific objections to the bill contained ed in the President's message. 23d CoNG. 1st SESS] Proceeds of the Sales of the Public Lands. The President "is fully sensible of the importance, as it respects both the harmony and union of the States, of making, as soon as circumstances will allow of it, a proper and final disposition of the whole subject of the public lands." This bill, however, he thinks, does not effect that object. It contemplates an arrangement which is not permament, but limited to five years only; allows of alterations within that time by Congress, and furnishes no adequate security against the continual agitation of the subject. It is difficult to conceive of any plan, other than that of a total abandonment and surrender of the whole public domain, which would preclude occasional legislation by Congress in respect to it. Such a relinquishment the President indeed ultimately proposes; but the committee believes that neither the interests of the Union would be promoted by, nor are the opinions of the people prepared for, a surrender, immediate or remote, of the vast public domain of the United States, because of any inconveni ence, real or imaginary, resulting from the occasional legislation of Congress. The President objects to the temporary character of the act; and yet, towards the close of his message, when he appeals to the people of the new States, and holds out the prospect of a reduction of the price, he says: "It is true the bill reserves to Congress the power to reduce the prices, but the effect of its details, as now arranged, would probably be for ever to pre. vent its exercise." The committee is at a loss to comprehend how Congress should be for ever restrained from reducing the price of the public lands by a temporary bill, the too brief period of whose existence, in the opin. ion of the President, constitutes a serious objection to its passage; especially since, within the short period of five years, to which it is limited, there is an express reservation of the right of Congress at any time to reduce the price. The bill proposes, upon just and equitable principles, to divide among the several States the proceeds of a prop. erty common to them all, for a period of five years. If its practical operation shall be found to realize the expectations which it holds out, it will be competent to Congress to continue i', from time to time, with or without modifications. And it is only upon the presumption of its reconciling itself, by experience, to the public sense of justice and expediency, that the President, in the quotation made from his message as to one of its features, can anticipate its permanent operation. The President next proceeds to trace, historically, the right of the United States to the public domain. This had been several times previously done by committees of the Senate, and particularly by a committee which reported the bill on the 16th day of April, 1832, that first passed the Senate, for dividing among the several States the proceeds of the public lands. That report of the committee comprised a full exposition of the right of the United States to the public domain, whether situated within the limits of the original thirteen States, or acquired by the treaties of Louisiana and Florida; and also of the principles on which it was proposed to divide the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the States. And as your committee concurs in the leading facts and principles in that report, it begs leave to refer to it, to annex, and to make it a part of this report, to be published with it. The Senate will bear in mind that much the most extensive portion of the public domain was acquired by treaty. Over the disposition of the right of soil thus ob tained, there is no control or limitation upon the powers of Congress contained in the treaties themselves; and Congress is entirely untrammelled by them as to any disposition of it which may be deemed expedient. But the argument contained in the message almost wholly excludes that larger part of the public domain, and is restricted to the consideration of the powers of Congress in respect to that portion of it which is contained within the ancient limits of the United States. After having deduced the title of the United States ta that part of the public lands which seems principally to have engaged the President's attention, from the deeds of cession and other public acts and documents, the ma sage comes to three conclusions: "1. That one of the fundamental principles on which the confederation of the United States was originally based, was, that the waste land of the West within ther limits should be the common property of the United States, "2. That those lands were ceded to the United States by the States which claimed them, and the cessions wer accepted, on the express condition that they should be disposed of for the common benefit of the States, according to their respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and for no other purpose whatsoever. "3. That, in execution of these solemn compacts, the Congress of the United States did, under the confed eration, proceed to sell these lands, and put the avail into the common treasury; and, under the new consti tion, did repeatedly pledge them for the payment of the public debt of the United States, by which pledge est. State was expected to profit in proportion to the general charge to be made upon it for that object. "These are the first principles of this whole subjec which, I think, cannot be contested by any one who ex amines the proceedings of the revolutionary Congress, the cessions of the several States, and the acts of Congres under the new constitution. Keeping them deeply in pressed upon the mind, let us proceed to examine aew far the objects of the cessions have been completed, and see whether those compacts are not still obligatory up the United States. "The debt for which these lands were pledged by Co gress may be considered as paid, and they are corse quently released from that lien." It is perfectly true that the waste land of the West was an object of great interest and solicitude with several f the States, and especially the State of Maryland, during the revolutionary struggle; that they contended that what might be won by common sufferings, sacrifices, and exertions, ought to be common property; and that the States within whose limits those waste lands were situated, yielding to the voice of reason and justice, and actuated by a noble spirit of union and harmony, finally made the var ous cessions which have been referred to by the message. These cessions constituted the United States a trustee fat the whole of them in the management and disposal of the common property. It ought to be regarded as a sacred and inviolable trust; and all the considerations growing out of these lands, which threatened to distract the coun cils, and to paralyze the efforts of the original States, even in the midst of the war of independence, ought str! to be allowed to have their full force in dissuading Cof gress from making any alienation of this common prop erty which will not do justice to every member of the Union. The committee, therefore, concurs entirely with the message in the position that these lands were ceded, and that the cessions were accep'ed, on the condition that they should be disposed of for the common benefit of the States, according to their respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and for no other purpose whatever. It also agrees with the message that, barl under the articles of the confederation and under the present constitution, the avails of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands have generally gone into the public treasury; that they have been pledged to the payment of the public debt; and that the public debt may be considered as now paid, and the lands consequently liberated from the lien. Proceeds of the Sales of the Public Lands. But the committee cannot agree with the message that power of Congress over all the public lands remains ler the present constitution exactly the same as it was der the articles of confederation. As to those which ve been acquired by treaties with foreign Powers, the hority of Congress to dispose of them is unaffected the articles of confederation, or the deeds of cession, depends upon the third section of the fourth article the constitution. And as to the residue, the States t executed the deeds of cession being also parties to econstitution, and having adopted it as separate and tinct communities, were competent to extend the powof Congress, the common trustee for all the States, er the trust-property which had been previously con. wed, if they thought proper. By the articles of confederation, contributions were de by the several States of specific sums, apportioned ong them to the purposes of the General Government. d the clause, in several of the deeds of cession, which ovides that the ceded lands shall be for the use and efit of the States composing the Union, according to ir usual respective proportions in the general charge and enditure, clearly refers to those contributions which nished a distinct and intelligible rule by which the protion of each State in the general charge and expenire could be ascertained. By the new Government, tributions were no longer to be made by the States; the Treasury was to be supplied by taxes, direct and irect, levied upon the mass of the community. The es which have been accordingly levied, have been fly upon consumption; so that it is impracticable to ertain what amount is now in fact contributed by the ple of each State towards the expenditure of the GenI Government. And as the amount of contribution not be ascertained, it is impossible to say whether h of the States composing the Union does derive benfrom the public lands in proportion to its charge in general expenditure. And it is far from being certain 1, in the actual appropriation which has been made of proceeds of the public lands, there has not been a stant departure from the rule prescribed in the deeds cession. There may be ground for difference of opinion whether change of government in the particular which has n noticed, induced the framers of the constitution to arge the power of Congress, and whether they have, acr, enlarged it over the public lands which had been viously ceded by some of the States. But, as to all er territory and property of the United States, Con88 possesses ample power to regulate and dispose of It is expressly provided by article four, section three: The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory other property of the United States, and nothing in constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any ms of the United States or any particular State." This power to dispose of all the public domain, except Iceded by the States, is full and complete, and deds upon the sound discretion of Congress. The pracof the Government demonstrates, indeed, the combelief, that the power of Congress to dispose of the lic land, whether ceded by States or acquired from eign nations, is unrestricted. Grants have been aclingly made of portions of it for almost every convable purpose. More than eight millions and a half cres have been granted for education; upwards of two ions for internal improvements in particular States; eral for military bounties; and large quantities have n bestowed, in gratuity, for seats of Government, on vate charities in particular States, and on private indiuals. The right of pre-emption has been also conferred continued to large classes of individuals. The President himself was supposed to entertain the [238 CONG. 1st SESS. opinion that there was no restriction on the power of Congress over any part of the public domain. In his message of December 4, 1832, at the opening of the session of Congress, speaking of the public land, he says: "It is in the discretion of Congress to dispose of them in such way as best to conduce to the quiet, harmony, and general interest of the American people." After this clear admission of the unqualified power of Congress over the subject, the committee has seen with surprise the assertion in the message that the bill begins with an entire subversion of every one of the compacts by which the United States became possessed of their western domain. The first section of the bill allows to the seven new States twelve and a half per cent. out of the nett amount of the sales of the public lands made within their respective limits prior to any distribution among the twenty-four States. The message treats this allowance to the new States as a deduction of one-eighth from the whole amount of the proceeds of the public lands in all parts of the United States; but the allowance is expressly confined to sales within the new States, to the exclusion of sales made in the several Territories, that is, Ohio, and each of the other seven States, is by the provision of the first section to receive twelve and a half per cent. upon the nett amount arising from sales within their respective limits. This extra allowance is deemed by the President to be contrary to the terms of the deeds of cession. In what respect he does not allege, but it is presumed that he refers to the stipulation contained in those deeds for a perfect equality among the several States. As each State was to be entitled to equal benefit in the lands ceded, subject only to the condition that it should be according to its usual proportion in the general charge and expenditure, the message considers that rule to be violated by assign. ing to the new States twelve and a half per cent., prior to the general distribution. The President is supposed to insist upon absolute equality among the old and the new States; and that no one of them should obtain more than a fair and just proportion of a common property. But how are these principles to be reconciled with the plan brought forward by the President in his message of the 4th of December, 1832, and again presented in his message under consideration? According to that plan, he recommends that the public lands be no longer regarded as a source of revenue; that the price be reduced so low as merely to reimburse the expense of the survey and the sale of them; and that, at no very distant day, the whole of the unsold lands should be relinquished to the new States, and all the machinery and control of the General Government for ever withdrawn from the new States. If Congress may grant the whole of the public lands to the new States, it may certainly grant one-eighth part of them, or one-eighth part of their proceeds, unless the logical rule be false that the major includes the minor. If it be consistent with the terms of the deeds of cession, so emphatically dwelt on by the President, to surrender forever the public lands to the new States within which they are respectively situated, it can hardly be deemed repugnant to the same deeds to assign to them, for a short period, one-eighth part of the nett proceeds of the lands situated within their limits. The message seems to consider the extra allowance to the new States as involving a new principle unsanctioned by the practice of the Government, and as a gratuity which cannot be granted without manifest departure from the principles of equity which should regulate the disposal of the public lands or their proceeds among all the States. But with great deference the committee is unable to agree with the message in either respect. 1. As to the practice of the Government. It has been already stated that Congress has granted to the new States, for purposes of education, upwards of eight mil 23d CoNG. 1st SESS.] Proceeds of the Sales of the Public Lands. lions of acres of the public lands, being a quantity which what amount of the general charge and expenditure is exceeds, by more than a fourth, all the public lands ever contributed by any State. That clause in the deeds of sold by the Federal Government. It has also granted to cession, as before remarked, was inserted in reference o several States lands for seats of Government; and to some the articles of confederation, by which the contribution of the new States upwards of two millions and a quarter of each State was fixed and known. Revenue is now of acres for internal improvements. And by the compact collected, not from States in their sovereign character, with each of the new States, five per cent. of the nett but from the mass of the community, according to their proceeds of the sales of the public lands, within their consumption. Consequently, it is altogether impractica several limits, is reserved to every one of them for pur-ble to ascertain how much of that revenue is paid by the poses of internal improvement. If these various gran's, citizens of any one State. It may be argued that since displaying both the liberality and the justice of Congress it is impracticable, it is most proper that the proceeds of towards the young members of the national family who the public lands should go into the common treasury, sal have established themselves in the wilderness, do not be thence disbursed in the common expenditure. But t violate the deeds of cession, or transcend the duties of is far from being certain that the principle of equality Congress, how can it be justly contended that the extra stipulated in the cessions, is not violated to a greater ex allowance in question is forbidden? tent by such an appropriation, than it possibly can be g a division according to representative population. How is it known that each State, when the proceeds of the lands pass into the general treasury, is, in their subseqarat disbursements, benefited according to the exact measure of its due proportion in the general charge and expend» ture? 2. But this extra allowance is not a gratuity. The ap. portionment of the proceeds among the several States, is on the basis of the s'ate of the population as ascertained by the census of 1830; and the bill proposes to observe that rule in the distribution, during the whole period of five years, to which its operation is limited. But as the increase of population in the new States is in a ratio much greater than in the old, it is evident that a strict compliance with that rule would operate unjustly upon the new States, especially in the latter years of the term. The increase of population in Illinois, for example, is at the rate of eighteen and a half per cent. per annum. Near five years having elapsed since the census was taken, the population of that State is now about ninety-two and a half per cent.; that is, almost double what it then was. The population of the State of Delaware, on the contrary, has increased only about three per cent. during the same five years; the ratio of its increase from 1820 to 1830 having been, for the whole ten years, only six per cent. The State of Illinois, therefore, would receive only about one-half of what it is justly entitled to, if it were restricted to the state of its population in 1829. Again: the extra allowance to the new States is to be expended on education and internal improvements. The United States being a great land proprietor in each of the new States, is bound, upon principles of equity and fairness, to contribute towards the improvement of the moral and physical condition of the new States, which will necessarily tend to enhance the value of the property of the United States. And, in making the extra allow ance, the bill proceeds in perfect conformity with the principles by which the General Government has hitherto invariably acted, in granting to each of the new States lands for schools, and five per cent. of the nett proceeds of sales within their respective limits, for objects of internal improvement. In considering the power of Congress over the publ lands acquired by deeds of cession from several of the States, the committee thinks it useful to examine, fix, the terms of the deeds themselves; and, secondly, the provision in the constitution. 1. As the cession from Virginia was by far the most important, and as the terms of the deed made by that State to the United States do not materially vary from those contained in the deeds of other States, the comm tee will inquire whether there is any thing in those term which can be fairly interpreted to prohibit the passage the bill. The only clause deemed essential in the inquir is the following condition contained in the deed, to w "That all the lands within the territory so ceded to t United States, are not reserved for, or appropriated to any of the before-mentioned purposes, or disposed of bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, shall become, members of the confederation, or federal alliance of the said States, Virginia inclusive, accord to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use of pa pose whatsoever." This deed created a trust in the United States wh they are not at liberty to violate. But the deed does require that the fund should be disbursed in the payment of the expenses of the General Government. It mak no such provision in express terms, nor is such a duty ch The committee therefore must confidently, but respect the part of the trustee fairly deducible from the langu fully, dissent from the assertion in the message, that in of the deed. On the contrary, the language of the deed making this extra allowance the bill begins with an entire seems to contemplate a separate use and enjoyment of subversion of every one of the compacts by which the the fund by the States individually, rather than a prese United States became possessed of their western domain. vation of it for common expenditure. The fund itself is The bill is charged by the message with a violation of to be a common fund for the use and benefit of such ol the deeds of cession, in adopting, as the rule of distribu- the United States as have become or shall become me tion, the federal representative population, instead of the bers of the confederation or federal alliance, Virginia f respective and usual proportions of the several States inclusive. The grant is not for the benefit of the confede the general charge and expenditure. The rule which the bill adopts is plain, practicable, and intelligible. It admits of easy ascertainment and easy application. Taxation and representation go hand in hand; and, in assuming a rule deduced from representation, there is no reason to believe that it will operate unequally in respect to the taxation to which the people of the United States are liable. A division among the States according to their respective and usual proportions in the general charge and expenditure, is wholly impracticable, because it is not possible to ascertain under the present constitution, and under the established modes of collecting a public revenue, ration, but for that of the several States which compe the confederation. The fund is to be under the manage ment of the confederation collectively, and is so far a common fund; but it is to be managed for the use a benefit of the States individually, and is so far a separate fund under a joint management. Whilst there was s heavy debt existing, created by the war of the Revolution, and by a subsequent war, there was a fitness in applying the proceeds of a common fund to the discharge of common debt, which reconciled all; but that debt being now discharged, and the General Government no longer standing in need of the fund, there is evident propriety Proceeds of the Sales of the Public Lands. [23d CoNG. 1st SESS. in a division of it among those for whose use and ben fitance is to be applied upon the invariable practice of the t was originally designed, and whose wants require it. Government. And the committee cannot conceive how this appropriaon of it, upon principles of equality and justice among the several States, can be regarded as contrary to either be letter or spirit of the deed. A fund may be common to various copartners in the collection, control, and government of it, and yet the use and actual enjoyment may be separate and individual. Entertaining this view, the committee thinks it would be departure from the obligations of the trust to cede, as he message proposes, the whole trust-property to particilar States, to the exclusion of others. The committee, in the contrary, thinks it the duty of Congress to retain be control of the fund, and to administer it for the use nd benefit of the several States composing the Union. 2. But if any doubt existed as to the right of Conress, under the deeds of cession, to divide the proceeds f the common property among the several States, it inst vanish when we consider the provisions of the contitution. The parties to the constitution were the same the parties to the deeds. And the adoption of the onstitution was as much the separate act of each State i was the execution of the several deeds of cession. The constitution, too, followed the execution of the deed y Virginia, and that of every other State but one; and if here be any incompatibility between them, the constituon, being in point of time the last act, must control the peration of the previous deeds. The language of the constitution is explicit: "The ongress shall have power to dispose of, and make all eedful rules and regulations respecting the territory or ther property belonging to the United States; and noing in this constitution shall be so construed as to pre. dice any claim of the United States, or of any particular tate." The power to dispose of the territory and other roperty of the United States is confided to the sound scretion of Congress without restriction. To guard gainst the effect of the change of government from a inse confederacy to an intimate Union, it is declared, in he latter part of the cited clause, that nothing in the onstitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any aims of the United States. And, as the States which -ded the western lands had ceded them with certain eservations, and they or other States might have claims f a territorial, jurisdictional, or pecuniary nature, under he confederacy, which it was apprehended, without an xpress reservation, might be affected by the change of overnment, it was further declared that nothing in the Constitution should be so construed as to prejudice any claims of any particular State. Whether, therefore, the authority of Congress is traced the deeds of cession or to the constitution, the com. mitte deems it fully competent to the passage of the Bill. But if the part of the bill which limits the Legislatures of the new States in the appropriation of the extra allowance to the laudable purposes of education and internal improvement could not conciliate the approbation of the President, it might have been reasonably hoped that the other part of it, containing no restriction whatever upon the local legislation, would have at least commanded his assent. But he objects to the restrictive clauses because they are restrictive and to the unrestricted clauses because they are unrestricted. The President appre hends that the Maysville and Lexington Turnpike Road Company, the appropriation to which several years ago did not meet his concurrence, might possibly derive some aid from the land fund, if the Legislature of the State in which that road is situated were left unrestrained in the application of its proportion of that fund. There are some who would feel that if any part of the fund were directed to such a destination it would only be to repair a wrong unintentionally committed by the President. But the appropriation to that object to which the President applied the veto, rested upon grounds totally distinct from the principle of the present bill. That appropria. tion was made upon the principle that Congress had the power to aply any money in the public treasury to internal improvements. This bill is based on the ground that Congress has broader power over the land fund, either under the deeds of cession, or under the constitution, than it possesses over public revenue collected by general taxation. The objection to the dirtribution among the States, upon principles of equality, of the proceeds of the pub. lic lands, was hardly to be anticipated from a Chief Ma gistrate who had recommended such a distribution of the surplus revenues of the General Government, without regard to the source of their origin. The committee is not prepared to assent to such a distribution, the constitutionality of which, to say the least, is questionable. But a division of the land fund, if not enjoined by the spirit of the various deeds of cessions, stands upon pecu. liar ground, totally distinct from that on which a division of a surplus of revenue, arising from ordinary sources of taxation, can be placed. The message imputes to the bill the object of creating a surplus for the purpose of distribution. But is that an accurate representation of the case? The bill finds in full operation a land system, approved by long experience, which nets to the Government an annual sum of more than three millions of dollars. This sum may be expect. ed constantly to augment. The General Government, just liberated from national debt, no longer stands in need of this sum, unless it should become necessary by wasteful and extravagant expenditure. The General Govern ment is in possession of ample sources of revenue, and in the exclusive possession of that, the most ample of all, arising from foreign imports. The States want the land fund, and it is proposed to divide it among them accord. ing to the just and equitable rule of federal representative population. The bill imposes no new tax, creates no new revenue, opens no new channel. It proceeds upon an existing state of things, which it does not dis. turb, otherwise than by dividing among the States equi. tably, in their individual character, what is not wanted in their aggregate condition. The bill is equally unfortunate in being obnoxious to the objections of the message whether it omits or imposes ay restrictions upon the power of the State Legislatures to the subsequent appropriation of the fund which it proposes to distribute. The extra allowance to the new rates is required to be expended on objects of education and internal improvement. As has been already shown, this restriction is in conformity with a principle coeval with the land system, and which has been steadily dbered to throughout the whole period of its existence, by which the sixteenth section of every township is ex- But the message objects that the General Government pressly set apart for education; and in conformity with would remain subject to the incidental expenses of the every compact entered into between the United States machinery of the land system. The bill, however, only and each of the new States, by which five per cent. upon proposes to divide the nett produce of the public lands the nett proceeds of the lands in the several new States is which come into the public treasury, subject, of course, assigned for purposes of internal improvement. The to a deduction for some charges. If the General Govcommittee thinks that it may safely rest the defence of ernment should continue to pay out of the common treasthe specification of the objects to which the extra allow.ury a portion of those charges, such as the salaries of the VOL. X.-Bb |