•-7/ 
 
 k 
 
 REVIEW 
 
 A\ TH 
 
 APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 4^!^o 
 
 \ r\ 
 
## 
 
 ^^mi^ 
 
 rrc7^ 
 
 
 REVIEW l.cA^/uc-^^i^ <^j^ 
 
 / 
 
 a\ \m 
 
 % 
 
 APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 ^9 
 
 As nilAWN ITP AND ItKrORTKI) TO THE SENATE OF MARYLAND, JaN. 30, 1821, 
 BY V. MaXCY, CHAimvIAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCA- 
 TION AND Public Insteuction. 
 
 From the North American Review, for October, 1821. 
 
 n.' 
 
 PUBLISHED BY EDWARD J. COALE. 
 1821. 
 
 JOHN D. TOY, PRINTER, 
 
n- 
 
 A 
 
 ^ 
 
 
ma'fiaw^ 
 
 Seport, with sundry Resolutions relative to appropriations of 
 Public Lands for the Purposes of Education, to the Senate of 
 Maryland, January 30, 1821. By V. Maxcy, Chairman of the 
 Committee on Education and Public Instruction. 
 
 Report on the Expediency of granting Public Land for the Sup- 
 port of Education in the Senate of the United States, February 
 9, 1821. 
 
 Report of the Committee on Colleges, Academies, and Common 
 Schools, in the Legislature of tN'ew York, March 30, IS'-Zl, upon 
 the Message of his Excellency the Governor, communicating the 
 Resolutions of the Legislature of Maryland. By G. C. Ver- 
 planck, Chairman of the Committee. 
 
 M. HE subject, which we are now about to considep, 
 is manifestly of great national importance. It relates to 
 a very extensive appropriation of the national proper- 
 ty for the support of schools. Grants of national lands 
 have already been made to a considerable extent, for 
 the aid of colleges and schools in some of the western 
 states. The same grants have not as yet been extended 
 to the old states, and it seems now to be made a ques- 
 tion, whether these states have any claims on the gen- 
 eral government for similar grants, as a balance to 
 what are conceived to be at present the exclusive pri- 
 
4 
 
 vileges of the new states. The subject was first brought 
 before the public, we believe, by Mr. Maxcy in a re- 
 port made by him as chairman of the Committee on edu- 
 cation and public instruction, in the Senate of Mary- 
 land, February 1, 1820. After stating the manner in 
 which the lands have been granted in the west, Mr. 
 Maxcy observes; 
 
 ^' The public lands, though located in the west and 
 south, are the common property of all the United 
 States. Each state has an equal right to a participa- 
 tion, in a just proportion, of that great fund of national 
 wealth. Your committee can discern no reason why the 
 people who have already settled in, or shall remove to, 
 those states and territories, which have been formed 
 out of these public lands, should enjoy any peculiar 
 and extraordinary advantages from this common pro- 
 perty, not possessed by those who remain in the origi- 
 nal states. They are far from censuring that enlighten- 
 ed policy, which governed Congress in making the lib- 
 eral appropriations above mentioned, for the encou- 
 ragement of learning in the new states and territories. 
 They, on the contrary, most heartily applaud it. But 
 they, at the same time, are of opinion that the people of 
 the original states of this union, by whose common 
 sword and purse those lands have been acquired, are 
 entitled, upon pnnciples of the strictest justice, to like 
 appropriations for the endowment and support of lite- 
 rary institutions, within their own limits." 
 
 The Report containing the words here quoted, was 
 introduced too late to be taken into consideration dur- 
 ing that session of the legislature. The same proposi- 
 tion was renewed the year following by Mr. Maxcy, 
 and defended in an able and elaborate Report, which 
 was adopted by the Senate and House of Delegates of 
 
Maryland. The following resolutions were passed in 
 both houses. 
 
 1. ^^ Resolved hy the General »B.s^embly of Mary- 
 land, that each of the United States has an equal right 
 to participate in the benefit of tlie public lands, the 
 common property of the union. 
 
 2. ^^ That the states in whose favour Congress has 
 not made appropriations of land for the purposes of 
 education, are entitled to such appropriations as will 
 correspond, in a just proportion, with those heretofore 
 made in favor of the other states. 
 
 3. ^^ That his excellency the governor be requested 
 to transmit copies of the foregoing Report and Resolu- 
 tions to each of our senators and representatives in 
 Congress, with a request, that they will lay the same 
 before the respective houses, and use their endeavors 
 to produce the passage of an act to carry into effect the 
 just principles therein set forth. 
 
 4. ^^That his excellency the governor be also re- 
 quested to transmit copies of the said Report and Re- 
 solutions to the governors of the several states of the 
 union, with a request that they will communicate the 
 same to the legislatures thereof, respectively, and solicit 
 their co-operation." 
 
 These resolutions have been accordingly transmitted 
 to the governors of the several states. In Virginia, if 
 we are rightly informed, they were assented to unani- 
 mously. In New- York a counter report was drawn up 
 by Mr. Verplanck, chairman of the Committee on col- 
 leges, academies, and common schools, and accepted by 
 a majority of the legislature. Connecticut has approv- 
 ed the Maryland resolutions, and adopted a report, 
 which, among other things, contains a resolution re- 
 questing " the senators and representatives of that 
 
state in the Congress of the United States to use their 
 endeavors to procure an appropriation of a part of the 
 public lands, for the promotion of the objects of science 
 and education in the several states, to be divided among 
 them in such manner and proportion as to Congress 
 shall appear just and equitable." What have been the 
 decisions of the other states, whose legislatures have 
 been in session since they received the Maryland reso- 
 lutions, we have not learned. 
 
 Before we undertake the investigation of the princi- 
 ples on which the Maryland resolutions are founded, 
 it may be well to inquire a little into the manner in 
 which the United States came into possession of the 
 public lands. The greatest part of those on the east 
 side of the Mississippi river, was derived by cessions 
 from several states. The claims of these states to any 
 portion of the lands, beyond their established boun- 
 daries, were, in our view, for the most part merely 
 nominal, and in no case supported by any good founda- 
 tion. Take Virginia as a memorable example. This 
 state professed to claim all the extensive and valuable 
 territory northwest of the Ohio, and east of the Missis- 
 sippi. But upon what grounds will appear by a very 
 brief statement of facts. 
 
 Originally the whole tract of country north of the 
 Gulf of Mexico, extending to the present northern 
 boundary of the United States, was called Virginia. 
 This name was given to the country after sir Walter 
 Raleigh's expedition. The patent granted to him by 
 queen Elizabeth specified neither name nor limits. 
 The new patent of James I. was more definite. This 
 patent was granted with similar conditions to two sep- 
 arate companies, one of which settled at Plymouth, and 
 tlie other near Cape Henry. The quantity of land of 
 
which each was to take possession was limited to one 
 hundred miles along the coast, and one hundred up the 
 country, making a square of one hundred miles. 
 
 The settlers near Cape Henry were usually denomi- 
 nated the South Virginia, or the London Company. 
 To this company, in the year 1609, and six years after 
 the date of their first patent, was granted a new patent 
 or charter, enlarging the boundaries of their former 
 grant. And this is the charter from which Virginia 
 professed to derive her title, after the revolutionary 
 war, to the territory northwest of the Ohio. The boun- 
 daries of the tract, thus granted to the London Compa- 
 ny, were defined as follows, namely, " being in that part 
 of America, called Virginia, from the point of land cal- 
 led Cape or Point Comfort all along the sea-coast to the 
 northward, two hundred miles, and from the point of 
 Cape Comfort all along the sea- coast to the southward 
 two hundred miles; and all that space and circuit of 
 land lying from the sea-coast of the precinct aforesaid, 
 up into the land throughout from sea to sea, west and 
 northwest." Charter of Virginia, sec, 6. Few men 
 at the present day, probably, would presume so much 
 on their sagacity, as to attempt to attach any meaning 
 to the last half of this extract. At the commencement 
 of the revolution, however, it was discovered to have a 
 very profound meaning, and on this obscure clause alone 
 were built the claims to all the unsettled lands in the 
 northwestern territory. The phrase, /?'o?k sea to sea^ 
 it was contended, meant the whole space between the 
 Atlantic and Pacific oceans. But the claimants, not- 
 withstanding, were not so exorbitant in their demands. 
 
 Their moderation brought them within vastly narrow- 
 er limits, than, according to their interpretation, the 
 charter warranted. By gradual encroachments other 
 
8 
 
 states had been formed within what were contended to 
 be the chartered limits^ and Virginia was at length 
 bounded on the north by Maryland and Pennsylvania, 
 and on the south by North Carolina. By the treaty of 
 1763 between England and France, the Mississippi was 
 established as the boundary between British America 
 and Louisiana. This brought the limits of Virginia 
 very much short of the Pacific ocean. And, finally, 
 the claimants were contented to have their territory 
 compressed within the lakes on the north, and the Mis- 
 sissippi on the west; thus giving up the very interpre- 
 tation of their charter, upon which alone they profes- 
 sed to found any claim. 
 
 But what makes the thing more extraordinary is, 
 that the charter was vacated, fifteen years after it was 
 granted, by a quo warranto from Charles I. The com- 
 pany, to which it had been given, was dissolved. Old- 
 mixion says, that this was caused by the mismanage- 
 ment of the proprietors. Grants were given to private 
 adventurers, who not only raised quarrels among them- 
 selves, but exasperated the Indians, and induced them 
 to commit outrages on the peaceable settlers. To pre- 
 vent further difliculties, king Charles dissolved the 
 company, and annulled the charter. He took the co- 
 lony under his own direction, sent out officers of his 
 own appointment, reserved a quitrent to himself, and 
 ordered all grants and patents to be given in his 
 name. How then could any claim be made under this 
 charter, even admitting the obscure clause, which alone 
 was supposed to sanction the claim, to have any mean- 
 ing? The charter was never afterwards made the rule 
 of government in the colony. The king was the only 
 proprietor, and Virginia was in the strictest sense a 
 regal province. 
 
9 
 
 This was also the understanding of the British gov- 
 ernment, as is manifest from the proclamation of the 
 king in 1763, relating to the American colonies. It is 
 there stated to be the royal will and pleasure, that no 
 governor, or other officer in the colonies should ^^ grant 
 warrants of survey, and pass patents for any lands 
 beyond the heads or sources of any the rivers, which 
 fall into the Atlantic ocean from the west, or north 
 west." Laws of the U. S. vol, z, p. 446. This lan- 
 guage is a proof, that the king considered Virginia 
 a regal colony, and that its western boundary, even in 
 that charter, did not extend beyond the Alleganies. 
 The Council of Virginia received the king's procla- 
 mation in this sense, as may be seen in a letter of 
 the president of the Council to Lord Hillsborough. 
 Afterwards, also, when lord Dunmore made a grant 
 of certain lands on the Ohio, without the king's 
 authority, he received a sharp reprimand in a letter 
 from the secretary of state, reminding him of the 
 ^^ king's express command, that no lands should be 
 granted beyond the limits of the royal proclamation of 
 1763, until the king's further pleasure was signified." 
 From the facts contained in this short view of the sub- 
 ject, the inference is irresistible, that Virginia, as a 
 distinct colony, had no claims to any of the unappro- 
 priated lands. — The subject of the Virginia claims was 
 handled with great ability at the time, in an essay en- 
 titled Public Goodf by a writer, who has been more 
 famed for his acuteness and talents as a politician, than 
 for the correctness of his moral principles, or his 
 reverence for religion. 
 
 If the same investigation were pursued in regard to 
 the other states, we are convinced their claims would 
 prove quite as groundless as those of Virginia. The 
 2 
 
10 
 
 I 
 
 parts of the charters, by which these claims were sup- 
 posed to be sustained, are either so unintelligible, con- 
 tradictory, or indefinite, as to render it almost absurd 
 to make them a serious ground of claim. Take, for in- 
 stance, the following clause in the charter of Massachu- 
 setts, upon which the claim of that state was grounded. 
 After defining the northern boundary of the province, 
 the charter goes on to include '"^all the lands and here- 
 ditaments whatsoever, lying within the limits aforesaid, 
 and extending as far as the outermost points or pro- 
 montories of land called Cape Cod and Cape Malabar,, 
 north and south, and in latitude, breadth, and in length, 
 and longitude, of and within all the breadth and com- 
 pass aforesaid throughout the main land there, from 
 the said Atlantic or western sea and ocean, on the east 
 part, towards the South Sea or westward, as far as our 
 colonies of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and the Narra- 
 gansett country." Now, who can persuade himself, 
 that he has any clear ideas on reading this passage? 
 And above all, that it could give any just claim to a 
 tract of country three thousand miles in extent, from 
 the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean; more especially, 
 when it is known, that this would pass directly across 
 the large grant, which had already been made by 
 Charles II. to the Duke of York?* The charter of 
 Connecticut is less obscure, it is true, and states in 
 plain language, that the boundary of the colony should 
 be " the South Sea on the west part.'' This also was 
 given the year before the grant to the Duke of York, 
 and is not, on this ground, subject to the same objec- 
 tion as the charter of Massachusetts. 
 
 *The charter of the Province of Massachusetts Bay was given October 7, 
 1C91; and the grant to the Duke of York, March 12, 16G3, 
 
11 
 
 But, before any right can be supposed to grow out 
 of this obscure language of the charters and grants, is 
 it not necessary to ascertain the views and intentions of 
 the parties? It was the general impression, that the 
 South Sea was very near the Atlantic. Drake had seen 
 the Pacific and the Atlantic from the same point on the 
 Isthmus of Darien. The proximity of the two seas 
 was supposed to be the same along the northern coast. 
 This is proved from several curious facts. Stith re- 
 lates, in his History of Virginia, that in the year 1608 a 
 company was fitted out in England, with a barge, that 
 might be taken in pieces, with which the company were 
 instructed, under the command of captain Newport, to 
 go up James River with a view to discover the country 
 of the Monakins, " and from thence they were to y^vo- 
 ceedj carrying their barge beyond the falls to convey 
 them to the South Sea.^' Hutchinson also gives an 
 account of some of Champlain's people, who, " having 
 been a few days' march from Quebec, returned with 
 great joy, supposing, that from the top of a high moun- 
 tain, they had discovered the South Sea." Such were 
 the vague notions, when the charters were granted, 
 respecting the situation of the South Sea, or the Pacific 
 Ocean. 
 
 The truth is, the South Sea boundaries seem to have 
 been another name for indefinite limits, which the king 
 was afterwards to circumscribe and define as he should 
 think proper. This is very plain from the circum- 
 stance of grants being made, which ran into the wes- 
 tern borders of the colonies, whose chartered limits 
 were defined in this obscure manner. Thus, Maryland, 
 Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, were taken out of 
 what were considered the chartered limits of Virginia, 
 and made over by royal charter to their respective pro- 
 
±2 
 
 prietors. Then, and not before, the northern and 
 southern boundaries of Virginia became defined. 
 And so with the western boundary of Connecticut, 
 which was at first unlimited. It was defined the year 
 after by the grant to the Duke of York. We may say 
 the same of the western limits of Carolina, which at 
 first extended to the South Sea, or indefinitely. They 
 were afterwards defined by the Georgia charter. If it 
 was not the understanding from the beginning, that 
 these western limits were considered indefinite, and 
 left to the future decision of the crown, how is it to be 
 accounted for, that encroachments were suffered thus 
 to be made without a single remonstrance, or com- 
 plaint from the states, or colonies, thus encroached 
 upon? 
 
 From these views we are convinced, that, before the 
 revolutionary war, no state had any claims to lands be- 
 yond its chartered limits, and that no fair construction 
 of any charter could extend these limits into the lands 
 northwest of the Ohio. These were residuary lands, 
 neither subject to the control of any proprietary, nor 
 chartered colony, nor any of the colonial crown go- 
 vernments, but wholly, and exclusively, at the disposal 
 of the king. For the same reason, after the revolu- 
 tion, they belonged to the United States. In regard 
 to Georgia, although it was bounded by the ^^South 
 Seas" on the west, nevertheless, all the territory west 
 of the Mississippi belonged at that time to the French. 
 And whatever question of territory might arise, this 
 state could exhibit no exclusive claims on the strength 
 of its charter; because, twenty years after the charter 
 was given, it was surrendered to the king, and the go- 
 vernment became entirely regal. The claims of North 
 Carolina were less incumbered, as its western limits 
 
13 
 
 had not been defined by any charter subsequent to its 
 own. The United States, however, had the same pow- 
 er to define these limits, as the king had before the 
 revolution, and which, as we have seen, he exercised 
 in numerous instances. 
 
 The question concerning the lands, involved in these 
 claims, began to be agitated soon after the declaration 
 of independence. The claims of particular states were 
 considered unjust and unfounded by those states, which 
 had no part in these claims. It was contended, that 
 the right of property in these lands was secured by the 
 common efforts, and the common sacrifices of all the 
 states, and that justice demanded they should be ap- 
 propriated for the equal benefit of all. The state of 
 Maryland, in particular, was very prompt and de- 
 cided on this subject. 
 
 ^'This state," says Mr. Maxcy, ^^as early as the 
 30th of October 1776, expressed its decided opinion, in 
 relation to the vacant lands, by an unanimous resolution 
 of the convention, which framed our constitution, and 
 form of government, in the following words; ^Resolved 
 unanitnously., that it is the opinion of this convention, 
 that the very extensive claim of the state of Virginia to 
 the back lands hath no foundation in justice, and that 
 if the same, or any like claim is admitted, the freedom 
 of the smaller states and the liberties of America may 
 be thereby greatly endangered; this convention being 
 firmly persuaded, that, if the dominion over those 
 lands should be established by the blood and treasure 
 of the United States, such lands ought to be considered 
 as a common stock, to be parcelled out at proper times 
 into convenient, free, and independent governments.' 
 
 "In the years 1777 and 1778, the General Assembly, 
 by resolves, and instructions to their delegates in Con- 
 
14 
 
 gress, expressed their sentiments in support of their 
 claim to a participation in these lands, in still stron- 
 ger language, and declined acceding to the confedera- 
 tion, on account of the refusal of the states claiming 
 them exclusively to cede them to the United States. 
 They continued to decline, on the same grounds, until 
 1781, when to prevent the injurious impression, that 
 dissension existed among the states occasioned by the 
 refusal of Maryland to join the confederation, they 
 authorized their delegates in Congress to subscribe the 
 articles; protesting, however, at the same time, against 
 the inference, which might otherwise have been 
 drawn, that Maryland had relinquished its claim to a 
 participation in the western lands." 
 
 The Maryland resolution was probably in unison 
 with the prevailing sentiments and feelings of the other 
 states. But nothing decisive was done till after the 
 treaty of peace in 1783. By this treaty Great Bri- 
 tain relinquished '^to the United States all claim to the 
 government, property, and territorial rights of the 
 same, and every part thereof.'' This established a 
 new relation between the states. It gave strength and 
 certainty to the bond of union, which had before been 
 comparatively weak and dubious. They had not the 
 same motives for clinging to individual interests, as 
 when they were looking forward to a variety of possi- 
 ble results. The great object, for which they had 
 been struggling, and in which they had merged all 
 others, was at length gained. Their independence, 
 and every political, civil, and religious right had been 
 secured. The important question remaining was, how 
 these privileges were to be converted to the most cer- 
 tain means of a permanent union and happiness? Poli- 
 cy and interest united with the best moral principles to 
 
15 
 
 dictate the wisest course. The generous spirit of 
 patriotism, and a disposition to conciliate, which must 
 at this time have pervaded all parties, produced just 
 impressions, and brought into harmony the views of 
 those, who before acted on discordant principles, be- 
 cause they imagined themselves to have separate and 
 conflicting interests. Influenced by motives like these, 
 and perhaps by many others equally honourable, the 
 respective states yielded up what they conceived to be 
 their claims to the unsettled lands. These cessions 
 were made at different times, and all, except that of 
 Georgia, within a few years after the peace. 
 
 By these cessions, all the unappropriated lands, 
 within the bounds of the United States, except such as 
 belonged to the Indians, became the property of the 
 United States, and were of course brought under the 
 jurisdiction of the general government of the states. 
 The result, therefore, was precisely the same as if no 
 claims had been made, with this difference only, that 
 some of the states gave up their claims with res- 
 ervations and conditions. These the United States' 
 government was bound to respect, whatever might have 
 been the original validity of the claim; because receiv- 
 ing lands as a cession was acknowledging a previous 
 right to those lands in the party which made the ces- 
 sion. Hence Connecticut reserved a valuable tract on 
 the south shore of lake Erie, the proceeds of which 
 have since been most wisely and munificently appro- 
 priated for the benefit of schools in that state. It was 
 also made a condition of the cession by Georgia, that 
 the United States should pay one million two hundred 
 thousand dollars to that state, and extinguish the In- 
 dian title to such lands as were held by the Indians, 
 within the reserved limits of the state. No attempt 
 
16 
 
 was ever made to contest the claims of any of the 
 states. They were all voluntarily given up, and in 
 this amicable manner the United States have acquired 
 an indubitable title to all the public lands on the east 
 side of the Mississippi. The territory west of the 
 Mississippi, as well as the southern parts of the states 
 of Mississippi and Alabama, was purchased by the 
 United States of France in 1803, and paid for out of 
 the common fund. It hence follows, that all these 
 lands are the common property of all the states collec- 
 tively, and under the entire control of Congress. 
 
 As these lands are a common property, in which 
 each state has an interest proportionate to its signifi- 
 cance in the union, they ought to be so disposed of, as 
 to confer a proportionate benefit on each. This is 
 equally conformable to justice, and the fundamental 
 principles of our federal union; and, moreover, this dis- 
 position of the lands was, with some of the states, a 
 special condition of cession. This was particularly 
 the case with Virginia, whose claim was considered 
 much the most important. After specifying certain 
 conditions, requiring the United States to reimburse 
 the expenses, which Virginia had incurred in defend- 
 ing the territory, and also providing that the French 
 inhabitants within the territory should have their pos- 
 sessions confirmed to them, the act of cession requires 
 that all the lands, not included in other special condi- 
 tions, "shall be considered as a common fund for the 
 use and benefit of such of the United States as have 
 become, or shall become, members of the confederation, 
 or federal alliance of the said states, Virginia inclusive, 
 according 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 
 
17 
 
 other use or purpose whatsoever." Here is an express 
 stipulation, and it is the spirit of all the acts of cession. 
 Now, as we have already observed, however defective 
 the claims of any state were originally, when they 
 were recognized, the United States were bound to 
 comply with all conditions on which a title was resign- 
 ed. These conditions, therefore, expressly on the part 
 of Virginia, and impliedly on the part of the other 
 states, aiford an additional reason, if such a reason 
 were required, why all the public lands obtained by 
 cessions should be appropriated for the proportionate 
 benefit of every section of the union. No argument is 
 required to prove that all the lands, which have been 
 purchased out of the national fund, should be disposed 
 of by the same rule of appropriation. 
 
 We come next to inquire, whether Congress has uni- 
 formly acted upon this principle. Have the proceeds 
 of the public lands been distributed in due proportion 
 to every part of the union? Mr. Maxcy's remarks on 
 this subject are pertinent and just. 
 
 *^So far as these lands have been sold, and the pro- 
 ceeds been received into the national treasury, all the 
 states have derived a justly proportionate benefit from 
 them. So far as they have been appropriated for pur- 
 poses of defence, there is no ground for complaint; for 
 ^the defence of every part of the country is a common 
 concern. So far, in a word, as the proceeds have been 
 applied to national, and not to state purposes, al- 
 though the expenditure may have been local, the course 
 of the general government has been consonant to the 
 principles and spirit of the federal constitution. But 
 so far as appropriations have been made, in favor of 
 any state or states, to the exclusion of the rest, where 
 the appropriations would have been beneficial, and 
 3 
 
18 
 
 might have been extended to all alike, your committee 
 conceive there has been a departure from that line of 
 policy, which impartial justice, so essential to the 
 peace, harmony, and stability of the union, imperiously 
 prescribes.'' 
 
 In discussing this subject, it is important to keep in 
 mind some definite notions of the distinction between 
 NATIONAL, and STATE interests. In one sense they 
 are the same. Whatever may be said, with strict 
 truth, to be beneficial to the nation, may be considered 
 in some degree beneficial to each part, inasmuch as the 
 safety of a part depends on the stability and welfare 
 of the whole. But, on the other hand, it is very pos- 
 sible for the whole to be benefitted at the expense of 
 a part; so that the United States may be gaining 
 strength and prosperity, while an individual state is 
 losing its comparative standing and influence. In all 
 such cases some of the states are increasing beyond 
 their due proportion. This consequence may some- 
 times happen to a certain degree, from the nature of 
 our political and local relations; and for this reason, it 
 is a consequence, against which it is the duty of Con- 
 gress to guard with very great vigilance. So far as 
 it depends on the structure of the state governments, 
 the nature and productiveness of the soil, the insti- 
 tutions and occupations of the people, or any thing 
 peculiar to place or condition, it can hardly come under 
 the control of Congress. And as all these circum- 
 stances will have a very active influence in moulding 
 the character, and deciding the comparative impor- 
 tance, prosperity, and happiness of individual states, 
 it becomes so much the more necessary, that in all 
 those things, in which Congress has the power of be- 
 
19 
 
 stowing benefits, this duty should be discharged with 
 the strictest impartiality. 
 
 The defence of the country, and the protection and 
 encouragement of commerce, are a common cause, and 
 whatever appropriations are made for these purposes 
 may be considered as promoting national interests. 
 By these, every state is benefitted alike, because the 
 rights of each are equally secured, and the expenses 
 of each for the support of the general government are 
 proportionally paid. State interests are such as relate 
 to all kinds of internal improvements, agriculture, 
 manufactures, encouragement of industry, science, 
 literature, the arts, or useful inventions. To promote 
 any of these purposes, no appropriation can justly be 
 granted to any state, or section of the union, without 
 an equivalent, either in kind or value, to every other 
 state, or section. This is a fundamental principle, 
 which should not be violated to the injury of any state, 
 even if such violation were to produce a large national 
 benefit; for this principle is the only security of the 
 state interests. Congress may, and ought, to afford 
 encouragement to all the purposes here enumerated, 
 but never for the benefit of the whole, or a part, to the 
 manifest injury of another part. If it can be allowed 
 that, on any possible occasion, a majority of Congress 
 may vote away the privileges of an individual state 
 for the general good, it will virtually dissolve the ties 
 which bind the states together, by destroying the ob- 
 ject for which a union is desirable. Each state has 
 rights, privileges, and concerns, peculiar to itself, 
 which it is as important should be maintained, as 
 those which it enjoys in common with the other states. 
 If extreme cases can be imagined, in which the prin- 
 ciple here stated cannot easily be reduced to practice, 
 
^0 
 
 yet the principle should be held sacred, and never be 
 deserted without an obvious necessity, or as a tempo- 
 rary and pressing expedient. By this principle it is 
 proper to try the proceedings of Congress in regard to 
 the plan, which has been pursued in disposing of the 
 public lands. 
 
 Before any of the states had relinquished their 
 claims, it was urged by those, who did not hold these 
 claims to be good, that a portion of the public lands 
 should be converted into the means of defraying the 
 expenses of the war, in which all were taking an equal 
 part. New York was the first state which resigned 
 its claims, and in the preamble to the act giving power 
 to its delegates in Congress to make the cession, it is 
 stated, apparently as a motive, that it ^^had been con- 
 ceived, that a portion of the waste and uncultivated 
 territory, within the limits or claims of certain states, 
 «ught to be appropriated as a common fund for the ex- 
 penses of the war." And this is the purpose for which 
 the revenue derived from the sales of these lands has 
 been applied by Congress. Acts have been passed at 
 different times to facilitate this object; and the whole 
 amount of proceeds arising from these sales is now 
 pledged for the gradual payment of the public debt, 
 till it shall be extinguished. This scheme is no doubt 
 equitable. It operates equally in favor of all the 
 states. It consults the national interests, without inter- 
 fering with those which are peculiar to any of the 
 states. 
 
 But another system adopted by Congress for dis- 
 posing of the public lands, is that first proposed in the 
 ordinance of May 20, 1785, and which has since re- 
 ceived several modifications. This is the system, which 
 is thought to be partial in its action, by granting pri- 
 
21 
 
 vileges and property out of the common stock, to some 
 of the states, which are not granted to others. The 
 outlines of the plan may be detailed in few words. 
 
 All the public lands are surveyed according to the 
 laws and directions of Congress. They are uniformly 
 divided into townships of six miles square, by lines 
 running with the cardinal points, and consequently 
 crossing each other at right angles. Every township 
 is divided into thirty-six sections, each a mile square, 
 and containing six hundred and forty acres. One sec- 
 tion in each township is reserved, and given in per- 
 petuity, for the benefit of common schools within that 
 township. Thus one thirty-sixth part of all the public 
 lands is appropriated for the benefit of particular states 
 in aiding common schools. In addition to this, the 
 state of Tennessee has received a grant of two hun- 
 dred thousand acres for the support of colleges and 
 academies. For the same purpose, also, two entire 
 townships have been granted to Ohio. The appro- 
 priations generally, in the new states, for seminaries of 
 the higher order, according to Mr. Maxcy's statement, 
 amount to about one fifth of those for common schools. 
 
 Starting with these facts, Mr. Maxcy goes into a 
 calculation to ascertain what quantity of land, accord- 
 ing to this system, will be taken from the common pro- 
 perty of the United States for the use and benefit of 
 those states only, which have been, or will be formed 
 in the territory not embraced in the old states. As 
 the basis of his calculation he takes the estimates con- 
 tained in Seybert's Statistical Annals. From these it 
 would appear, that the states and territories on the 
 east side of the Mississippi, in which appropriations 
 have been made, amount to 237,297,125 acres. And 
 according to the ratio above mentioned, the aggregate 
 
22 
 
 number of acres actually appropriated on the east side 
 of the Mississippi is 7^909,903. 
 
 Seybert also estimates the lands purchased of France 
 in 1803 at 200,000,000 acres. The same system of 
 appropriation will no doubt be applied on the west, as 
 on the east side of the Mississippi. This will make 
 for schools and colleges 6,666,666 acres. And the 
 total appropriations for literary purposes in the new 
 states and territories will be 14,576,569 acres. At 
 two dollars an acre, which is lower than the average 
 price at which the public lands have thus far been 
 sold, the value of these appropriated lands will amount 
 in money to 829,153,139. Such is the immense 
 amount of property, which, according to the system 
 now pursued by Congress, will be taken from the com- 
 mon stock for the encouragement of learning in parti- 
 cular sections. 
 
 This is too plain a case to need any reasonings or 
 illustrations to show that the system, in its present re- 
 stricted operations, does not extend equal privileges to 
 all parts of the union. Its justice can only be made 
 to appear by proving, that the states which do not par- 
 ticipate in these grants, have, in some other way, re- 
 ceived an equivalent. But this cannot be proved. 
 They certainly have not received any equivalent in 
 land, for no appropriations of lands have been made 
 for their benefit, as in the other states. Nor have they 
 received any equivalent in value from other sources. 
 In short, the old states neither have received, nor can 
 receive, any benefit whatever from these appropria- 
 tions, farther than they are the means of advancing 
 the general interest of the United States. But this is 
 a benefit, which the new states enjoy equally with the 
 old, and this too in addition to the full value of all the 
 
2S 
 
 lands granted for schools. To produce an equality, 
 even on this principle of all the states being benefitted 
 by these grants, the same appropriations must be made 
 to the other states: not by taking any thing away from 
 the new states, but by giving to the others, out of the 
 lands which still remain, a quantity proportionate to 
 what these have received. 
 
 This view of the subject reflects no censure on Con- 
 gress for the course they have pursued in disposing of 
 the public lands. On the contrary, every friend to en- 
 lightened improvement must consider it as dictated by 
 sound policy, wisdom, and benevolence. The system 
 is by no means partial in principle, nor necessarily so 
 in application. It has happened, for what reason it is 
 not our present purpose to inquire, that it has not as 
 yet been applied in its full extent. This can now be 
 done with perfect consistency, and without interfering 
 in the remotest degree with any of its former appli- 
 cations, or the consequences resulting from them. Not 
 a single act of Congress would need be repealed, nor 
 would a single alteration be required in the machinery 
 of the land department. No request is made to Con- 
 gress to retrace steps before taken, but to go forward 
 and finish the work that has been begun. 
 
 The constitution delegates to Congress an absolute 
 control over the territories, and all the public lands of 
 the United States; but, at the same time, it takes care 
 to circumscribe this control within due limits, by add- 
 ing the following clause, namely, "and nothing in this 
 constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any 
 claims of the United States, or of any particular state.'^ 
 Now the system by which the public lands are disposed 
 of, in its present restricted application, does prejudice 
 the claims of particular states, because each state has 
 
^4i 
 
 an equal claim to a proportional share of the common 
 property of the whole. Each state, therefore, not en- 
 joying a privilege which has been granted to others, 
 has a constitutional claim on the United States for this 
 privilege, and a right to demand it of Congress. That 
 one, or any number of states, has forborne to make 
 this demand, is no proof that the claim is annulled, or 
 even weakened. The claim receives its validity from 
 the constitution itself, and must continue good, while 
 the constitution remains in force. It hence follows, 
 that the acquiescence of the old states in the partial 
 operation of this system till the present time, is no 
 evidence that their claim has been relinquished, or that 
 it is not in all respects as strong as if they had urged 
 it sooner. 
 
 Nor ought any preference to be given to particular 
 states, in making donations of lands, from the circum- 
 stance of these lands being within the limits of those 
 states. Wherever they are situated, they are common 
 property, in which every citizen of the United States 
 has an interest. Although they are within the juris- 
 dictional limits of a state, they cannot be taxed by that 
 state, nor be made subject to any state laws respecting 
 sales or titles. These things are wholly regulated by 
 the laws of Congress, in the same manner as with lands 
 in a territory not yet formed into a state. In regard 
 to the justice of the principle, Congress might with as 
 much propriety grant lands in the western territory 
 for the purposes of education in an eastern state, as a 
 western. In either case, it is public property given 
 to a particular state, or, in other words, it is the pro- 
 perty of the nation devoted, not to national^ but to 
 state purposes. 
 
■^3 
 
 We are speaking here of the justice of the principle^ 
 without pretending that circumstances may not occur 
 in which sound policy would justify, within a limited 
 extent, an unequal distribution of public property. 
 But under no circumstances, we apprehend, can this 
 be done, without a corresponding benefit of some sort 
 to all the states, and as nearly equivalent as the nature 
 of the case will admit. Now we contend, that no such 
 circumstances as those above mentioned are connected 
 with the appropriations, which have already been made 
 for the encouragement and support of education in the 
 western states. No good reason can be shown, why 
 one state should be preferred to another in making this 
 distribution. The revenue derived from commerce is 
 public property, and on the same footing, in this re- 
 spect, as the public lands. This revenue is chiefly 
 collected in the commercial, or Atlantic states. And 
 this affords just as good an argument m favor of giving 
 a portion of this revenue for the particular benefit of 
 the states in that section, as the circumstance of the 
 public lands being in the west does, that they should 
 be converted to a local advantage in that quarter. The 
 fact, that this revenue is ultimately derived, not from 
 the Atlantic states, but from all the states in which 
 the articles of commerce are consumed, does not alter 
 the case. The public lands have been derived in the 
 same manner; that is, from the common treasure, and 
 united efforts of all the states. 
 
 The facts we have thus brought forward, and the 
 view we have taken, conduct us to the following results. 
 First, none of the states originally had any valid claims 
 to the lands, which have since been made over by formal 
 cessions to the United States. They were national 
 possessions from the beginning. But when the United 
 4 
 
S6 
 
 States consented to accept them as lands of cession, it 
 was virtually acknowledging the claims to be just, and 
 bringing themselves under an obligation rigidly to com- 
 ply with any conditions attached to the articles of ces- 
 sion. Secondly, the principles of justice, and the let- 
 ter and spirit of the constitution require, that the pub- 
 lic property should be appropriated for the equal bene- 
 fit of all the states. Thirdly, the system followed in 
 disposing of the western lands has not operated equal- 
 ly, but has favored some states more than others. 
 Fourthly, it is not only a constitutional right, but the 
 duty of the states, which have thus been neglected, 
 to petition Congress for an equal extension of pri- 
 vileges. 
 
 To some of the positions, which we have attempted 
 to establish, objections have been made, especially in 
 the Report of the committee of public lands in the 
 Senate of the United States, and in the Report respect- 
 ing the Maryland resolutions in the Legislature of New 
 York. To these objections we now proceed briefly to 
 reply. 
 
 It has been said, that the other states have actually 
 received an adeqimte consideration for the lands appro- 
 priated for schools in the west. The money, which 
 has accrued to the national treasuf-y, by the increased 
 value of the public lands, is thought to be a compensa- 
 tion. This was stated in the Report to the Senate of 
 the United States, and more at large by Mr. Verplanck 
 in the New York Report. He speaks as follows. 
 
 "Reservations of school and college lots are upon a 
 large scale, what the reservations of public squares 
 and walks, of lots for churches, markets, and public 
 edifices are in the plans of cities and villages. They 
 are not gratuitously bestowed upon the inhabitants; 
 
nor is their value lost. But on the contrary, they tend 
 to increase their aggregate value far beyond their own 
 proportion, and their price is far more than paid in part 
 of the purchase money of every private sale.'' 
 
 Such, Mr. Verplanck thinks, has been the effect of 
 the western grants. 
 
 "They have induced a readier sale, a higher price, 
 and from the character of those settlers, who would be 
 most attracted by these prospects, a more prompt pay- 
 ment. The reservations complained of ought, there- 
 fore, to be regarded, not as a partial donation for local 
 objects, entitling every state to similar ones on princi- 
 ples of strict justice, but as a judicious arrangement, 
 calculated and intended to increase the value of that 
 •^common fund, held for the use and benefit of the 
 several states,' and made not for state, but for nation- 
 al purposes." 
 
 This argument had already been anticipated by Mr. 
 Maxcy, and answered in a manner so lucid, forcible, 
 and conclusive, that we are surprised to find it repeat- 
 ed by the New York committee, without any reply to 
 the reasonings contained in the Maryland Report. 
 
 ^•^Your committee are aware," says Mr. Maxcy, "that 
 it has been said, that the appropriation of a part of 
 the public lands to the purposes of education, for the 
 benefit of the states formed out of them, has had the 
 effect of raising the value of the residue, by inducing 
 emigrants to settle upon them. Althou^ in the pre- 
 ambles of such of the acts on this subject, as have pre- 
 ambles, the promotion of religion, morality, and know- 
 ledge, as necessary to good government and the happi- 
 ness of mankind, have been assigned as the reason for 
 passing them, and no mention has been made of the 
 consequent increase in the value of the lands, that 
 
^8 
 
 would remain, as a motive for the appropriation, yet 
 the knowledge, that provision had been made for the 
 education of children in the west, though other mo- 
 tives usually influence emigrants, might have had its 
 weight in inducing some to leave their native homes. 
 If such has been the effect, the value of the residue of 
 the lands has no doubt been increased by it. This in- 
 crease of value, however, has not been an exclusive 
 benefit to the Atlantic states, but a benefit common to 
 all the states, eastern and western; while the latter still 
 enjoy exclusively the advantage, derived from the ap- 
 propriations of land for literary purposes. The inci- 
 dental advantage of the increase in value of the public 
 lands, in consequence of emigration, if it is to be consi- 
 dered in the light of a compensation to the old states, 
 must be shown to be an advantage exclusively enjoyed 
 by them. That this however is not the case is perfect- 
 ly obvious, because the proceeds of the lands, thus 
 raised in value by emigration, when sold, go into the 
 United States treasury, and are applied, like other re- 
 venues, to the general benefit; in other words, to na- 
 tional and not to state purposes. 
 
 ^^It is moreover most clear, that this increase of the 
 value of lands in consequence of emigration, produces a 
 peculiar benefit to the inhabitants of the new states, in 
 which the inhabitants of the other states, unless own- 
 ers of land in the new, have no participation. This 
 benefit consists in the increase of the value of their 
 own private property. 
 
 ^•On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true, that emi- 
 gration is injurious to the Atlantic states, and to them 
 alone. While it has had the effect of raising the price 
 of lands in the west, it has, in an equal ratio at least 
 and probably in a much greater, prevented the in- 
 
S9 
 
 crease of the value of lands in the states which the 
 emigrants have left. It is an indisputable principle in 
 political economy, that the price of every object of 
 purchase, whether land or personal property, depends 
 upon the relation, which supply bears to demand. 
 The demand for land would have been the same, or 
 very nearly so, for the same number of people, as are 
 contained within the present limits of the United States, 
 if they had been confined within the limits of the At- 
 lantic states. But the supply in that case would have 
 been most materially dilFerent. It must have been so 
 small in proportion to the demand, as to occasion a 
 great rise in the value of land in the Atlantic states; 
 for it cannot be doubted, that it is the inexhaustible 
 supply of cheap and good land in the west, which has 
 kept down the price of land on the eastern side of the 
 Allegany. If the Atlantic states had been governed 
 by an exclusive, local, and selfish policy, every impe- 
 diment would have been thrown in the way of emigra- 
 tion, which has constantly and uniformly operated to 
 prevent the growth of their numbers, wealth, and 
 power; for which disadvantage the appreciation of 
 their interest in the public lands, consequent upon emi- 
 gration, can afford no adequate compensation. It ap- 
 pearing then perfectly clear to your committee, that 
 emigration is exclusively advantageous to the new 
 states, whose population, wealth, and power are there- 
 by increased at the expense of those states, which the 
 emigrants abandon, the inducement to emigration fur- 
 nished by the appropriation of public lands for the pur- 
 poses of education in the west, instead of affording a 
 reason for confining such appropriations to that quarter 
 of the union, offers the most weighty considerations of 
 
^0 
 
 both justice and policy, in favor of extending them to 
 the states, which have not yet obtained them." 
 
 This reasoning seems to us legitimate and unanswer- 
 able. The argument itself, which proves the United 
 States to have received a benefit by reason of the in- 
 ducements held out in the west to emigration, is as 
 powerful evidence as can be had of the unequal opera- 
 tion of the system. The value of the lands has been 
 increased, it is true, and the national treasury has be- 
 come richer. But how has this been done? By ex- 
 hausting the Atlantic states. Just in proportion as 
 extraordinary encouragements have been offered to in- 
 duce the people of these states to emigrate to the west, 
 — just in this proportion, have the states suffered, by 
 losing a part of their population and wealth, and by 
 being made to hold a lower comparative rank in the 
 union. This consideration strengthens the claims of 
 these states. If they had been in no manner affected 
 by the donations in the west, they Avould still be enti- 
 tled to similar donations. And since it appears that 
 this enhanced value of the public lands, which, as a na- 
 tional benefit, is thought to be a balance to the privile- 
 ges enjoyed in the west, has actually been produced at 
 their expense, it is certainly a very strange mode of 
 reasoning to argue, not only that their claim is annulled, 
 but that they have been compensated for their loss. 
 Such compensation as they have received, has been ta- 
 ken from their own pockets. 
 
 If the Atlantic states were becoming overburdened 
 with inhabitants, it might be considered a just and be- 
 nevolent act in the general government to offer extraor- 
 dinary inducements to allure some of them away. A 
 national good might thus be realized, without injury to 
 any state. But a century at least would elapse, before 
 
31 
 
 the population of any state in the union could hecome 
 too numerous for ample support from their native soil. 
 By drawing them away, a check is giveato the growth 
 of those principles, virtues, and habits, which multiply 
 and extend the comforts of civilized life, which give 
 stability to the social compact, ascendency to the intel- 
 lect, dignity to character, courtesy to manners, refine- 
 ment to taste, and rational, pure, and elevated enjoy- 
 ment to existence. All the blessings, which it is easy 
 to perceive would thus grow up in the old states, they 
 must lose, by losing their population. Their political 
 influence in the union is also weakened, by diminishing 
 the weight of their representation in the national legis- 
 lature. Finally, the argument adduced by the New 
 York committee sustains a position directly contrary to 
 the one they advance. Instead of proving the Atlan- 
 tic states to have no claims, it proves very clearly, that 
 in strict justice, they may not only ask to be put on an 
 equal footing with the western states in regard to 
 schools, but also to be compensated for the loss they 
 have suifered in contributing so largely, and at the ex- 
 pense of sacrifices so dear, to raise the value of the 
 public lands, and thus to swell the amount of the na- 
 tional treasury. The benefit resulting from this accu- 
 mulation of property is enjoyed by all the states equal- 
 ly. The New York committee acknowledge, that this 
 benefit has sprung out of the emigration from the At- 
 lantic states, and yet very unaccountably make this ben- 
 efit a reason, why these states should not even be al- 
 lowed an equal participation of those privileges, which 
 have been the primary cause of the losses they have 
 sustained in promoting the interests of the nation. 
 
 A second objection is expressed by the New York 
 committee in the following words; 
 
S2 
 
 "It is surely of the deepest interest to the welfare, 
 the peace, and good order of the whole union, that the 
 statfes every day springing up in the west, should not 
 hereafter be peopled by a race, possessing nothing of 
 civilization, but its vices and its arts of destruction. 
 This might not, indeed, have been the necessary conse- 
 quence, had the general government neglected to make 
 provision for the diffusion of knowledge among the fu- 
 ture population of this great territory, but it is clearly 
 so much within the bounds of probability, as to autho- 
 rize, and even to require a prudent and wise govern- 
 ment to guard against so dangerous a contingency, not 
 only for the sake of those immediately interested, but 
 for the promotion of the best interests of the whole 
 nation." 
 
 The force of this argument we confess ourselves una- 
 ble to discover. It seems to us little more than a spec- 
 ulation, which no experience nor sound reasoning can 
 substantiate. What is the fact in regard to the states, 
 which have grown up from a wilderness without any 
 such provision for schools? Is it true, that they are 
 ^'^peopled by a race, possessing nothing of civilization, 
 but its vices and its arts of destruction?" We think 
 not. Why then fear this consequence in the west? 
 Or even admitting it may be feared in a remote degree, 
 on what principles of equity is one section of the coun- 
 try to suffer a deprivation of its own means of im- 
 provement and happiness, for the exclusive benefit of 
 another? And, moreover, the western appropriations 
 are to be a permanent fund. They are not to operate 
 only till the settlers become civilized and enlightened, 
 and then to cease. But when these states shall arrive 
 at the point of civilization, which now prevails in the 
 old, they will still have this accumulating fund to help 
 
33 
 
 them forward, while tlie others will have nothing. A 
 weight is thus thrown into the scale against the old 
 states, which is daily growing heavier, and which they 
 have nothing, either at present or in prospect, to coun- 
 terbalance. 
 
 It is further objected, that, 
 
 ^*If the large additional grants for the encourage- 
 ment of education, insisted on by Maryland, should 
 now be made, a direct and obvious effect would be to 
 diminish the fund, so important to the national iriierestsj 
 by placing immense tracts of lands in other hands, and 
 enabling the individual states to undersell the general 
 government, whenever they should think fit, and mate- 
 rially to retard or to lessen the sales.'' 
 
 A plain answer to this objection will occur, on re- 
 verting to the object of the Maryland Report. No- 
 thing more is there urged, than the justice of the prin- 
 ciple , that all the states have a right to equal advanta- 
 ges from the public lands; and the fact, that all have 
 not been thus favored. The objection before us has no 
 bearing on these points. That the general fund of 
 the union will be diminished is no reason, why the just 
 claims of individual states should be rejected. Be- 
 sides, the Maryland Report proposes no particular 
 mode of answering these claims. Congress has full 
 power to guard against the inconveniences apprehend- 
 ed, and to remedy every evil, by keeping the lands 
 within its own control, by regulating the time of sale, 
 and by fixing a price, under which the states shall not 
 be allowed to ^sell. Many other modes of settling all 
 diJficulty from this source will readily suggest them- 
 selves. That obstacles are to be encountered, or sa- 
 crifices made, in doing justice, is certainly no argument, 
 5 
 
34^ 
 
 that justice should not be done. Let the mode be left 
 to the wisdom of Congress. 
 
 The amount of the claims has been considered as 
 another objection. But Mr. Maxcy has shown, that in- 
 stead of being large, it is comparatively small. If the 
 same ratio of appropriation be followed, which has thus 
 far been observed, the number of acres requisite to do 
 justice to the old states will be 9,370,760, which is less 
 than has already been granted to the new states, and 
 little more than two acres out of a hundred of all the 
 public lands unsold. Tiiat is to say, the sixteen states, 
 which have not received any grants, comprising Ver- 
 mont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode 
 Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl- 
 vania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, 
 South Carolina, Georgia, and Kentucky, these sixteen 
 states do not require so much land for their just pro- 
 portion, as has already been granted to the states and 
 territories in the west. The notion of the alarming 
 magnitude of the claim therefore is not correct; and if 
 it were, it would add to the reasonableness of its being 
 equitably adjusted. It would truly be a novel pro- 
 ceeding, for a man to refuse paying his just debts, be- 
 cause they were so large. 
 
 The Committee of the Senate of the United States 
 admit the groimd taken in the Maryland Report to be 
 well supported, as far as the principle is concerned, 
 and think it expedient to grant something out of the 
 sales of the public lands for the aid of schools in the 
 old states. Two or three statements, however, in their 
 report, appear to us to admit correction. 
 
 *^The lands," say they, "thus granted to the states 
 for the above purposes are not subject to taxation by 
 the state government, and can only be settled in the 
 
35 
 
 manner pointed out by the states in which they lie. 
 If, therefore, correspondent quantities for the purposes 
 of education are to be granted to all the old states, 
 (under which term the committee believe all states will 
 be included, which have not received donations of land 
 for that purpose,) it would seem, that the states and 
 territories, which now contain public land, would have 
 an excessive proportion of their superfices taken up 
 with such donations^ leaving but a small part of the 
 land in each subject to taxation, or settlements ex- 
 cept at the will of other sovereign states."^ 
 
 This we take to be a distorted view of the subject, 
 and hold the apprehensions expressed in the last 
 clause of the paragraph to be quite gratuitous. In the 
 first place, it ought not to be taken for granted, that 
 the lands, which are required for the old states, are to 
 be disposed of in the same way, or to be subject to the 
 same conditions, as those already appropriated. No- 
 thing of this nature is contemplated in the Maryland 
 Report. Every thing relating to conditions and modes 
 of conveyance is left to congress, with the expectation, 
 of bourse, that such a plan will be pursued, as will 
 operate with perfect equity towards the new states. 
 And in the next place, there is no occasion for the 
 alarm, which the committee express, in regard to the 
 quantity of land, which may be taken from any par- 
 ticular state. By the estimate attached to their own 
 Report, the quantity of public lands in each of the new 
 states, except Ohio, is nearly three times as much as 
 the whole amount required for the old states. Let this 
 quantity be divided among all the states, in which the 
 public lands are situated, and the evil apprehended in 
 the Report will be very trifling, even in its fullest ex- 
 
36 
 
 tent, and upon the false supposition, that it must neces- 
 sarily exist at all. 
 
 Again, the Committee of the Senate of the United 
 States observe, 
 
 "The lands, therefore, granted to some of the new 
 states for the purposes of education, though distin- 
 guished in common parlance by the name of donations, 
 were in fact sales bottomed upon valuable considera- 
 tions; in which the new states surrendered their 7'ight 
 of sovereignty over the remaining public lands, and 
 gave up the whole amount, which might have been re- 
 ceived in taxes, before such lands were sold, and for 
 five years thereafter." 
 
 The fallacy of this notion will immediately be dis- 
 covered on reflecting, that the new states never had 
 any right of sovereignty over the public lands, and 
 consequently could surrender none It has been justly 
 observed by an able writer, that "as Congress pos- 
 sesses, in absolute dominion, the whole territory, be- 
 fore the creation of the new states, and makes those 
 states, it is not to be understood how any right of 
 sovereignty is relinquished by them." The new state 
 becomes such on conditions; one of which is, that it 
 shall not tax the public lands within its limits. No- 
 thing is given up, for nothing was held in possession. 
 After the state is formed, then its rights are commen- 
 surate with the conditions, which it has accepted. 
 Bat these conditions exclude all control over the pub- 
 lic lands, and absolutely forbid any demands of an 
 equivalent for what might have been derived from them, 
 had the privilege of taxation been allowed. It is fur- 
 thermore to be observed, that in no public act, rela.ting 
 to the new states, has it ever been intimated, that they 
 received the grants for schools, as an equivalent for 
 
37 
 
 any thing. No other motives have heen assigned, or 
 even implied, than the benevolent and disinterested 
 ones of promoting education, morals, religion, civil or- 
 der, and good government. Had any right existed on 
 the part of the states, in the estimation of the general 
 government, is it credible, that it would never have 
 been recognized, or even alluded to, in the acts rela- 
 ting to the public lands, and especially the grants to 
 the states? 
 
 We have thus adduced some of the general reasons, 
 for an equal distribution of the public property for the 
 encouragement and support of schools and colleges in 
 all the United States; and endeavored to obviate, as 
 we hope successfully, the principal objections, which 
 have been started. It is hardly to be accounted for, 
 that any objections should seriously be urged in a case 
 of so much interest, importance, and obvious justice. 
 If difficulties are thought to lie in the way, let them be 
 removed by Congress, in such a manner as shall be 
 conceived most judicious and effectual. But let not the 
 apprehension of these difficulties blind our eyes to the 
 perception of justice, tie up our hands, shut up our 
 hearts, and disable us from making those efforts, which 
 the cause of learning, and our national welfare, dignity, 
 and honor, demand. It is at least a duty, which all 
 the states, that have not received appropriations, owe 
 to themselves and to future generations, to press the 
 subject on Congress, and have their claims fairly and 
 thoroughly investigated. Let this be done, and for 
 ourselves we can have no doubt of the result. 
 
 Nor do we discover, that the view we have taken 
 can operate in any degree against the best interests of 
 the western states. To suppose them unwilling to al- 
 low the other states equal privileges with themselves, 
 
3d 
 
 would be a reflection on their magnanimity, generosity, 
 and good principles, which is not to be admitted. 
 They have, it is true, a proportional interest in the 
 public property, out of which any grants to the old 
 states must be made; but it is equally true, that these 
 states once had an interest in the lands, which have al- 
 ready been granted to them. The committee of public 
 lands propose, that a certain portion of the amount of 
 sales shall be allowed to the several states, which have 
 received no aid for schools. Now this fund belong-s to 
 all the states collectively, and whatsoever is taken out 
 for the east will consequently be drawing something 
 from the west. But there is no inequality in this. 
 All the appropriations, which have been, or may be 
 granted, once belonged to the common fund. They 
 were to be distributed equally to all parts of the union. 
 Some of the states have already received their portion, 
 while it yet remains for the others to receive theirs. 
 To us this appears a fair statement of the case. But 
 should it be found, on a closer examination, that the 
 proposed appropriations to the old states will give the 
 new ones a claim to something more, let it be granted. 
 We plead only for an equitable adjustment, on the 
 most feasible terms. 
 I Much ' might be said to enforce the policy of the 
 
 f measures, which we have been endeavoring to defend 
 on the ground of equity. It was an admonition of the 
 illustrious Washington, springing not more from wisdom 
 and foresight, than the purest benevolence, that the 
 states should vigilantly guard against any step, which 
 should ^^furnish ground for characterizing parties by 
 geographical distinctions.*' Is it not obvious, that the 
 course thus far pursued by Congress must have this 
 tendency? To favor one part of the union more than 
 
39 
 
 another will necessarily excite sectionJil jealousies, sow 
 the seeds of discord, and nourish a root of bitterness 
 and discontent, inimical to peace, harmony and good 
 government. The safety and happiness of the nation 
 depend on the moral as well as the political union ot 
 the parts, a union of sentiment, feeling, and aiTectian, 
 founded on equal rights, privileges, and enjoyments. 
 To preserve this union, every state must have the 
 fullest confidence, that all its rights are respected, and 
 all its just privileges granted. 
 
 There are, also, other considerations of great weight 
 springing out of the importance of learning, especially 
 in a government like ours, where the supreme control 
 depends on the opinion of the people. Under such cir- 
 cumstances, how important is it, that this opinion should 
 be enlightened? The representative body of the na- 
 tion is drawn together from every part. Hence, it is 
 requisite that the means of knowledge should be equal- 
 ly scattered, that the balance of advantages derived 
 from this source may be preserved. ^^Without ques- 
 tion,'' says Bacon, "there is no power on earth which 
 sets up its throne in the spirit and souls of men, and in 
 their hearts and imaginations, their assent also and be- 
 lief, equal to learning and knowledge;'' and again, 
 ^^there is scarce one instance brought of a disastrous 
 government, where learned men have been seated at 
 the helm." Now the most certain mode of making 
 learned rulers, is to extend as far as possible the influ- 
 ence of learning to the people from whom the rulers 
 are taken. 
 
 But intelligence not only makes good rulers, it makes 
 peaceable citizens. It causes men to have just views 
 of the nature, value, and relations of things, the pur- 
 poses of life, the tendency of actions, to be guided by 
 
40 
 
 purer motives, to form nobler resolutions, and press 
 forward to more desirable attainments. Knowledge 
 smooths down the roughness, and tames the native fe- 
 rocity of men. The maxim of the poet is true; 
 
 Scilicet ingenuas diclicisse fideliterartes, 
 EmoUit mores, nee sinit esse feros. 
 
 Laws will be obeyed, because they are understood and 
 rightly estimated. Men will submit cheerfully to good 
 government, and consult the peace of society, in pro- 
 portion as they learn to respect themselves, and value 
 their own character. These things are the fruit of 
 knowledge. Bat ignorance is a soil, which gives exu- 
 berant growth to discords, delusions, and the dark 
 treacheries of faction. Ignorance in the people, in 
 fact, takes all security from the government. While 
 ignorant, they are perpetually subject to false alarms 
 and violent prejudices, ready to give a loose rein to the 
 wild storms of their passions, and prepared to yield 
 themselves willing victims to the seductions of every 
 ambitious, turbulent, treacherous, and faithless spirit, 
 who may choose to enlist them in his cause. Know- 
 ledge will work upon this charm with a potent efficacy, 
 lay the hideous spectres which it calls up, and pre- 
 serve the soundness and growing strength of the social 
 and political fabric. 
 
 It should, furthermore, be considered the glory and 
 the duty of our national legislature to aid in establish- 
 ing morals and religion, both as a means of safety to 
 the government, and happiness to the people. The 
 first step in accomplishing this purpose, is to fix the 
 principles of virtue, and impress the importance of 
 religious practice, by enlarging the sphere of mental 
 light, touching the springs of curiosity, opening the 
 
41 
 
 channels of inquiry, and pouring into the mind new 
 materials of thought and reflection. All branches of 
 intellectual improvement will lead to moral goodness. 
 The mind, which is taught to expatiate throughout the 
 works of God, to ascend to the heavenly worlds and 
 find him there, to go into the deep secrets of nature 
 and find him there, to examine the wonders of its own 
 structure, and look abroad into the moral constitution 
 of things, and perceive the hand of an invisible, Al- 
 mighty Being giving laws to the whole, will be im- 
 pressed with a sense of its own dependence, and feel 
 something of the kindling flame of devotion. It is not 
 in human nature to resist it. And so the man, who 
 begins to study the organization of society, the mutual 
 relations and dependencies of its parts, its objects, and 
 the duties it imposes on those, who would enjoy its 
 benefits, will soon be made to respect its institutions, 
 value its privileges, and practise the moral virtues in 
 which its very existence consists. The more exten- 
 sively these inquiries are encouraged, and these prin- 
 ciples inculcated, in the elements of education, the 
 greater will be the certainty of moral elevation of 
 character, and the brighter the prospects of a virtuous 
 and happy community. In regard to religion, igno- 
 rance is its deadliest bane. It gathers the clouds of 
 prejudice from all the dark corners of the mind, and 
 causes them to brood over the understanding, and too 
 often the heart, with a dismal, chilling influence. It 
 gives perpetuity to error, defies the weapons of argu- 
 ment and reason, and is impassive even to the keen 
 sword of eternal truth. Religion requires the aid of 
 knowledge to be received in its purity, and felt in its 
 power. To bring into salutary action these two great 
 instruments of human happiness, morals and religion. 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 nothing is of so much importance^ as to multiply the 
 facilities of education, and quicken the spirit of en- 
 lightened inquiry. 
 
 Through the medium of education the government 
 may give a strong impulse to the arts, and help to 
 build up the empire of the sciences. Before men can 
 invent, or make profound discoveries, they must be 
 taught to think. Savages never advance a step farther 
 in discoveries and inventions, than they are compelled 
 by their wants. The external comforts of civilized 
 life depend on the useful arts, which an improved state 
 of the intellect has brought to light. In the sciences, 
 and in literature, we have a vast uncultivated field 
 before us. We will not enlarge on so trite a subject, 
 as the value of these noble branches of human im- 
 provement, nor on so obvious a one, as the immense 
 advantages that must flow to us as a nation, from hav- 
 ing them thoroughly cultivated among us. They ought 
 to be brought under consideration in connexion with 
 this subject; and on every mind, whose conceptions 
 are not narrowed within the most ordinary bounds, 
 they will have a solemn and impressive influence. In 
 the arts of traflic, and the mysteries of gain, we may 
 perhaps be contented with the skill we possess. But 
 to be contented with our progress in the sciences and 
 literature, and all those attainments, which chiefly 
 dignify and adorn human nature, would argue an ob- 
 tuseness and apathy altogether unworthy of a people, 
 who are blessed with so many political, civil, and local 
 advantages of various kinds, as the inhabitants of the 
 United States. 
 
 In closing this article, we are glad to embrace the 
 opportunity afl'orded us, by the subject we have been 
 discussing, of saying a few woi'ds on the literary en- 
 
43 
 
 terprize and efforts of the state, in which the Report, 
 recommending a general appropriation for the aid of 
 learning, originated. The legislature of Maryland 
 gave early attention to the establishment of schools. 
 At the session in 1692, an act was passed for the en- 
 couragement of learning; and four years afterwards 
 King William's Free School was established at Anna- 
 polis, on a very broad and liberal basis. In 1723, a 
 school was erected in each of the counties, and the 
 funds, which had been provided by previous acts for 
 the support of schools, were distributed among them 
 in equal proportions. Lands were also given in each 
 county for the use of the teachers. One source of 
 income to the school fund was a tax of twenty shillings 
 a poll on all negroes imported into the state, and also 
 on all Irish servants who were papists, as the act says, 
 <^to prevent the growth of popery by the importation 
 of too great a number of them into this province." 
 In these county schools, such children as the visitors 
 should select for the purpose were required to be taught 
 gratis. This system, it would seem, was conducted 
 with considerable success, and was aided from time to 
 time by the patronage of the legislature. 
 
 The school at Chestertown, in Kent county, had 
 become so flourishing in the year 1782, that the visitors 
 petitioned the legislature to have it formed into a col- 
 lege. The petition was granted, and the institution 
 took the name of Washington College. The number 
 of students at the time of this change was one hundred 
 and forty, and was soon after augmented to two hun- 
 dred. Buildings were erected at the expense of ten 
 thousand pounds taken from the funds, which had been 
 procured by private subscriptions. The state granted 
 an annual appropriation of twelve hundred and fifty 
 
44. 
 
 pounds. Two years after, another college was found- 
 ed on a similar plan at Annapolis, called St. John's 
 College, with which King William's School was incor- 
 porated. To this institution was made a yearly grant 
 of seventeen hundred and fifty pounds. The same 
 act, by which St. John's College was founded, authoriz- 
 ed a union of this with Washington College, under the 
 title of the University of Maryland* 
 
 The acts for founding and incorporating these insti- 
 tutions were drawn up with considerable ability, and 
 they embrace many sound principles and just views. 
 But they are marked with some radical defects. The 
 system of government and discipline was one> under 
 which no institution could long exist. Each college 
 was under the direction of twenty-four visitors. These 
 were required to assemble quarterly at the college to' 
 examine the students, hear appeals, decide on their 
 conduct, and in general, to put the laws in execution. 
 Thus all power was virtually taken out of the hands of 
 the immediate officers, in whose hands alone it could 
 be of any value in preserving necessary subordination^ 
 and enforcing wholesome rules of discipline. The 
 students would not respect officers, who they knew had 
 no authority, and from whose decision they might ap- 
 peal on the most trivial occasion to a body of men, who 
 could have no more than a very imperfect knowledge 
 of the merits of the case, and who at best could be but 
 ill qualified to judge. The circumstance of meeting 
 so often, and entering into such details, must also have 
 contributed rather to diminish, than strengthen the 
 interest of the visitors themselves. In addition to 
 these evils, the scheme of having a university com- 
 posed of colleges in different sections of the state, we 
 eouceive to have been wholly impracticable. The two 
 
45 
 
 bodies of visitors were united into one with a chancellor 
 at its head. This body in its united capacity formed 
 laws and regulations for the two colleges. But it is 
 impossible, in the nature of things, that the interests of 
 institutions so far separated could be precisely the 
 same. Nor could they act in concert, or promote a 
 unity of purpose. Under such circumstances, it is not 
 surprising, that this university did not answer the ex- 
 pectations of the legislature, nor of the public. So 
 much dissatisfaction at length prevailed, that in the 
 year 1805, the state entirely withdrew its patronage. 
 We have heard other reasons assigned, than those we 
 have mentioned, such as the spirit of party, unfortunate 
 choice of teachers, and local prejudices. These, no 
 doubt, had some influence ; but we are convinced, that 
 no combination of fortunate circumstances could have 
 remedied the evils at which we have hinted. Since 
 the decision of the Dartmouth College question, it has 
 been made a subject of debate, whether the proprietors 
 of these colleges cannot regain their former privileges. 
 It is urged, that many individuals made large donations, 
 with the understanding, that the state was permanently 
 pledged to continue the support at first granted. But 
 it is so doubtful whether this point can be well sustain- 
 ed, that it is not likely any decided step will be taken. 
 Although the state was disappointed in the success 
 of this institution, it did not slacken its exertions in 
 aiding the cause of learning. Its funds were distri- 
 buted more largely to the counties. In most of the 
 counties, respectable academies have been established, 
 which receive annually considerable sums out of the 
 state treasury. Each county, we believe, is entitled to 
 eight hundred dollars, and some receive more. There 
 are instances in which two or more counties have united 
 
46 
 
 their resources. Charlotte Hall School is supported in 
 this way, and sustains a high rank. In addition to 
 these grants for academies, nearly as much more is 
 given for common schools. The whole amount of 
 money annually expended by the state of Maryland 
 for the purposes of education, exceeds twenty-five 
 thousand dollars.* 
 
 These details are enough to show, that the efforts of 
 this state in advancing the interests of learning have 
 been liberal, honorable, and worthy of the highest 
 praise. It has afforded its patronage to several literary 
 institutions, by loaning money, granting lotteries, and 
 
 * The following are the annual donations, granted at present from the treasury 
 of the state of Maryland for Academies in the different counties. 
 To Elkton Academj-, . . , Dolls. 300 
 
 Washington Academy. 
 Talbot Academy, 
 Charlotte Hall School, 
 Frederick County School, 
 Garrison Forrest Academy, 
 Franklin Academy, 
 
 Allegany County School, 
 Centre Ville Academy, 
 RockvUle Academy, 
 Hagers-Town Academy, 
 Cambridge Academy, 
 Hillsborough School, . 
 West Nottingham Academy 
 St. John's College, 
 Washington College, . 
 
 Harford County Academy, 
 
 800 
 800 
 
 2000 
 800 
 400 
 400 
 500 
 800 
 800 
 800 
 500 
 500 
 500 
 
 1000 
 800 
 500 
 
 Dolls. 12,200 
 In addition to these grants from the state treasury, the Banks of Maryland 
 
 have been required since the 1st of January 1815, to pay twenty cents on every 
 
 hundred dollars of their capital for the support of common schools. This money 
 
 is paid to commissioners of the School Fund, who are appointed in each county, 
 
 and in the city of Baltimore. 
 
 The Bank capital in the state may be estimated at 7,500,000 dollars, and the 
 
 annual amount for schools derived from this source, according to the above 
 
 ratio, is . . , . . . Dolls. 15,000 
 
 Add the amount paid out of the state Treasury, 12,200 
 
 Dolls. 27,200 
 
47 
 
 other facilities. To Baltimore College it granted a lot- 
 tery, which was to yield thirty thousand dollars. In 
 1807, the Medical College was founded in Baltimore, 
 with the privilege of raising forty thousand dollars by 
 lottery; and in 1812, the charter was extended to 
 embrace all the departments of science and literature, 
 with a privilege subsequently granted of raising one 
 hundred thousand dollars more. The institution, with 
 this extension of its charter, is called the University of 
 Maryland. It consists of four faculties, namely, divi- 
 nity, law, medicine, and the arts and sciences; and is 
 under the control of twenty- eight regents. To obtain 
 a degree, students are required to be examined in the 
 presence of the regents; and no one can be considered 
 a candidate for the degree of bachelor of arts, till he 
 has attended lectures in the university for the space of 
 two years, nor for the degree of master of arts, till he 
 has attended the same for three years. The medical 
 department is the only one, which has yet gone into 
 full operation. As a medical school, this is believed 
 to be little inferior to any in the country, and is daily 
 rising in reputation. The college building is beautiful 
 and spacious, and the lecture rooms remarkably com- 
 modious. The chemical apparatus is considered equal, 
 if not superior, to any in the United States. During 
 the last session of the legislature, a loan was granted 
 to the University of Maryland, and it is hoped, that all 
 
 Hence it appears, that the state pays annuallj' Uventy seveji thousand two hundred 
 dollars for the support of Colleges, Academies, and Scliools. 
 
 The distiMbutioti of the money derived from the Banks is peculiar; — it is 
 di\ided into equal portions among the nineteen counties, altliongh the po- 
 pulation of sonic of the counties is five times as large as that of otliers. 
 And the fund appropriated for the county of Baltimore is divided equally between 
 the city and the county, although the population of the city is nearly double that 
 of the county. 
 
48 
 
 the departments will before long be brought at least 
 into partial operation. The professor of divinity, Rev. 
 Dr. Wyatt, has given a few lectures, but no regular 
 course. The professor of law, Mr. Hoffman, is pre- 
 paring a course of lectures, which, if we may judge 
 from the syllabus he has published, will do honor to 
 the university, and justify the expectations, which have 
 been raised by the favorable evidences of his talents 
 and qualifications exhibited in his work on the study 
 of the law.* 
 
 St. Mary's College in Baltimore was empowered by 
 the legislature in 1805 to admit students to degrees^ 
 and grant diplomas. This is a highly respectable in- 
 stitution, and has sent forth some of our first literary 
 men. It is under the direction of the Catholics, but 
 no religious test is required to enjoy its privileges, or 
 obtain a degree. It is, indeed, a fact, which redounds 
 much to the honor of the state, that in all its charters 
 to literary institutions, from the time of its first acts, 
 it is formally and explicitly stated, that no distinctions 
 shall be made in favor of any religious sentiments, but 
 that students, professors, visitors, and regents, shall be 
 taken from all denominations and be admitted to equal 
 privileges.! 
 
 -* See a review of Hoffman's Course of Legal Study, N. A. Review, vol. vi. 
 p. 45. 
 
 t The following is the second section of the act founding the present Univer- 
 sity of Maryland; "The said University shall be founded and maintained for 
 ever on the most liberal plan, for the benefit of students of every country and 
 every religious denomination, who shall be freely admitted to equal privileges and 
 advantages of education, and to all the honors of the University, according to 
 their merit, without requiring or enforcing any civil or religious test, urging their 
 attendance upon any particular plan of religious worship or service; nor shall 
 any preference be given to the choice of a Provost, Professor, Lecturer, or other 
 officer of said University, on account of his particular religious professions, but 
 regard shall be solely had to his moral character, and other necessary qualificsi- 
 tions to fill the place for which he shall be chosen." 
 
%9 
 
 It is a complaint, we believe, of most of the states 
 at the south, which have made donations for the aid of 
 schools and colleges, that the money has not produced 
 so good and extensive effects, as was desired and rea- 
 sonnbly expected. This subject deserves serious at- 
 tention. We are confident, that the munificence of the 
 state legislatures has been much greater than is ge- 
 nerally imagined. A statement of the amount of do- 
 nations in the several states, for a number of years 
 past, and the manner in which they have been applied, 
 would be a valuable document. It would afford a clue 
 to the cause of failure in particular cases, and lay a 
 foundation for a more judicious and beneficial manage- 
 ment. We suspect the grounds of complaint may be 
 traced to two sources; a deficiency of qualifications in 
 the persons to whom the disposal of money is entrusted, 
 and a want of proper care in selecting teachers. 
 
 Before we wholly close this article, we beg leave 
 earnestly to recommend the principal subject of it to the 
 attention of the American public at large, and indivi- 
 dually of the state governments in our own neighbor- 
 hood, who cannot, we think, acquit themselves of un- 
 faithfulness to the interests of their constituents, if they 
 do not imitate the laudable example of the legislature 
 of Maryland, in pursuing^, so important and just a 
 claim. We need not, any more than the Committee of 
 the Senate of Maryland, the framers of the Report 
 before us, disclaim the idea of looking with jealousy 
 on the appropriations for education in the new states. 
 We would sooner double than diminish them. But we 
 must also be permitted to say, what experience, we 
 believe, has already shown in some of these states, 
 that the appropriations are likely, in the new states 
 themselves, from hasty and injudicious application, and 
 
' 50 
 
 the general immaturity of society, to be almost wholly 
 unproductive of any permanent utility; while by ex- 
 tending them to the older states, where there are 
 already flourishing establishments for education capa- 
 ble of forming a nucleus for farther increase, the 
 greatest benefit and honor would result to our common 
 country. In conclusion, we cannot but express our 
 gratitude to the legislature of Maryland for the enter- 
 prize and perseverance with which they have brought 
 forward and pursued this claim, and to the chairman of 
 their committee, Mr. Maxcy, for the forcible and con- 
 siderate form in which the Reports are drawn up. 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 021 324 669 
 
r 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 This work is published qnarterly, in Boston. 
 The annual suljscription is jive dollars. It will be 
 transmitted by mail to any part of the United States. 
 Communications directed to the publisher^ Oliver 
 Everett, Boston.