6 
 
 MARKS IN 
 S.
 
 LIBRA HY 
 
 OF THt 
 
 UN1VER.S ITY 
 
 or 1LL1 NOIS 
 
 379.121 
 Ed97s 
 
 |\ 
 
 ituRou roiweAtsWY
 
 
 
 STtftBgHftlSHBlQB 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. EDWARDS, OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 is rat 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 jlesolution that "appropriations of Territory for the purposes of Educa- 
 tion should he made to those States in whose favour no such appro- 
 priations have bten made, corresponding in just proportion •« i*h 
 those heretofore made to other States in the Union," 
 
 city ov Washington: 
 
 PRIMED BY EDWARD DE KRAFFT 
 
 1822.
 
 37/./2J 
 
 7s 
 
 
 v. 
 
 THE SUBSTANCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REMARKS OF MR. EWDARDS, 
 
 OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 iN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 On the following resolution, viz: 
 
 " Resolved, That appropriations of territory, for the purposes of Edu. 
 oathem, should be made to those states, in whose favour no such appropriations 
 have been made, corresponding m just proportion with those heretofore made 
 to other states in the Union." 
 
 Mr. President, said Mr. Edwards, notwith- 
 standing that any opposition to the resolution upon 
 your table, on the part of the representatives of the 
 new states, has been denounced as " disreputable 
 to their characters for honesty and justice," not only 
 by many of our most distinguished and patriotic pub- 
 lic journals, but also by one of the most respectable 
 states of the Union; yet, sir, a sense of duty will 
 not permit me to decline an investigation of the sub- 
 ject, hopeless as it may be, to oppose my feeble ef- 
 forts to the transcendent abilities with which the 
 proposition under consideration has been support- 
 ed; and unpleasant as it is, to subject myself to im- 
 putations which the zeal of many of its ablest ad- 
 ^ vocates affords me but little prospect of escaping. 
 
 \ ■ I shall, however, carefully endeavour to follow the 
 example of the honorable gentleman, who has just 
 
 ^ resumed his seat, (Mr. Lloyd) in treating the sub- 
 
 - ject with such deference to the feelings of others, as 
 s to furnish no ground of exception to any gentleman 
 
 ^ with whom it may be my misfortune to differ in opi- 
 nion. And permit me to say, sir, that, equally with 
 the gentleman from Maryland, appreciating the ad- 
 - vantages of education, regarding it as a most effi- 
 cient means of increasing the virtue, knowledge, 
 and happiness of mankind; and of imparting addi-
 
 tional moral power, stability and embellishment tor 
 our republican institutions, it would afford me the sin- 
 cerest gratification to unite with him in any just and 
 proper measure for the advancement of that import- 
 ant object. But, sir, it appears to me to be doubtful, 
 at least, whether Congress can rightfully adopt, for 
 that purpose, the measure now under consideration. 
 
 The appropriation which we are asked to make, 
 is avowed to be for a mere state purpose, and in 
 that point of view, I shall proceed to consider it, 
 under every modification of which it is susceptible. 
 The question then is, can the resources of this na- 
 tion be thus applied? This should be tested by 
 principle, rather than by the ¥ precedents upon pre- 
 cedents" referred to and relied upon by the gentle- 
 man from Maryland, for this government is much 
 too young to acknowledge the force of any prece- 
 dents, not founded upon, and much less of those 
 which are in opposition to, principle, and gentlemen 
 who are disposed to avail themselves of an argu- 
 ment deduced from mere precedents, in the present 
 case, ought to recollect how little inclined they 
 would be to respect such authority, in a variety of 
 other cases, that might be referred to. 
 
 In discussing this subject, said Mr. E. I may, I 
 presume, safely premise, that, the duties, powers, 
 and objects of the federal and state governments are 
 separate and distinct; and that the success of our 
 whole governmental experiment, and the prosperity 
 and happiness of this nation, depend upon the fide- 
 lity and wisdom, with which those governments re- 
 spectively, discharge their appropriate functions. 
 Each government has, for those important purposes, 
 and as necessary thereto, its own particular re- 
 sources, which cannot be yielded up, or misapplied 
 without impairing its capacity to fulfil the objects 
 of its institutions; for nothing could be more nuga- 
 tory, than a grant of powers without the means of 
 executing them. The resources of this government
 
 5 
 
 are found from experience to be, at this time, inade- 
 quate to its wants, any measure therefore, whose 
 tendency would be, further to embarrass and crip- 
 ple its operations, must be deemed highly inexpedi- 
 ent, at least. 
 
 Mr. President, said Mr. E. the gentleman from 
 Maryland appears to have reviewed, with critical 
 accuracy, all the events connected with the acquisi- 
 tion of the national domain, and he has with great 
 perspicuity traced out the origin, and demonstrated 
 the validity of our title to it. But, sir, whether it 
 has been acquired by conquest; cessions from parti- 
 cular states; or purchases from foreign powers; one 
 thing is undeniable — it has doubtless been acquired 
 by, and exclusively belongs to, the Confederation, 
 or Union. It must, therefore, be considered as 
 national and not state property, and by fair infer- 
 ence is applicable only to national and not state 
 objects. It is true, as contended by the honorable 
 gentleman, that it is a common fund in which all 
 the states are interested. So, sir, is the revenue, 
 and every other species of property belonging to 
 the United States, in relation to all of which, the 
 interest of the states is precisely the same. Being 
 a common fund, applicable to the use and support 
 of the general government, the states can enjoy the 
 benefits of it, only, in its just, and legitimate applica- 
 tion to national purposes. I hold it, therefore, that 
 no state can rightfully claim, and of course to none 
 can be granted, the separate and distinct use and 
 enjoyment of the property, or funds of the nation, 
 in consequence of a right to a common participation 
 therein. 
 
 Independent, however, said Mr. E. of these ge- 
 neral considerations, the adoption of the proposed 
 measure is, I think, forbidden by a just regard to 
 the positive stipulations of the United States, with 
 the states which ceded the public domain on the 
 past side of the Mississippi river. Let us, said he.
 
 for a moment, attend to the circumstances under 
 which those cessions were made, which have been 
 so eloquently narrated, and commented upon by 
 the gentleman from Maryland. 
 
 During our revolutionary struggle, which even- 
 tuated, so happily, in the establishment of our li- 
 berty and independence, the pecuniary resources of 
 the nation had been exhausted; and at the close of 
 the contest, it found itself loaded with a heavy debt, 
 incurred in the prosecution of the war, which it had 
 not the. means of discharging; but which, every dic- 
 tate of justice, honor, and gratitude required should 
 be provided for, at the earliest practicable period, 
 by every means which the nation could command. 
 Several of the states claimed large tracts of waste, 
 and unappropriated territory in the western coun- 
 try, as being within their chartered limits. These 
 claims had long been the subject of much animated, 
 and sometimes, irritating discussion, as is sufficient- 
 ly obvious, from the authorities read by the gentle- 
 man from Maryland. The states which had no 
 part in those lands, had earnestly insisted that if 
 the dominion over them, should be established by 
 the common force and treasure of the United States, 
 they ought to be appropriated as a common fund 
 for defraying the expenses of the war. Congress 
 appealing to the generosity, magnanimity, and pa- 
 triotism of the states having those claims, had re- 
 commended, and solicited liberal cessions of a por- 
 tion of them, for the same purpose — promising as 
 inducements thereto, by the very resolution which 
 the honorable gentleman lias read to you, that all 
 the lands which might be so ceded, or relinquish- 
 ed, should be disposed of for the common benefit of 
 the United States; that they should be settled and 
 farmed into distinct republican states, which should 
 be admitted into the federal Union; and that the re- 
 gulations for granting, and for settling those lands. 
 should be prescribed by Congress.
 
 The states thus appealed to, yielding, at length, 
 to a laudable spirit of harmony, and conciliation, 
 made the cessions which had been requested of 
 them — not, however, without stipulating, very ex- 
 plicitly, that those lands should be considered as a 
 common fund for the use and benefit of the Union, 
 as it then was, or thereafter might be: vu\ that they 
 should be faithfully, and bona tide disposed of for 
 that common purpose, (f and for no other use or 
 purpose whatsoever. 9 ' 
 
 The United States, therefore, having solicited, 
 and accepted of the cessions upon such terms — un- 
 der such circumstances — having bound themselves 
 by solemn compact, to dispose of those lands for the 
 use and benefit of the Union — " and for no other 
 vse or purpose whatsoever," Congress cannot now, 
 I think, consistently with good faith, and honor, 
 disregard those solemn engagements, by withdraw- 
 ing the whole, or any part of the fund so surren- 
 dered, from the use of the Union, and appropriat- 
 ing it to tkat of any one or more states. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. E. the stipulations of the United 
 States embrace the whole of those lands. If, then, 
 you can withdraw any part of them, from the use, 
 for which they were specially solicited, ceded, and 
 accepted, where, 1 beg leave to ask the gentleman 
 from Maryland, is the limit to your power over 
 them ? Why may you not as well make partition 
 of the whole of them, among the several states of 
 the Union ? And how then would you fulfil the 
 stipulations of the United States? First; that the 
 regulations for granting and for settling those 
 lands should be prescribed by Congress. Secondly; 
 that they should be settled— and, thirdly, that being 
 settled, they should be formed into distinct republi- 
 can states, and admitted into the federal Union. It 
 cannot be contended that we are competent to dele- 
 gate powers for snch purposes to the states, for if 
 that be the case, there are no powers with which
 
 we arc invested, that might not with equal proptiei 
 ty. be transferred. 
 
 Mr. President, said Mr. E. it is no answer to 
 these objections to contend, as the gentleman from 
 Maryland seems to do, that the claims of the red- 
 ing states were not just and valid, for however de- 
 fective they may have been originally, the United 
 States, by accepting of the cessions upon special 
 conditions, must be considered as having admitted 
 the right, and bound themselves to comply with the 
 conditions; otherwise there could be no faith and 
 confidence reposed in any adjustment, arrangement 
 or contract with government. [Here Mr. Lloyd 
 rose and explained the remarks he had made; and 
 having resumed his seat, Mr. E. again proceeded.] 
 
 Mr. President, said Mr. E. in consequence of 
 the explanations of the honorable gentleman, J 
 shall forbear the remarks I had intended to make 
 upon this part of the subject. But, sir, said he, let 
 it even be admitted that the claims of those states 
 were wholly defective — that they had never made 
 any cessions whatever — that the United States had 
 never entered into any stipulations in relation to 
 the subject — and that the public domain had actu- 
 ally been conquered by the united valour of all the 
 states — still it would have been an acquisition, 
 made, not in their state — but in their federal cha- 
 racter, in which latter character only, could they 
 participate in the use, and benefits of it. For be- 
 ing a federal acquisition, it could not, without a to- 
 tal prostration of our whole system of government, 
 be annihilated as such, by being partitioned out, in 
 due proportion, among the several states of the 
 Union. Where, sir, is delegated the power, that 
 is competent to make such a division either of the 
 whole, or a part ? The state governments most as- 
 suredly, have no controul over the subject; and 
 surely, those to whom the powers of the federal 
 government are entrusted, never could, rightfully 
 annihilate its own resources, for any such purpose.
 
 n 
 
 If however, sir, the gentleman from Maryland is 
 correct in the opinions, which he has supported 
 willi equal zeal and ability, then indeed, sir. may 
 the states rightfully claim, and Congress rightfully 
 pant partition of all the territory, purchased of 
 France and Spain Mith the common funds of the 
 nation, to he appropriated to ofjects, to which the 
 powers of federal legislation are not pretended to 
 extend. Then indeed, sir, may tLi revenue, and 
 every giber species of property belonging to the 
 Uniied Stales, receive a similar destination: for 
 they all constitute "the common funds of the na- 
 tion. '' iu which the states are interested; and the 
 powers, and objects of appropriation as granted to 
 Congress, by the Constitution of the United States, 
 are equally precise, defined, and limited, in relation 
 to all the funds of the nation, without discrimination. 
 
 In the specification of those powers, said Mr. E. 
 there is none, either expressed, or implied, to war- 
 rant the appropriation now asked for. It cannot 
 be inferred from the general power, to make all 
 needful rules and regulations for disposing of the 
 territory and other property of the United States, 
 for candour must admit, that the plain and natural 
 inference from this grant of power is, that the pro- 
 perty of the Union, should be disposed of for the 
 use and benefit of the Union — and that too, in strict 
 conformity with the legitimate powers of federal le- 
 gislation; and solely, in aid of the great objects 
 thereof. If, then, the states respectively, have no 
 right to the separate, and distinct use and enjoy- 
 ment of the common property, and funds of the na- 
 tion, whence do we dt rive the power to confer such 
 a right upon them ? And if the controul over those 
 funds be intrusted to the federal legislature, for 
 national, and not for state purposes, I beg leave 
 also, seriously to ask gentlemen, whether we can 
 appropriate them to the latter, without a most pal- 
 pable violation of the trust confided to us ? 
 2
 
 10 
 
 hi addition to all these objections, said Mr. K. 
 there is one more, which cannot he disregarded, so 
 lone; as we retain I he slightest respect for the ju-t 
 and lawful ads of our predecessors; or consider 
 (he high character for justice, honor, and good faith. 
 Which (his government has hitherto, so justly, ac- 
 quired and maintained, both at home and abroad, 
 as worth preserving. 
 
 The first Congress^ composed principally of tlie 
 venerable, sages, and patriots of the revolution, duly 
 considering the purposes for which the public lands 
 had been ceded, and disposed fairly to fulfil the 
 Stipulations of the United States in relation to them, 
 by the act of 1790, solemnly pledged, not only 
 those, but all other lands, which the United Sta***^ 
 Blight thereafter acquire, for the payment of the 
 public debts; expressly declaring, that they should 
 be applied solely to that use, until those debts 
 should he fullv satisfied. 
 
 T5y the act of 1705, this pledge is again repeated 
 in language still more energetic, for the faith of the 
 United States is therein also expressly pledged, 
 that those lands shall remain, inviolably, appropri- 
 ated to the payment of those debts, until the same 
 shall be completely effected. 
 
 At various other periods, between 1790 and 1817. 
 inclusive, has this subject been brought under the 
 review of different congresses, and as often has the 
 same pledge been renewed. And thus, has been 
 created a solemn compact between the United 
 States, and the public creditors. Seeing it then, 
 supported by so many repeated enactments, and 
 sanctioned as it has been, to this day, by the pub- 
 lic sentiment of the nation — shall we now violate it? 
 Have our predecessors acted unjustly, or unwisely, 
 in making it? If not, we. ourselves, though bound 
 by no previous obligations, ought for the sake of 
 justice, to be willing to do the same thing, if it were 
 now to be acted upon for the first time: for this go-
 
 ii 
 
 rem men t ought to be just, before it pretends to b* 
 generous, especially at the expense of others. 
 
 Mr. E. here read several sections of the laws 
 containing the pledges referred to, and contended 
 that the faith of the United .States being pledged 
 that the whole of the public lands should remain, 
 inviolably appropriated to the payment of the pub- 
 lic debts; that they should be appropriated, solely, 
 to that use, until those debts should be fully satisfi- 
 ed; and a vast' amount of them still remaining un- 
 paid: no part of the national domain could be right- 
 fully appropriated to the purposes contemplated by 
 the resolution under consideration. And if, indeed, 
 sir, said he, we have on any former occasions, 
 through inadvertance — or from other causes, misap- 
 plied any part of this fuud, so far from furnishing 
 an argument in favour of persevering in a course, so 
 unjustifiable, I appeal to the candour of the gentle- 
 man from Maryland, as he done to mine, to say 
 whether it does not, incontestibly, give to the public 
 creditors, an additional claim upon us to forbear all 
 further, wilful misapplications? 
 
 But, sir, let us inquire into the extent of the ap- 
 propriation we are called upon to make. Instead 
 of the " small slice" as described, by the gentle- 
 man from Maryland — it is to the enormous amount 
 of about ten millions of acres of the national do- 
 main; which, at the average price, at which those 
 lands have hitherto been sold, would produce a sum 
 nearly equal, if not entirely so, to the whole amount 
 of the nett proceeds of the sale of public lands, re- 
 ceived into the Treasury of the United States, dur- 
 ing the last nineteen or twenty years. It would be 
 needless to review the extraordinary circumstances 
 which, in this period, so powerfully contributed to 
 augment the receipts of the Treasury, from this 
 source of our revenue. Similar causes are not like- 
 ly to recur for many years lo come; and calculating 
 upon the sales that have been made since those 
 
 f ILL L
 
 12 
 
 ranges have censed to operate, a much lon«rer peri- 
 od, probably not less than double that length of 
 time, Would be requisite to effect sales to the same 
 amount. 
 
 What then, Mr. President, is to be the conse- 
 quence of granting this quantify of land to the 
 states, in whose favour it is applied for? It surely 
 cannot be, seriously, intended, to vest the old states 
 with power to plant colonies of tenants in the new- 
 ones. This would be impracticable — and to those 
 states utterly useless. Waving other important 
 considerations, which I forbear, even to allude to, 
 the vast extent of the national domain, and the 
 cheapness of unimproved lands, thank (rod for it, 
 afford but little prospect of renting snch lands to 
 advantage, or, even of having them settled, and im- 
 proved, for the use of them. 
 
 The object, then, must be, either to authorise the 
 states to dispose of the land — or that this govern- 
 ment shall become their auctioneer for that purpose. 
 The former would he transferring to those states, a 
 power, exclusively, delegated to Congress — a right 
 to do that, which, according to the stipulations he- 
 fore referred to, can only be performed by Congress. 
 For, I take it for granted that, if you cannot vest 
 in the states the right to dispose of their respective 
 interests in the whole of the public lands, you can 
 transfer to them no power to dispose of any part of 
 them. But, sir, supposing there is nothing solid in 
 this objection, what is to be the effect upon your 
 Treasury, of authorising the states to sell the land 
 proposed to be granted to them ? They must enter 
 into competition with you. In proportion to the 
 extent of their sales, whatever they may be, yours 
 must be diminished; because not only the price, but 
 the sale of land, must depend upon the relation 
 which supply bears to demand; for if the juice be 
 so low, and the supply so great, that it ceases to be 
 an object of speculation, there can be no motive to
 
 13 
 
 purchase it, but few cultivation. As the govern- 
 ment, however, would still have an infinitely ereat- 
 er variety of lands to select from, the states could 
 not sell at all, to any extent, without underselling 
 the government. This, therefore, they must do, 
 otherwise their lands would be of no use to them. 
 Recollect, sir, the millions of acres which you have 
 granted in military bounties. These have already 
 come into competition with you at the reduced price 
 of from twenty to forty dollars a quarter section, 
 and have most materially curtailed your sales. Add 
 to them the ten millions of acres now proposed to be 
 granted, you must abolish your present system of 
 sales, and abandon your minimum price altogether: 
 or close up your land offices for twenty, thirty, or 
 forty years to come. 
 
 Take then, sir, if you please, the other alterna- 
 tive, that the government shall dispose of the land 
 for the benefit of those states. To this, some eea- 
 tlemen seem to think there can be no objection, be- 
 cause the Constitution has delegated to Congress 
 the power of disposing of the property of the United 
 States, though that power is, by express stipulation, 
 and plain and obvious inference, coupled with the 
 positive duty of disposing of such property for the 
 benefit of th<> Union. By this plan, however, the 
 injurious effects of competition might be avoided, 
 and the present minimum price preserved. But, as 
 has been already shown, it would require some 
 twenty years, at least, to dispose of the land, though 
 not an acre should, in the mean time, be sold for 
 the benefit of the Union. This would indeed, be 
 transforming federal into state agents; abstracting 
 them from duties, for whose performance, they were 
 solely created; and devoting them to a pretty long 
 servitude, to mere state purposes. Now, sir, a<N 
 mitting, we have a right to give away the land to 
 the states, whence do we derive the power, to consti- 
 tutp ourselves, and our successors too, their agents
 
 14 
 
 and trustees? Or to convert this government into 
 such state machinery ? 
 
 * 
 
 But, sir, putting the best possible aspect upon 
 
 this plan, it can amount to nothing less than a vir- 
 tual grant of money, to be paid out of the public 
 Treasury, with a pledge of our already pledged, 
 repledged, triple, quadruple, quintuple 1 pledged pub- 
 lic lands, for its payment. Is, then, that a proper 
 time, for making such an appropriation, when, the 
 receipts of the Treasury are not more than ade- 
 quate to the current expenses of the government? 
 When, the government has to support itself by loans 
 of five millions at a time? And when, every man 
 in the nation, of ordinary sagacity, must be con- 
 vinced that we must soon resort to a permanent sys- 
 tem of internal taxation ? Sir, said Mr. E. it can- 
 not be disguised from the people of this nation that, 
 in proportion as we misapply, or impair any of the 
 ordinary sources of revenue, additional burdens 
 must be imposed upon them. And can it be sup- 
 posed that they will be reconciled to an appropria- 
 tion to such an amount — attended with such conse- 
 quences — without even, the pretence of power on 
 the part of Congress to enforce its application, to 
 the objects for which it is to be granted? 
 
 But, sir, what is to be the extent, to which the 
 new doctrines upon which the present proposition 
 is supported, are to lead us ? One false step begets 
 another. If, because one thirty-sixth part of the 
 national domain in the new states, has been appro- 
 priated to the support of education therein, the 
 states in which there is no public land, are entitled 
 to an appropriation of equal amount, as contended 
 by the gentleman from Maryland, why may they 
 not, with equal propriety, and justice, claim a much 
 larger proportion of the nett proceeds of the sale of 
 public land, for a different purpose — and one too, 
 which has not escaped the attention of the honora- 
 ble gentleman, but has been several times referred
 
 15 
 
 in by him in the course of his remarks. By stipu- 
 lations with the new states, one-twentieth of those 
 proceeds is appropriated to the making of roads 
 in, and leading to them. Are not roads, as well as 
 education, equally necessary to every state in the 
 Union ? And if you grant the proposed .appropri- 
 ation for the support of education, upon the princi- 
 ples contended for by the gentleman from Mary 
 land — not asked, as a favour, but according to his 
 own language, " demanded as a right" — upon what 
 ground, can you refuse the suggested appropriation 
 for public roads? If the latter be granted, then, 
 a\ ill not only this source of national revenue be 
 completely annihilated, but other sources must be 
 rendered tributary to the states. For if a sum equal 
 to one-twentieth of the proceeds of the sale of pub- 
 lic land is to be granted to each state, then, as cer- 
 tainly as that twenty twentieths are the whole, those 
 proceeds can only satisfy twenty states, and the 
 balance must be paid out of some other branch of 
 the revenue. 
 
 In short, sir, it appears to me that we have no 
 more right to grant away to the states, the funds, 
 than the powers of this government, for take 
 from it, its pecuniary resources, and destroy its cha- 
 racter for good faith, it would be idle mockery to 
 pretend to talk about its powers. 
 
 Mr. President, said Mr. E. in the remarks which 
 I have had the honor to submit to your considera- 
 tion, I have attempted to show, that, upon principle, 
 the proposition under consideration, ought not to be 
 acceded to. But, says the gentleman from Mary- 
 land, similar donations, have been made to the new 
 states. Admit it, sir — what then? If the cases be 
 analogous, and my argument be well founded, that 
 also, is wrong. And can we derive from one error 
 a just, and lawful right, to commit another of still 
 greater magnitude? If our predecessors have violat- 
 ed the fundamental principles of the 2;oA(M-ument —
 
 16 
 
 disregarded its most sacred obligations— prostrated 
 
 lis faith — and assumed powers never delegated to 
 them — does this confer upon us the right of further 
 usurpations? If that be the case, then, truly, have 
 we discovered a most convenient means of acquiring 
 power: a r 'cr which, man at all times lusteth a little 
 too strongly. Such a. principle, however, never can 
 be recognized by this enlightened Senate. The 
 precedent referred to therefore, if in point, I contend 
 is destitute of all authority, because, as such, it 
 would be most palpably erroneous. But it will not, 
 I think, upon a fair and candid examination, be 
 found to warrant the argument that is attempted to 
 be drawn from it. 
 
 I shall endeavour to show, that the parallel be- 
 tween those cases does not run quite as far as seems to 
 have been imagined by the gentleman from Mary- 
 land, but that there are striking diversities in them, 
 affording such ground for an honest difference of 
 Opinion, at least, as requires the exercise of a very 
 moderate portion of common charity to believe, that 
 gentlemen may support the one, and oppose the 
 other, without intentional injustice or inconsistency. 
 
 The one, sir, is a case decided upwards of thirty- 
 six years ago, by the gentleman's own showing; 
 confirmed by repeated subsequent decisions; and 
 universally acquiesced in. The other is a case 
 purely res Integra, never before acted upon, or even 
 agitated. In supporting the former, we are, there- 
 fore, fortified with the concurring sentiment of the 
 nation, and the positive approbation of all our pre- 
 decessors since the year 1785. In forbearing to 
 adopt the latter, we are equally supported by their 
 example— and opinion too, sir, as far as it can be 
 inferred from their conduct. And it would not, I 
 think, be a very modest pretension, on our own part, 
 to claim for ourselves more wisdom to discern, or 
 virtue to execute our duties, than was possessed by 
 so manv of the wisest heads, and best hearts, that
 
 17 
 
 ever adorned any nation. Appreciating the advau 
 tages of education, as they must have done, and not 
 less devoted to the interests of their respective states, 
 than ourselves, had they considered those cases as 
 presenting equal claims upon them, they never 
 would have provided for the one so promptly, and 
 have postponed, and totally neglected the other so 
 long. The gentleman from Maryland, therefore, 
 in his eloquent apneals to the magnanimity of the 
 members of the new states, ought not to forget, that, 
 whatever of disapprobation is fairly due to their 
 opposition, to the measure which he presses with 
 so much ardour and ability, equally applies to those 
 distinguished sages and patriots who have retired 
 from the stage of public action, with so much honor 
 and glory; or whose souls have fled to another, and 
 better world, to receive the rewards of the virtues 
 they practiced in this. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. E. the great and leading distinction 
 between those cases is, that the one had for its ob- 
 ject the common benefit and advantage of all the 
 states, in their federal character. The other is in- 
 tended for the particular use and benefit of certain 
 states in their state character. The former was 
 conformable to the powers and objects of federal 
 legislation, and consistent with the stipulations of 
 the United States, with the states which ceded 
 their lands, and can only be justified upon such 
 grounds. The latter is warranted by no delegation 
 of authority whatever, either expressed or implied, 
 and would be in direct contravention of those stipu- 
 lations, and, therefore, cannot be supported at all. 
 The one involved no breach of engagements with 
 the public creditors, since the pledge of the proceeds 
 of the sale of public lands imposed no obligation to 
 change a mode of disposing of them, which had 
 then been five years in operation. The other would 
 be a most flagrant violation of the faith of the Unit- 
 ed States, solemnlv pledged to those creditors. 
 3
 
 IS 
 
 The gentleman from Maryland contends, that 
 there has boon no cotemporaneoHS construction to 
 warrant a distinction between those cases. But, sir, 
 never, perhaps, was there a case in which the evi- 
 dences of such a construction were stronger, or its 
 authority entitled to more respect, than is evinced 
 by all the circumstances attending the cessions of 
 our public lands — the mode of disposing of them 
 which was shortly afterwards adopted — and the 
 constant adherence to the same system, from that 
 time, to the present period. 
 
 In the adoption of this system, under which the- 
 reservations for the support of education were made, 
 the most enlightened patriots of the nation, who had 
 taken an active part in relation to those lands, the 
 states which insisted that the cessions ought to be 
 made, the states that made them, and Congress 
 which accepted them, all concurred. This general 
 concurrence, therefore, was the best possible prac- 
 tical exposition of the intentions of all parties in re- 
 lation to the manner in which this fund might be 
 fairly, and justly disposed of for the common use 
 and benefit of the Union. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. K. it cannot be supposed that the 
 states which had so strenuously insisted that those 
 lands should be appropriated, as a common fund, 
 for defraying the expenses of the tear — the states 
 which stipulated, with such jealous caution, that 
 they should be faithfully disposed of for the common 
 use and benefit of the Union, and for no other use or 
 purpose whatsoever — and Congress which accepted 
 of them, upon that express condition, should so soon 
 afterwards have intended to make a partial disposi- 
 tion of any portion of them. 
 
 Virginia, sir, had made much the most important 
 and valuable cession, not, however, without some 
 apparent hesitation at least. If, then, the system of 
 disposing of those lands had been understood to 
 contain any unjust and partial appropriation of them.
 
 1& 
 
 in favour of any state, or states to the exclusion of 
 Virginia, it is particularly extraordinary, not only, 
 that her wise and sagacious representation, by 
 which she has always been eminently distinguish- 
 ed, should have acquiesced in it, but that, two years 
 afterwards, two of her most distinguished represen- 
 tatives, and Mr. Madison himself, one of those two, 
 should have united in a report to Congress, strongly 
 recommending the same system, with the additional 
 reservation of the 29th section of each township, to 
 be given in perpetuity for religious purposes. It 
 is evident, therefore, that the system was adopted 
 for the common benefit and advantage of all the 
 states, and that it furnishes neither precedent nor 
 apology, for an appropriation of the national funds 
 to the particular use and benefit of any state. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. E. it must be manifest from this 
 view of the subject, that the distinction I have en- 
 deavoured to draw between those cases, is support- 
 ed by the practical exposition which has been given 
 to all the cessions of public land, and the stipula- 
 tions connected therewith, by those of all others the 
 best qualified to interpret them — by the parties 
 themselves. While, on the other hand, the forbear- 
 ance of all of them, to insist upon, or any of them, to 
 adopt such a measure as the one now proposed, 
 with the most powerful inducements thereto, had it 
 been proper, affords the strongest ground to believe, 
 that they considered any such disposition of the 
 national funds, as wholly inadmissible. 
 
 Independent however of the very high authority 
 of a decision thus given, by those who were so emi- 
 nently qualified to judge correctly upon the subj»ct, 
 it is easy to demonstrate, not only that the reserva- 
 tions for the support of educatiou, were justifiable 
 upon strict national principles, but that even much 
 greater encouragement to the settlement of the na- 
 tional domain, had circumstances required it, might 
 have been afforded by the government, with perfect 
 fairness and impartial justice.
 
 20 
 
 In vain, sir. would Maryland, and the rest of the 
 states, which originally set up no claim to those 
 lands, have insisted thai they should be appropriat- 
 ed as a common fund for defraying the expenses of 
 
 the tear — or the states that ceded them', have stipu- 
 lated, that they should be disposed of Jot the com- 
 mon use and benefit of the Union — and fruitless 
 would have been the pledge of them to the public 
 creditors, if they had been permitted to remain in 
 the condition in which they were received — waste 
 and unappropriated — the haunts of ferocious beasts 
 — and the habitations of blood-thirsty savages. 
 
 In this situation, neither the Union itself, nor any 
 state whatever, could derive any possible benefit 
 from them — hence, it became not less the interest, 
 than the duty, of the government to encourage emi- 
 gration to them. And if for this purpose, it had 
 been necessary to have actually given away a moie- 
 ty of them to settlers thereon, according to the poli- 
 cy pursued by some of the states, in similar cases, 
 such a measure would have been equally demanded 
 by the engagements of the government, and the real 
 interest of every state. 
 
 But, sir, without insisting upon what might have 
 been done, it is sufficient for my purpose, to show, 
 that the reservations which have heretofore been 
 made for the support of education, were proper, ex- 
 pedient, and just, in relation to all the states. This 
 I shall endeavour to do. 
 
 The conditions which the United States bound 
 themselves to perform, in relation to the ceded ter- 
 ritory, seem to have had two principal objects in 
 view. 
 
 First, That those lands should be rendered avail- 
 able, as a common fund, for paying the debts; de- 
 fraying the expenses: and advancing the interest of 
 the United States. And, Secondly, That they 
 should, at the same time, be so disposed of for those 
 purposes, as to promote the formation of new states,
 
 21 
 
 within their limits, to be admitted into the federal 
 Union. Both these objects equally depending up- 
 on the same stipulations, neither could, properly, be 
 provided for, to the exclusion of the other. For, as 
 the new states could not, consistently with the con- 
 ditions agreed upon, be formed and admitted into 
 the Union, without previously disposing of a suita- 
 ble proportion of the territory, so, neither could the 
 territory be disposed to a Foreign Power, or in any 
 otlier manner, so as to prevent the formation of the 
 new states. Nor could any other measure have 
 been correctly adopted, in relation to one of those 
 objects, without a correspondent regard to the other. 
 The first contemplated a transfer of the land. The 
 second was intended to provide the means of enjoy- 
 ing it, with the utmost safety, comfort, and happi- 
 ness. Thus understood, they were calculated, mu- 
 tually, to aid each other. The promise, to establish 
 distinct republican states, and to admit them into 
 the Union, upon an equal footing with the original 
 states, in all respects whatever, as soon as might be 
 practicable, could not fail to promote the sale and 
 settlement of the land— whilst every other induce- 
 ment that could be afforded to the latter, would 
 equally contribute to hasten the accomplishment of 
 the former. 
 
 It would, therefore, have been a violation of good 
 faith, if, in disposing of the lands, due regard had 
 not been paid to the formation of the new states — 
 and a most culpable neglect of duty, if all necessary 
 and practicable means of rendering them suitable 
 and useful members of the Union had not been 
 adopted. This, evidently, was the opinion of the 
 old Congress, and hence Ave find one ordinance for 
 disposing of the territory, and another for the go- 
 vernment of its inhabitants. The former, among 
 other things, provides for the support of education, 
 doubtless, with a view to promote both of the objects 
 referred to. The latter, contains an explicit avow-
 
 22 
 
 al of the moral benefits expected from those reser- 
 vations; for, in one of the six articles, which are 
 declared to be articles of compact between the ori- 
 ginal states, and the people of the ceded territory, 
 unalterable, unless by common consent, it is ex- 
 pressly said, " that religion, morality, and knowl- 
 edge, being necessary to good government, and the 
 happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of 
 education, shall forever be encouraged." 
 
 As, then, it was not less the duty of Congress to 
 provide for the establishment of the new states, than 
 to dispose of the lands, it may be considered a for- 
 tunate circumstance, that those two objects were so 
 well calculated to harmonize with each other. 
 Since, had it been otherwise, the obligations to pro- 
 vide for both, would not have been the less impera- 
 tive. Nor would any of the original states have 
 had just cause of complaint, if the formation of the 
 new ones, had even required sacrifices on the part of 
 the Union. For that being one of the conditions of 
 those grants or cessions, must be considered as a 
 part of the consideration thereof, and none could, 
 fairly, or honestly, claim the benefit of the one, 
 without contributing in just proportion to the other. 
 
 In order, therefore, to do justice to the wisdom, 
 foresight, and profound policy, which dictated the 
 reservation of a part of the national domain, for the 
 support of education, it is necessary that that mea- 
 sure should be considered in relation to both of the 
 objects referred to. 
 
 I will not, Mr. President, said Mr. E. consume 
 your time, by attempting to demonstrate the general 
 political considerations which must have recom- 
 mended its adoption. The influence of education 
 upon the happiness, moral power, good government, 
 and prosperity of any community, is too obvious to 
 require illustration. Nor, indeed, sir, could any 
 one, much less myself, add any thing upon the sub- 
 ject, more eloquent or convincing, than what we have
 
 23 
 
 already heard from the honorable gentleman from 
 Maryland. 
 
 Considering the measure, merely, in relation to 
 the sale of the lands, it derives equal justification 
 from the intentions with which it must have been 
 adopted: and the success that has' attended it; for 
 it can neither he doubted, that it was intended to 
 render those lands more valuable and available to 
 the Union — nor that it lias been eminently success- 
 ful in producing those effects. 
 
 But, sir, in whatever point of view it can be fairly , 
 considered, it seems to me to be difficult at least, to 
 discern any principle upon which it can be justified 
 that can support, or which indeed does not exclude 
 the claim now contended for on the part of the ori- 
 ginal states. 
 
 That the encouragement of education, as a means 
 of diffusing useful knowledge, of suppressing vice 
 and immorality, and of promoting religion, would, 
 as contended by the gentleman from Maryland, be 
 eminently calculated to ensure the safety, happi- 
 ness, and prosperity, of our common country, is 
 most readily admitted. But it does not therefore 
 follow, that we have a right to adopt the proposed 
 measure, for such purposes. For, if that be the 
 case, the powers of Congress must be admitted to 
 extend to all those objects, and would equally au- 
 thorise any other means calculated to promote the 
 same ends. 
 
 It is quite a familiar axiom in politicks, as well 
 as in law, that a grant of power includes an implied 
 authority to adopt the necessary means of executing 
 it. But it would really be somewhat novel, I think, 
 to contend that Congress have a right to adopt the 
 means of promoting, advancing, or providing for 
 objects, over which all power has been withheld from 
 the federal government, and retained, exclusively, 
 to the states. And I trust, sir, that the republicans 
 nf the school of 1798, now dominant, are not them-
 
 21 
 
 lyes about to revive the exploded doctrine of a 
 general, undefined, power in congress to provide for 
 the general welfare. No, sir, recent demonstra- 
 tions of increasing vigilance over state rights, and 
 strong indications of a jealousy of federal encroach- 
 ments | alluding to an argument made by a gentle- 
 man of the Senate, a day or two before] forbid any 
 such supposition, I therefore, discard from my view 
 of the subject, all arguments deduced from any such 
 supposed grant of power. 
 
 The power to provide for such objects in the new 
 states, said Mr. E. results from the engagements of 
 the United States, under the old confederation, and 
 from that clause of our present Constitution, which 
 declares that all engagements, entered into by them, 
 before its adoption, shall be valid against them. 
 These engagements were, first, with the states which 
 ceded their lands, as has been already explained — 
 and, secondly, with the inhabitants of the ceded 
 territory, to whom a promise, declared to be irrevo- 
 cable, unless by common consent, had been made 
 in the ordinance for their government, " that 
 schools, and the means of education, should forever 
 be encouraged." 
 
 Congress having a right to legislate for those in 
 habitants, and being bound to provide for their ad- 
 mission into the Union, unquestionably must have 
 had the power to adopt the necessary means of train- 
 ing them up in correct principles, ami, in the lan- 
 guage of the ordinance, religion, morality, and 
 knowledge, being necessary to good government, 
 and the happiness of mankind, it was fit and proper 
 that education should have been encouraged for 
 such purposes, in the cases referred to. 
 
 But, sir, the original states having the exclusive 
 right to legislate for themselves, upon such subjects, 
 and Congress having no superintendence over morals, 
 religion, education, or other objects of municipal re- 
 gulation, within the several states, have no authori-
 
 25 
 
 ty to interfere with them in any manner whate\ er. 
 Such subjects are, as to Congress, coram nonjudire, 
 and therefore Ave can neither legislate upon them to 
 their benefit, or to their injury. Let us not forget, sir, 
 that the power to do the one, admits the possibility, 
 at least, of doing the other, since all power is liable 
 to abuse. And if ever the day shall arrive, when 
 the authority of this government shall be admitted 
 to extend to such objects, then, adieu to all state 
 sovereignty. It will be completely swallowed up 
 in the great vortex of a grand consolidated national 
 government. In this point of view, therefore, it is 
 evident, there is no analogy between those cases, 
 and that the claim of the original states can derive 
 no possible support from any of the considerations 
 that have been referred to. 
 
 Let us now, Mr. President, said Mr. E. inquire 
 whether the claim of the original states can be better 
 supported upon any other principles, that could have 
 led to the adoption of the present system of dispos- 
 ing of the public lands. 
 
 By this system all those lands are divided »ito 
 townships of six miles square. These, agai*j are 
 subdivided into thirty-six sections of o» e m il e 
 square. One of which is reserved to bes 1 '* 111 ^ to 
 the inhabitants of the township, for the asean d sup- 
 port of a common school therein. W&> WT> as all 
 settlements upon the public land f& prohibited un- 
 der severe penalties, the towns!*]* must be sold be- 
 fore it can be inhabited. T^ citizens of the new 
 states, therefore, can only *W the full benefit of a 
 reserved section, upon tAe condition of purchasing 
 the remaining thirty^fve sections of the township. 
 Would it, (hen, comport with "impartial justice," 
 to giant such a benefit to the citizens of other states, 
 without requiring any condition whatever? Would 
 it be right, sir, to punish the citizens of the new 
 states for daring to intrude upon a reserved section, 
 without having previously purchased thirty-Jive seer 
 4
 
 26 
 
 tions, and at the same time, to bestow a section gra- 
 tuitously upon others, merely, because yon had al- 
 towed the former the privilege of acquiring one up- 
 on the terms I have mentioned? Surely not. sir. 
 
 Mr. E. contended that those reservations had. 
 undoubtedly, increased the intrinsic value of the re- 
 sidue of the land— and that, on the other hand, its 
 value and productiveness, as a national fund, would, 
 as certainly, be greatly deteriorated, by the propp- 
 ed donations to the old slates. 
 
 I acknowledge, sir, said he. that the proportion 
 in which the reserved sections have enhanced the 
 value of the residue, cannot he ascertained with an\ 
 thins; like mathematical certain h — but judging from 
 the lights, which many years experience has 
 ■died upon the subject, there seems to he no reason 
 to doubt, that, townships, with those reservation-, 
 have commanded, and will continue, to command, 
 a. higher price than they would sell for without 
 them. And considering how highly the gentleman 
 Srom Maryland estimates the value and advantages 
 ot«ducation, it is surprising that he should have any 
 doui* of the correctness of this conclusion. If, then, 
 such i/> [\ m f ac ^ those reservations loose all the 
 characici f donations, because they are more than 
 paid for, iiuhe sale of the residue of the land— of 
 Bourse, they t^u'cdi no precedent for the pure dona- 
 tions now propped to he granted. 
 
 Again, sir, no cVi Z0?1 of the new states can enjoy, 
 or derive the slightest benefit from the reserved sec- 
 tions, without paying U v it, since no privilege, in- 
 terest, rigid, or title in thc^i, can Ik> acquired, with- 
 out purchasing land at a higW price than it would 
 sell for without them. This difference, therefore, 
 whatever it may be, is yie price actually paid for 
 i lie interest acquired in them, which must be in ex- 
 act proportion to the quantity of land purchased. 
 Even upon the improbable supposition, that the 
 consideration thus given, were an iuadequate one,
 
 27 
 
 still, I presume, it can hardly be contended, by the 
 honorable gentleman from Maryland, tffat this cir- 
 cumstance can justify grants in favour of the citizens 
 
 of other states, without any consideration at all. 
 
 But, sir, settlement, a 'well as purchase, is an 
 indispensable prerequisite to the right of enjoying 
 the use and benefit of the reservations. Its import- 
 ance to the Union, may well be imagined, by con- 
 trasting the present value of the national domain. ,witb 
 what would probably have been its value had it re- 
 mained to this time, waste and uninhabited. And this 
 is certainly, but a fair and just view of the subject; 
 for if the "new states are to be charged with the re- 
 served sections, they, surely, ought to have credtf 
 for the value which their settlements and improve- 
 ments have imparted to the residue. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. E. with the settlement of th« coun- 
 try its improvements mu^ progress. These, by 
 multiplying the comforts/ conveniences, and advan- 
 tages of a residence in & will continue to render the 
 vacant residum m*re desirable, more valuable 
 and available, till the whole of it shall be disposed 
 of. The policy therefore, which has hitherto re- 
 quired the condition of settlement, must continue to 
 prevail so long as the Hiked States retain any of 
 those lands, and. tie devious of disposing of them 
 to the best advantage, Bat this requisite also, is to 
 be dispensed with iu favour of the citizens of the 
 original states, without requiring any thing whate* 
 ver of Uiem to counterbalance it. Would this be 
 ••'fair and impartial justice?" 
 
 According to any correct view of the subject, it is 
 manifest that the citizens of the original states, par- 
 ticipate largely in the benefits of the present reser- 
 vations for the support of education, jlui those of 
 the new states can have no such correspondent in- 
 terest in the proposed donations. Those are intend- 
 ed for the exclusive benefit of the former. Nor is 
 any thing proposed in favour of the latter. a« a conn
 
 28 
 
 terpoise, or equivalent, for this want of reciprocity 
 and glaring inequality — and surely, they who have 
 reposed in perfect safety, under the shade of their 
 own vines and tig trees, at their native homes, arc 
 not entitled to be placed in a more eligible situation 
 in relation to the national domain, than those who 
 braved the dangers, encountered the difficulties, and 
 submitted to all the privations incident to the settle- 
 ment of it. 
 
 It is admitted, sir, that one of the principal ob- 
 jects of the reservations was to encourage emigra- 
 tion, and the policy of the measure, in that respect, 
 is not questioned. Yet, it is contended, that the 
 right of the original states to an equal portion of the 
 puMic lands, for the support of education, within 
 their respective limits, grew out of the adoption of 
 that measure, is coeval with it, and is not at all im- 
 paired by the delay in asserting it. But, really, sir, 
 it appears lo me that those cases not only, do not rest 
 upon the same foundation, but that the* latter is en- 
 tirely inconsistent with, and calculated to defeat the 
 very policy of the former. To avlopt a measure to 
 promote emigration, and at the samp, time to grant 
 equal advantages to all those who might not choose 
 to emigrate, would be very much like a sport which 
 many of us have witnessed in our younger days, of 
 building up with one hand for the mere pleasure of 
 knocking down with the other. No one could be 
 attracted to a remote wilderness, by advantages 
 which he could equally enjoy without going there, 
 In this respect, therefore, the policy of those mea- 
 sures is so directly hostile to each other, that the 
 one must necessarily exclude the other. 
 
 But, sir, with whatever objects or motives the 
 present system of disposing of the public lands may 
 have been adopted, let it be remembered, that 
 though now complained of, as if it had been the de- 
 cision of some partial, unjust, corrupt, foreign tribu- 
 nal, it was a measure of the original, now complain-
 
 29 
 
 Jug, states themselves — and unless communities* 
 when the sole arbiters in their own cases, are infi- 
 nitely more liable than individuals to loose sight of 
 their interest altogether, and be unjust to them- 
 selves, it must have been adopted for their own be- 
 nefit, and fully have they realized all the advanta- 
 ges anticipated from it. It could not have been in- 
 tended to operate upon persons who had gone to the 
 public domain, if there were any such; but only upon 
 those who could be induced to go there. All the 
 advantages and inducements which it tendered, 
 were then, constantly have been, and still are offer- 
 ed alike to the free acceptance of every citizen of 
 the Union, and consequently it was in its origin, 
 has continued to be, and still is, equally fair and 
 just, in relation to all of them. Nothing, therefore, 
 can be more unreasonable, than to consider those 
 reservations as partial donations to states that had 
 no existence, or to a territory unpeopled, but by 
 savages, to be subdued and expelled. 
 
 Permit me here, sir, to avail myself of the exam- 
 ple of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, in 
 referring to that portion of the national domain 
 which lies upon the Pacific Ocean. In its present 
 situation, as a source of revenue, it is not now, nor 
 can it ever be, of any manner of use to us. As was 
 correctly stated by the gentleman to whom I refer, 
 a project for establishing a colony upon it, has al- 
 ready engaged the deliberations of one branch of 
 the National Legislature. Suppose, then, that 
 Congress, with a view to revenue, to commercial 
 advantages, to the security of our traders, and to 
 prevent the encroachments of rival powers, should 
 determine to colonize this section of our territory, 
 and for this purpose should, with universal consent 
 and approbation, tender to every citizen of the Unit- 
 ed States any inducements whatever to emigrate 
 thither: For whose, but the benefit of the Union, 
 would this measure be adopted? How, and in fa-
 
 30 
 
 vour of whom, could it be considered unjust and 
 
 partial, even before tlir terms of it had been accept- 
 ed by a solitary individual? It' lair and just in its 
 origin, how could it become otherwise, merely, by 
 effecting the very objects it was intended to accom- 
 plish? Could mere inducements to emigration in 
 this case, .be considered as originating a claim to 
 equal advantages in favour of all those who might 
 not choose to emigrate? How wonderfully efficient, 
 sir, would be a measure for such a purpose, which 
 should promise to every citizen the same benefits for 
 staying at home, with which it intended to tempt 
 Ids' removal to a distant unsettled country, through 
 a trackless wilderness of vast extent. As well, sir, 
 might every citizen of the United States now de- 
 mand of you a quarter section of land, because you 
 gave that quantity to the soldiers of your late army. 
 Nor could any thing be more outrageously unjust, 
 than to promise your fellow citizens a gratuity for 
 settling upon the public land, and then to make them 
 pay for it, by deducting its full value from their due 
 proportion of a common stock, as is proposed to be 
 done by the proposition upon your table. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. E. the claim of the original states 
 has been particularly insisted upon, because, in the 
 encouragement which they themselves afforded to 
 emigration, for the sake of their own interest too, 
 Ihey have, forsooth, lost a part of their population 
 and wealth. 
 
 An argument so sectional, and anti-national in its 
 character, surely comes with a bad grace from those 
 who, with a perseverance threatening the most dis- 
 astrous consequences to our common country, at a 
 most awful crisis, insisted that those lands should 
 be ceded, settled, and formed into separate states, 
 for the purpose of paying the debts, promoting the 
 interest, and advancing the security of the Union, 
 How, sir, could any one of those objects be accom- 
 plished without disposing of the land? Who would
 
 31 
 
 have bought it without a view to its settlement by 
 himself or others? And by whom, but citizens of 
 the United States, was it intended to be settled? It 
 is not to be supposed that any of the states could, 
 for a moment, have yielded to a policy, so contract- 
 ed and selfish, as to have wished to have exempted 
 themselves from the disadvantages common to all 
 of them in consequence of those cessions; or to have 
 enjoyed the full benefits of them, at the exclusive 
 cost of others. No state, in fact, would have sub- 
 mitted, or would now submit, to the exclusion of 
 her citizens, from the right of emigrating to the pub- 
 lic lands. The original states, therefore, cannot, 
 justly, claim an equivalent for a privilege which 
 they themselves secured to their own citizens, and 
 which they would not now be so unjust as to relin- 
 quish, were it in their power to do so. 
 
 The motive, sir, to encourage emigration, being 
 the advantages expected to be derived from it, these 
 must have been the only equivalent contemplated 
 for any encouragement given to it The benefits, 
 therefore, offered to emigrants, depending upon a 
 condition, from which the states expected corres- 
 pondent advantages, at least, whenever that condi- 
 tion was fulfilled, the consideration of those bene- 
 fits was fully discharged, and no other equivalent 
 can, in reason or justice, be demanded. 
 
 Nor have the original states any reason to com- 
 plain, that their citizens have exercised, and enjoy- 
 ed, the benefits of the privilege thus secured to 
 them, for such were, not only the necessary and 
 intended consequences of their own measure; but 
 they were of the very essence of the contracts upon 
 which the public lands were ceded. Sir, you took 
 them upon those terms, " for better, for worse," and 
 have infinitely less reason to complain, than the 
 man who sought to be absolved from his matrimo- 
 nial obligations because he had found his wife all 
 of the worse, and none of the better. You have*
 
 32 
 
 realized important advantages, in the increased va- 
 lue and utility of the land — the improved condition 
 of your population — the development of the re- 
 sources of your country — the extension of your 
 commerce and navigation — the augmentation of 
 your revenue — the support of public credit — and 
 the security of your borders. 
 
 These advantages, however, are much less the 
 result of your own liberality, than of the bold, en- 
 terprizing, adventurous and aspiring character of 
 your population, and the superior liberality of some 
 of the states whose lands adjoined yours. No go- 
 vernment, 1 will venture to say, has ever yet esta- 
 blished a distant colony, similarly situated, upon 
 terms more advantageous to itself. None has ever 
 given less to emigrants, or exacted more from them. 
 
 England, France and Spain, have all held a part 
 of our present domain, and by their superior regard 
 to the law of uature, and the Divine will, in the dis- 
 tribution of those western lands, whilst they held 
 them, have exhibited a contrast between monarchies 
 and the freest government in the world, which I am 
 sorry to say, is by no means favorable to the latter. 
 
 Mr. President, said Mr. E. had Pennsylvania, 
 Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky, demand- 
 ed two dollars per acre in good money, as the mi- 
 nimum price of their lands, and subjected all intru- 
 ders to legal prosecution, and removal by military 
 force, much of your great northwestern territory, 
 now so thickly populated — so highly cultivated and 
 improved — so richly embellished with cities, towns 
 and villages — every where exhibiting monuments 
 of the advance of science, the progress of the arts, 
 and the multiplication of the comforts and elegancies 
 of civilized life, would still have been a waste un- 
 cultivated wilderness. The territory of those states 
 heing unoccupied, yours could never have been in- 
 habited. They therefore, by the population which 
 they attracted to theirs, and by their wars to main-
 
 tain it. expellod the savages from a large portion of 
 yours, and thereby contributed more to its settle- 
 ment, than all that yon have ever done towards it. 
 
 Yet, sir, some of the states seem to think they 
 have had a hard bargain in taking the land at all, 
 because they have lost a part of their population by 
 it. Hut, sir, had it been retained by England, 
 France, or Spain, it is by no means certain', that 
 those stales would have lost less. Had it remain- 
 ed the property of Virginia, owing to her superior 
 liberality in such cases, as is evinced by her uniform 
 conduct, there is every reason to suppose they 
 would have lost more, and gained nothing. 
 
 I know, sir, said Mr. E. it has been very gravely 
 asserted by one most respectable state, that if the 
 original states had been governed by a selfish poli- 
 cy, they would have thrown every impediment in 
 the way of emigration to the national domain. This 
 however does not appear to me to be very consist- 
 ent with the motives which induced them, so zeal- 
 ously to insist upon its being surrendered as a na- 
 tional fund; and besides the breach of faith involv- 
 ed in such a policy, it would have been just about 
 as rational as the Japanese mode of duelling, in 
 which one man rips open his own bowels for the 
 pleasure of imposing an obligation on ano'her to 
 follow his example. None could have lost more, 
 or gained less, by such a measure, than those very 
 states: and little can be known of the immense tracts 
 of land in the western country, which yet remain to 
 be settled, if it can be supposed that any measure of 
 tl.at kind could have had any other material effe 
 upon emigration, than to have changed its direction 
 and swelled the population of some of the other 
 western states. It is evident, therefore, that the 11 
 ducements afforded to emigration by the original 
 slates, have neither been so purely gratuitous, nor 
 its eil'ects, which they so deeply deplore, so exclu 
 sively the results of their liberal forbearance to im- 
 pede it, as seems to have been imagined. 
 5
 
 M 
 
 In tke enumeration of the grievances and injuries 
 
 for which they demand indemnification, we find 
 them complaining that the sale of their western 
 lands " has prevented an increase of the price of 
 lands in the Atlantic states," though they have 
 not a single 'acre of land of their own to dispose 
 of in those Regretting, exceedingly, sir, 
 
 that my remaining strength" docs not admit of my 
 entering into a full investigation of this singular 
 ground of complaint, I will barely remark, that the 
 high price of land, so much desired, can only result 
 from a density of population, from which much de- 
 pendancc and wretchedness would he inseparable; 
 that there is nothing in the history of our own, or 
 any other country, to authorise the opinion, that it 
 would he mere auspicious to the interest, and hap- 
 piness, of the great mass of our population, or to the 
 preservation of the free principles of our govern- 
 ment — that its tendency would be to advance the 
 interest of the few, that have land to sell, at the ex- 
 pense of the many, who have it to buy — and that, 
 instead of impeding, it would he calculated to in- 
 crer.se emigration; since, in proportion to the diffi- 
 culty of obtaining lands in the old states, there 
 would he additional motives to seek it elsewhere. 
 Mr. Kd wards here remarked, that, being himself 
 greatly l'aiigned, ami fearing he had exhausted the 
 patience of the Senate, he should be compelled to 
 omit, or postpone to a future sta^ e of the discussion, 
 other views of the subject, which he was anxious to 
 present to the consideration of the Senate. 
 
 I ha- said he, contrasted the relative situa- 
 
 tion of the ci is of the new and old states, in re- 
 lation to the proposed appropriation. I had in- 
 tended to have presented similar contrasts between 
 the claims of the new and old states themselves — 
 and between the grants made to the former, and 
 those proposed to be made to the latter. I had also, 
 intended to have shown, that, even admitting the
 
 35 
 
 principle, contended for by the honorable gentle- 
 man from Maryland, the contemplated apportion- 
 ment, and distribution of the land, would be mani- 
 festly unequal and unjust. That the demand on 
 the part of the original states of an equivalent for 
 the « particular'' advantages, Which the new states 
 derive from the present system of disposing of the 
 public lands, for the benefit of the Union, is incon- 
 sistent with every idea of national government; and 
 that the latter states might, with equal propriety, 
 demand an equivalent for the " particular" advan- 
 tages, which the former derive from the vast expen- 
 diture of public money within their limits; or from 
 any other measure of national policy. 
 
 I find, however, 1 must content myself with 
 remarking, that you have granted to the new states 
 nothing more than a mere naked trust — to execute, 
 your own previous obligations — or to promote your 
 future interest. 80 far as the public lauds had been 
 sold, the right to the reserved sections had vested 
 in the inhabitants of the respective townships, and 
 did not depend at all for its validity upon the grants 
 to the states, for you neither could have withheld 
 nor impaired it, nor can those states now do so. 
 So far as the lands have not been sold, no right to 
 the reserved sections has vested, or can vest, either 
 in those states or the inhabitants thereof, but upon 
 conditions hereafter to be performed, highly condu- 
 cive to your own interest. 
 
 Suppose, sir, said Mr. E. the new states had re- 
 fused to become your trustees, you would not, on 
 that account, have changed your present system of 
 disposing of the public lands: and you could no! 
 have sold a single reserved sec lion, in any township 
 in which a solitary sale of eighty acres only had 
 been made. What then have you given to the new 
 states? Nothing that you could or would have re- 
 tained.
 
 ■Hi 
 
 But in whatever Ugh I those grautsare to be view- 
 ed, they are founded upon compacts, which nejthei 
 liarty is now at liberty to revoke annul, or disre- 
 gard. On the part of tlio new states, they have, I 
 think, manifested great liberality in giving a full 
 equivalent for advantages that either would not, or 
 could not have been withheld from them, if thej 
 h d refused to give any thing. The state which 'l 
 have the honor, in part, to represent, has, probably, 
 had a pretty hard bargain in agreeing to forbear to 
 tax the lands of individuals, and in the consequent 
 I le ed upon her own citizens, for all the 
 
 consider; he received. She agreed to exempt 
 
 from all taxation, three millions five hundred thou- 
 saa 1 : pea of military bounty Ian la, lor t lore years 
 after lanation of the grants; and at leas? thir- 
 
 ty millions of acres of the public land, for five years. 
 after the sale of it— which, according to the state 
 taxation, 
 
 Aja ttrsr rate, would be equal to 8 3,210.000 
 
 Second rate - 2,250,000 
 
 TMnl rate 1,650.000 
 
 And at the average rale - - 2.-370.0OO 
 
 If, then, sir, any of the old states insist upon 
 having as much land as they contend lias been 
 granted to Illinois, let them first purchase the same 
 quantity of land, which she either has purchased, 
 or is bound to purchase, to perfect her title to the 
 supposed grants — and let them also agree to pay 
 the taxes upon the same quantity of land, which 
 has exempted from taxation — and for the same 
 length of tiui! — or talk no more about "fair and 
 impartial justic