LI B R.AR.Y 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 Of ILLINOIS 
 
 ILLINOIS HISTORICAL SURVEY
 
 CENTRAL CIRCULATION AND BCOKSTACKS 
 The person borrowing this material is re- 
 sponsible for its renewal or return before 
 the Latest Date stamped below. You may 
 be charged a minimum fee of $75.00 for 
 each non-returned or lost item. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, or defacement of library materials can be 
 causes for student disciplinary action. All materials owned by 
 the University of Illinois Library are the property of the State 
 of Illinois and are protected by Article 16B of //linois Criminal 
 Law and Procedure. 
 
 TO RENEW, CALL (217) 333-8400. 
 University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign 
 
 JUL 03 19S9 
 
 When renewing by phone, write new due date 
 below previous due date. L162
 
 &v4f^, 
 
 
 J^ti , /ciy^C 
 
 * 
 
 Si 
 
 r 
 
 fa/ 
 //^
 
 MESSAGE 
 
 OF HIS EXCELLENCY, 
 
 KICHABD TA.TES, 
 
 GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 
 
 JANUARY 2, 1865 
 
 SPRINGFIELD! 
 
 BAKES & PHILLIPS, PRINTERS. 
 
 1865.

 
 336-A 
 
 MESSAGE . 
 
 Gentlemen of the General Assembly : 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In delivering to you the last message which it devolves upon me, 
 as the executive of the State, to communicate to the General As- 
 sembly, I feel it to be our first duty to render thanks to Almighty 
 God for the continued protection and goodness of his Providence, 
 for the abounding blessings with which He has favored us as a 
 State, and for the continuance to us, unimpaired, the possession 
 and enjoyment of our civil and religious liberty. For though a 
 sad and waasting war has prevailed in the land, and thousands 
 of homes and hearthstones have been made desolate, our gov- 
 ernment has been preserved to us, our nationality has been main- 
 tained unbroken, and our free institutions have come out of the 
 shock of battle, not only not destroyed, or impaired, but stronger, 
 and dearer to us than ever before. The storms of revolution, 
 which have so rudely beat around the tree of liberty, have served 
 only to deepen its roots and strengthen its trunk, and the people 
 at home stand reassured with new and unfaltering confidence in 
 our institutions, while foreign nationalities are forced to pay the 
 tribute of involuntary respect to a people who, true to the memo- 
 ries and traditions of their fathers, and faithful to the sacred trust 
 of liberty committed to their care, stand unappalled by the dark 
 events of the gigantic war in which they have been engaged. 
 
 As a State, notwithstanding the war, we have prospered beyond 
 all former precedents. Notwithstanding nearly two hundred thou- 
 sand of the most athletic and vigorous of our population have been
 
 withdrawn from the field of production, the area of land now under 
 cultivation is greater than at any former period, and the census of 
 1865 will exhibit an astonishing increase in every department of 
 material industry and advancement ; in a great increase of agricul- 
 tural, manufacturing and mechanical wealth ; in new and improved 
 modes for production of every kind ; in the substitution of ma- 
 chinery for the manual labor withdrawn by the war; in the 
 triumphs of invention ; in the wonderful increase of railroad enter- 
 prise; in the universal activity of business, in all its branches; in 
 the rapid growth of our cities and villages ; in the bountiful har- 
 vests, and in an unexampled material prosperity, prevailing on 
 every hand ; while, at the same time, the educational institutions 
 of the people have in no way declined. Our colleges and schools, 
 of every class and grade, are in the most flourishing condition ; 
 our benevolent institutions, State and private, are kept up and 
 maintained ; and, in a word, our prosperity is as complete and 
 ample as though no tread of armies or beat of drum had been heard 
 in all our borders. 
 
 I submit herewith a statement of the permanent debt, funded 
 and unfunded, of the State. 
 
 There has-been purchased and paid off by the State, with the 
 Central Railroad Fund, from December 1, 1862, to December 15, 
 1864, State indebtedness, as follows : 
 
 Principal $875,988 41 
 
 Interest, arrears of interest, etc 30,158 98 
 
 $906,147 39 
 
 10 per cent, paid on registered canal bonds, by 
 Canal Trustees, installments July, 1863 and July 
 1864, 5 per cent, each 289,133 33 
 
 $1,195,280 72 
 
 PERMANENT DET, FUNDED AND UNFUNDED. 
 
 Statement, showing amount of different classes of State indebt- 
 edness outstanding, Dec. 16, 1864 : 
 
 Illinois Bank and Internal Improvement stock,. . . . $31,000 00 
 
 Illinois Internal Improvement stock, 42,000 00 
 
 Internal Improvement scrip, 19,570 33 
 
 Liquidation bonds, ,,..,.... ^, 234,650 21
 
 New Internal Improvement stock 1,848,407 85 
 
 Interest bonds, 1847, 1,206,836 96 
 
 Interest stock, 1857, 701,404 75 
 
 Two certificates for arrears of interest, 1002 58 
 
 Kefunded stock, 1,837,000 00 
 
 Normal University bonds, 65,000 00 
 
 Thornton Loan bonds, (act app. Feb. 21, 1861},. , . 182,000 00 
 
 Balance Canal claims, under Thornton Loan act, . . 3624 58 
 
 War bonds, 1,679,100 00 
 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal bonds, payable in New 
 
 York, 1,618,000 00 
 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal bonds, payable in 
 
 London, 1,631,688 89 
 
 Interest certificates, Canal stock, not registered, . . 17,661 33 
 
 Canal scrip, signed by Governor, 2616 97 
 
 121 Macallister and Stebbins bonds, which, accord- 
 ing to statement of C. Macallister, would amount, 
 
 Jan. 1, 1865, to about 57,000 00 
 
 $11,178,564 45 
 
 STATE DEBT. 
 
 Since December 1, 1862, in addition to the regular semi-annual 
 payments of accruing interest on the State debt, the following 
 amounts have been liquidated, with the proceeds; of the fund de- 
 rived from the Illinois Central Railroad, viz : 
 
 Refunded stock of 1860, redeemed under the Gover- 
 nor's proclamation of September 28, 1863, including 
 accrued interest on the same, , $68,507 50 
 
 State bonds, purchased at par, canceled and deposited 
 with the Auditor, the principal and interest of 
 which amount to , 706,182 12 
 
 Scrip, coupons, etc., paid off at par, under the act of 
 
 February 22, 1861, 23,643 36 
 
 Amount of principal and interest extinguished with 
 the Central Railroad fund, from December 1, 1862. 
 to November 30, 1864, , , ' $798,332 98 
 
 In addition to this, a further amount of $107,815 42, of the 
 same fund, has been used in the purchase of State indebtedness, 
 since December 1st, making, in the whole, $906,148 40 of the 
 public debt extinguished in a little over two years. The amount 
 derived from the two-mill tax, on the assessment of the year 1863,
 
 6 
 
 applicable to dividend on State indebtedness, presented to the 
 Auditor January 1st, 1865, is some six hundred thousand dollars. 
 This, added to the amount extinguished with the Central Railroad 
 fund, makes an aggregate of one and a half millions of payment on 
 the debt of the State, since December 1, 1862. And the indica- 
 tions of increased receipts from the Central Railroad, and from the 
 two-mill tax, are such as to warrant the belief that at least one 
 million of dollars, per annum, will be hereafter realized from these 
 two sources. 
 
 RECEIPTS FROM THE CENTRAL RAILR6AD. 
 
 The amount received from the Central Railroad, for the seven 
 per cent, on the gross earnings of said company, of the past two 
 years, has been as follows : 
 
 For the six months ending April 30, 1863 $126,634 83 
 
 For the six months ending October 31, 1863 173,759 75 
 
 For the six months ending April 30, 1864 170,055 08 
 
 For the six months ending October 31, 1864 235,458 96 
 
 $705,908 62 
 
 It will be seen that the amount received for per centage on the 
 earnings of *f 864 is more than one-third larger than that for 1863. 
 
 REVENUE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES. 
 
 The receipts into the treasury for revenue purposes, for two 
 years, ending November 30, 1864, have been $497,616 11 ; of 
 which amount $109,547 64 was received for tax levied in 
 the year 1862, and $315,088 46 for tax levied in the year 1863 ; 
 the remainder of the amount received being from miscellaneous 
 sources. The amount in the treasury, December 1, 1862, was 
 $374,697 19, which, added to the amount received, makes an 
 aggregate of $872,303 30. 
 
 The amount of warrants drawn against this fund, from Decem- 
 ber 1, 1862, to November 30, 1864, is $884,014 07, and the amount 
 of the same outstanding, unpaid December 1, 1864, as appears 
 from the Auditor's report, was $20,510 98. It will be seen that a 
 continuation of the expenditures, in the same ratio, as for the past 
 two years, and of the receipts from taxation, as for the collection 
 for 1863, will result in a deficiency of the receipts, as Compared
 
 with the expenditures, of more than one hundred thousand dollars 
 per annum ;^and this, without considering the greatly enhanced 
 prices necessary to bo paid for all articles purchased for the use of 
 the State, and of all services rendered, except such as the compen- 
 sation for which is fixed in amount. 
 
 The rate of tax now levied for revenue purposes is one and one- 
 fifth mill on the dollar of valuation, producing, for the year 1863, 
 (as before stated) $315,088 46 of actual receipts at the treasury, 
 whilst one-half of the amount expended in two years will be found 
 to be $442,007 48. ^ The conclusion is obvious that an increase of 
 taxation or a reduction of expenditures is of absolute necessity. 
 
 COLLECTION OF TAXES. 
 
 The act of the last General Assembly authorizing the collection 
 of taxes in legal tender notes and postal currency expired, by limi- 
 tation, on the 1st of January, 1865, thus leaving the act of 1853 in 
 force ; which act requires payment of taxes in gold and silver. I 
 presume that no argument 'is needed to show that a re-enactment 
 of the law u authorizing payment of taxes in United States notes is 
 a, matter not only of public policy but of absolute necessity. 
 
 APPROPRIATION ACT 'OF FEBRUARY 14, 1863. 
 
 The act of the last General Assembly, approved February 14, 
 1863, entitled "An act to provide for the ordinary and contingent 
 expenses of the government until the adjournment of the next 
 regular session of the General Assembly," and containing pro- 
 visions for the payment of the incidental and contingent expenses 
 of the government and of the different State departments, clerk 
 hire of the different State officers, etc., and in aid of sick and 
 wounded Illinois soldiers, has been pronounced by the Supreme 
 Court to be void. *; Previous to the'rendering of this decision several 
 warrants had been issued by the Auditor, for purposes contem- 
 plated by said act ; none of which have been paid. In fact, the 
 (decision of the Supreme Court was rendered in suits brought 
 against the Treasurer, with the view of compelling him to make 
 payment of said warrants. Alljthese warrants were regularly 
 issued by the Auditor, on accounts lor services actually rendered 
 and articles actually furnished ; and all of the same should right-
 
 8 
 
 fully be paid. The aggregate amount of such warrants is less than 
 seven thousand dollars. The cost of clerk hire and incidental ex- 
 penses of the several State departments have been borne by the 
 State officers, from private means, for the past two years ; and I 
 would therefore recommend the re-enactment of the law, with a 
 provision legalizing the warrants outstanding, and requiring the 
 State Treasurer to treat the same, in all respects, in like manner 
 with warrants issued under other laws. 
 
 It will be recollected, in this connection, that in June, 1863, a 
 disagreement having occurred between the two Houses of the 
 the General Assembly as to the time of adjournment, I availed 
 myself of the power vested in me by the constitution, to prorogue 
 them. Seeing, as I supposed, a disposition to embarrass the 
 government in the prosecution of the war, and a refusal to make 
 the necessary appropriations to carry on the State government, and 
 provide aid for the relief of our sick and wounded soldiers, and 
 also to interfere with the prerogatives of the State Executive, I 
 deemed it my duty to avail myself of the contingency which the 
 constitution placed in my hands, of rescuing our noble State from 
 obloquy, by a prorogation of the General Assembly. It will be 
 seen, however, that such a necessity, and the subsequent decision 
 of the Supreme Court, declaring the said law, making the contin- 
 gent appropriations aforesaid void, devolved upon the State 
 authorities the alternative of raising the means necessary to carry 
 on the government, by advances from private citizens, which would 
 necessarily be large, by reason of greatly increased service and 
 expenditures in every department of the government, growing out 
 of the complications of the war. I therefore recommend the re- 
 enactment of the said law, with a clause for adjusting and paying 
 all accounts for expenditures incurred, as above stated, to be audited 
 by the Auditor, and warrants issued, upon the approval of the 
 Governor. 
 
 I herewith submit a report of the expenses incurred in my office, 
 and other necessary expenses, incurred according to the intent of 
 said appropriation. 
 
 Much credit is due to liberal and patriotic citizens of Chicago, 
 Springfield and Knox county, for advances made by them so gen- 
 erously to the State, in its emergency.
 
 ARMY AUDITING BOARD. 
 
 I submit herewith the final report of the Board of Army Audi* 
 tors, appointed under the "Act creating a war fund and to provide 
 for auditing all accounts and disbursements arising under the call 
 for volunteers." It embodies a detailed statement showing the 
 dates of all claims filed, names of the parties filing the same, their 
 amounts, what for, and amounts allowed ; also the amount of claims 
 rejected, suspended, withdrawn, barred, etc. The report is valuable, 
 and should be published. 
 
 BAKBED WAR ACCOUNTS. 
 
 Under the fifth section of the act of May 2, 1861, creating a war 
 fund, and providing for auditing accounts of war expenses, all 
 claims for such expenses were required to be presented for adjust- 
 ment within three months from the accruing of the same in 
 default of which, such accounts were required to be " considered 
 donated to the State, and not thereafter allowed, under any pre-- 
 tense whatever." This provision of the law has, in many instances^ 
 worked very great hardship. Many persons furnished articles, 
 and rendered service, in utter ignorance of this provision of the 
 law, and others were ordered away from the State, in the military 
 service, and had not the opportunity to present their claims until 
 long after the three months had expired. 
 
 The Board of Commissioners, wishing to do all that lay in their 
 power to facilitate the collection of claims which they considered 
 meritorious, have examined and passed upon a considerable num- 
 ber of such claims, and have stated that they would have allowed 
 the same for payment, but for the limitation made in the law. I 
 would recommend that the Auditor be authorized to issue warrants 
 in payment of such accounts as were so passed upon by the Com- 
 missioners, the same being first approved by the Governor. The 
 accounts so passed upon are now on file in the Auditor's office. 
 
 THE PHYSICAL RESOURCES OF OUR STATE. 
 
 The physical resources of a State are the foundation of all others. 
 
 They make it great or little. They shape its destiny. They even 
 
 affect its moral and religious character. History teaches this truth. 
 
 All the great nations of ancient and modern times demonstrate it. 
 
 2
 
 10 
 
 Egypt, Syria, Greece, Kome ; Great Britain, France, the United 
 States, are so many proofs that favorable physical situations and 
 resources are absolutely necessary to material and moral develop- 
 ment. Illinois, in this respect, stands pre-eminent among the 
 States of the Union. She is the heart of the Northwest. In 
 agricultural resources she is unsurpassed. In manufacturing and 
 commercial facilities she has no superior. On the east, south and 
 west, the Great River of the continent and its tributaries water her 
 border counties, while their branches penetrate to every part of the 
 State, irrigating her soil, draining her low lands, and affording 
 water power for her manufactures. The Illinois river runs for 
 over two hundred miles through the State, from northeast to south- 
 west, forming a natural highway between the lakes and the Missis- 
 sippi, the key of which is entirely in our possession. This high- 
 way is one of the most important of the physical resources of the 
 State ; while, in a military point of view, it enables us to dominate 
 the lakes on the one hand, and the Father of Waters on the other. 
 A State, holding this great water-way, must always be a power on 
 the continent, as well as in the Union. Then, we have, on the 
 northeast, an outlet to the ocean through the great, lakes, those 
 inland seas of the continent ; while that one of them, Michigan, 
 which laves our northeastern border, is almost land-locked, and 
 thus the least liable to hostile incursions from foreign powers. 
 This secures to us the site for a naval depot, for dock-yards, for the 
 building and repair of vessels, for foundries for cannon, for work- 
 shops for all descriptions of war material, at some point on Lake 
 Michigan, between the Wisconsin and Indiana State lines. Our 
 State is also on the direct route of the Pacific railroad, which must 
 intersect it from east to west ; thus making it a portion of the great 
 highway between Europe and the Indies. Then, again, all our 
 lines of communication, from the interior of the State to shipping 
 points connected with tide-water, at which bulky articles of mer- 
 chandise or agricultural products can be received or delivered, are 
 short. This saves the cost of lengthy transportation of such arti- 
 cles by railway, which must always be expensive. At present, in 
 some of the States to the west and northwest of us, large quanti- 
 ties of grain have been stored on the navigable rivers for the last 
 two seasons. On account of low water it cannot be sent to market 
 by steamboat, while the cost of railway transportation would eat 
 up its value. This can never be the case in Illinois, as long as
 
 11 
 
 water runs in the Mississippi, and that of the great lakes flows 
 unobstructed to the sea. But not alone do we possess agricultural 
 resources of an almost unlimited character : we have also within 
 the limits of our State, facilities for manufactures, which equal 
 those of nearly all the other States of the Union combined. Be- 
 neath the surface of our blooming prairies and beautiful woodlands 
 are millions of tons of coal, easy of access, close to the great cen- 
 ters of commerce and manufactures, on great navigable rivers, and 
 intersected by railway facilities of the best description. 
 
 Illinois, in 1860, was the fourth State in the Union'in the num- 
 ber of tons of coal produced. But what has been produced^bears 
 no comparison to what may be. Our State Geologist assures me 
 that in a single county in this State there are a thousand millions 
 tons of coal awaiting the various uses to which the civilization of the 
 future will apply it. It will thus be seen that Illinois possesses 
 withiu itself the physical resources of not only a great State, but 
 a great nation. 
 
 But if Providence has been bountiful in the natural resources of 
 the State, it is necessary that man must be able and willing to use 
 them to advantage ; that he must have the capacity both to discern 
 the capabilities of our situation and turn them to the advantage of 
 our own and the people of other climes and countries. While, as 
 I have shown, the physical resources of a State are the foundation 
 of all other, it is also true that the people of a State must be equal 
 to the demands and requirements of its physical capabilities. The 
 most favored situation may be thrown away on a degenerate or 
 incapable people. But, happily, we not only possess^the physical 
 resources of a great nation, but the mental and moral capacities of 
 a dominant and progressive race. All it need8,Hhen, for'a proper 
 development of our resources is, that our efforts be well directed ; 
 that we organize and direct labor, to the end that Jthe greatest 
 amount of development may be attained by the least possible 
 expenditure of brute force ; that by combination of effort, by organi- 
 zation of industry, by bringing into harmonious working develop- 
 ment the three great branches of human industry agriculture 
 manufactures and commerce we may so weld each apparently 
 hostile but really mutually dependent interest, into such a sym- 
 metrical whole, as to produce the most perfect social system. And 
 this has been the aim of philosophy and statesmanship since the 
 world began. But it can only be attained by the triumph of mind
 
 12 
 
 over matter ; by a continual progress, in which the apparently inert 
 forces of nature are made to subserve the highest uses of man. 
 
 The war now being waged has tended, more than any other 
 event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffer- 
 sonian iden, that " the best government is that which governs 
 least." The war has not only, of necessity, given more power to, 
 but has led to a more intimate prevision of the government over 
 every material interest of society. By creating a large debt, it has 
 necessitated an extended and elaborate system of taxation. This 
 system takes note of every man's business, its profits and its proba- 
 ble future increase, so that the State may know what revenue it 
 has at the present time and what it may depend on in the future. 
 But, by creating a large debt, the war has also created a means of 
 stimulating the industry of the country. It has created a credit, in 
 the shape of public securities, which is so much banking capital for 
 the industry of the nation, and forms a sure basis for creating more 
 wealth through all the ramifications of industry. A merely agri- 
 cultural country, such as the ideas of the great minds of the earlier 
 period of the democratic party believed to be the ultima tfiule of 
 the social state, never could sustain the immense debt which we 
 are compelled to provide for. It is only through the enlargement 
 of the manufacturing and commercial industries of the country 
 that it can be borne. But through those it can be made that which 
 the people of Great Britain proudly call theirs: "a great national 
 blessing." It can be made to enlarge, strengthen, and place upon 
 an enduring basis of prosperity, those great material interests of 
 the country, which are the pride as well as the distinguishing 
 features of every civilized nation. It will be the development of 
 manufactures and commerce to the highest possible point, which 
 will finally rescue the present social state from the many evils 
 which accompany it, and usher in the millemurn day of true social 
 and political equality. "While I cannot say that I desire a large 
 national debt, yet, as we are to have it, we can console ourselves 
 that while a large debt has its disadvantages it also has its com- 
 pensatory blessings. It brings the government nearer to the indi- 
 vidual. It makes the man recognize himself as part and parcel of 
 the State. He supports it, and he feels that it is bound to protect 
 him. The man who pays twenty dollars of a school tax expects 
 that his children will receive a proper education. Tho manufac- 
 turer, or farmer, or merchant, or ship owner, who pays his taxes
 
 13 
 
 on his particular branch of industry, justly expects that that indus- 
 try will be fostered and protected. It is true- that a great national 
 debt binds us more closely as a people makes us realize the great 
 benefits of a government, while it causes us to feel its burdens. 
 All duty is reciprocal. " With whatever measure ye mete, it shall 
 be measured to you again." 
 
 But it is to our debt, as a means of stimulating our industrial in- 
 terests, that I particularly desire to call your attention ; because it 
 lies in your power to provide the means through which those inter- 
 ests can be enlarged and extended. We must utilize the credits of 
 the State and nation, if we would keep pace with the progress of 
 other states and peoples ; if we desire to bear our share of the bur- 
 dens of the present war; if we hope when the white-winged mes- 
 senger of peace shall glad a distracted country, to provide employ- 
 ment for the thousands of our "gallant boys in blue," who are now 
 braving the storms of battle on many fields, when they return to 
 the peaceful avocations of industry. We must encourage the for- 
 mation of corporations for extending agriculture, manufactures and 
 commerce. We must mobilize capital, so that it shall not be "buried 
 in a napkin," but shall earn for itself the ability to increase, and,* 
 by such increase, stimulate industry and re-create itself. I feel 
 deeply on this subject, because, from a careful study of the condi- 
 tion of our national finances, I am irresistibly led to the conclusion 
 that, in order to pay the interest on our debt and carry on the war 
 to a triumphant close, it is absolutely necessary that the resources 
 of the nation should be enlarged and extended. The labor and 
 capital of the country are the bases and sources of all its wealth. 
 It is possible that these may be overtaxed, and thus eventually 
 permanently contracted into narrower channels ; but it is not pos- 
 sible, with such vast material resources as are possessed by our fa- 
 vored land, that the former can ever be too widely extended or too 
 minutely varied, or that the latter can be too greatly increased or 
 too widely diffused. Where would our State be now, as to agri- 
 cultural, manufacturing and other resources, or even military pow- 
 er and prestige, if the internal improvement system, of which the 
 lamented Gov. Duncan was the able and persistent advocate, had 
 been entirely neglected, and the Empire State of the Northwest 
 allowed to vegetate in the imperfect condition of a merely agricul- 
 tural and pastoral state ?
 
 AGRICULTURAL, MECHANICAL AND COMMERCIAL BUREAU. 
 
 In connection with the above subject, and for the benefit of the 
 industrial interests of the State, I would respectfully recommend 
 the creation of an Agricultural, Mechanical and Commercial Bu- 
 reau of Statistics. This would be a highly useful department of 
 state government, as well as a great assistance to immigration. But 
 this is but a small part of the benefit it would confer. The nation is 
 passing into a new era of its existence. Old forms must be aban- 
 doned, and enlarged views of the principles of government accept- 
 ed. The garments of the youth are too contracted for the man. 
 With increasing and varying industrial pursuits, the people demand 
 increased duties on the part of the State. At present, corporations, 
 representing special interests, take upon them duties which prop- 
 erly belong to the State at large. Thus the only statistical tables 
 are those prepared by the Chambers of Commerce of our cities, or 
 by corporations interested in a special branch of industry. These 
 tables are, of course, but partial representations of the condition of 
 the industrial interests of the State. We should have a Bureau, 
 which would prepare statistics and present facts regarding all the 
 industrial interests of the State, agricultural, mechanical and com- 
 mercial. These would be of use, not only to the farmer, the man- 
 ufacturer and the merchant, but to the statesman and social econo- 
 mist. A short time since, when a distinguished foreign statesman 
 requested to see a compilation of the social and industrial statistics 
 of the State, it was a matter of embarrassment to rne, when com- 
 pelled to inform him that there was no such work in existence. 
 Such a work would be more highly useful than most persons are 
 apt to imagine. It would enable the merchant to regulate the quan- 
 tity of his stocks, the farmer to fix his prices, the manufacturer 
 to determine his wants, and the statesman to draw up the most 
 comprehensive and least oppressive system of taxation. As we 
 now stand, in this respect, all these things are done at haphazard. 
 The consequence is, a loss of time and money, and, very often, our 
 people are driven from certain markets and overstock others, 
 through ignorance of the particular wants and necessities of the 
 country, and the quantity of merchandize needed to supply them. 
 Suppose the statistical tables of the State showed that Illinois pos- 
 sessed a certain quantity of corn in her cribs and store houses, 
 would not this fact draw buyers from all parts to invest in the
 
 15 
 
 cheapest market, and not leave the people subject to a few monopo- 
 lists ? And so with other articles. The diffusion of knowledge on 
 the state of the markets is one of the best safeguards to the great 
 mass of the peopled against the chicanery and fraud of speculators, 
 monopolists and middle-men generally. To protect the weak 
 against the encroachments of the strong, is one of the primary ob- 
 jects of government. For these and other reasons, I earnestly re- 
 commend the establishment of a Bureau of Statistics, to be presided 
 over by a Commissioner practically familiar with the great indus- 
 trial interests of the State. 
 
 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 
 
 This work has now been in progress nearly seven years, under 
 the charge of the present director, and his reports, embracing the 
 results of the labors of the Geological^corps employed in the sur- 
 vey, have been, from time to time, presented to the proper author- 
 ities for publication. A voluminous report is now ready) embracing 
 the general result of all the labor performed up to the present 
 time, with about fifty plates of illustration, besides the necessary 
 maps and geological sections, which have been executed in a man- 
 ner highly creditable to the artists who have been' employed in this 
 department. It is greatly to be desired that some provision should 
 be made by the Legislature, at its present session, for the publica- 
 tion of this work ; for, although the responsibility is thrown on the 
 Executive, by the law organizing the survey, there is no special 
 provision in that law for placing at my disposal the means necesary 
 to defray the expenses attending it. 
 
 For further information in relation" to the present condition of 
 this -work, I refer you to the " Beport of Progress " of the State 
 Geologist, which is herewith submitted, and to my former mes- 
 sages, in which this subject is more fully presented. 
 
 . THE PENITENTIARY. 
 
 Since my last message, the work upon the State Penitentiary 
 has gone on vigorously, and gratifying progress has been made. 
 But the appropriation voted by the last Legislature for the"finishing 
 of this institution, and Which, at the time, was believed to be suffi- 
 cient, has been exhausted,^leaving some important and necessary 
 portions of the work still incomplete. The usual detailed reports
 
 16 
 
 of the officers of the penitentiary have been received by the Audi- 
 tor, and will be duly submitted to the Legislature. The commis- 
 sioners present a statement of the management of the institution, 
 and of expenditures upon it during the last two years, and state its 
 future needs. It will remain for the Legislature to do, in its wis- 
 dom, what shall be thought best to preserve and promote this great 
 State undertaking. 
 
 As it has been charged by a portion of the press of the State 
 that the lease of penitentiary convicts made to James M. Pittmanj 
 at the session of June, 1863, was a fraud upon the State, and that 
 the interests of the State, as well as the discipline of the convicts, 
 very materially suffer under the present management, I deem it 
 my duty to recommend the General Assembly to institute a thor- 
 ough investigation of the charges made, and into the management 
 and discipline of the penitentiary. The almost complete absorp- 
 tion of my time by the military affairs of the State has prevented 
 rne from giving that attention to the subject of the discipline and 
 well-being of the convicts as I, under other circumstances, should 
 have done. 
 
 The object of punishment is not only to deprive the offender of 
 the opportunity of committing further crime, and to deter others 
 from its commission, but also a most important object is the refor- 
 mation of the offender, especially where, after his release, he is to 
 go back and become a member of society. After conferring wifch 
 those who have had experience on this subject, I am fully satisfied 
 that there should be, as we have at the head of our State benevo^ 
 lent institutions, some general superintendent of every such insti* 
 tution ; a man of the highest moral character, of practical wisdom 
 and business talent, who should be responsible for the entire con- 
 trol of the penitentiary. He should appoint the guards, clerks, 
 stewards, and all the inferior officers ; he should regulate the police, 
 arrange the discipline, appropriate the funds for the necessary 
 expenses, transact the business of the prison, either by agents, 
 clerks, or contractors, and always have the control of the convicts. 
 He should have a fixed salary, and not a per centage on the profits. 
 Secondly, the warden should have the general care of the convicts 
 in his charge; also, superintendence of the guards and of the 
 police. lie should not be in any way interested in the business of 
 the prison, except to oversee the men in their labor, and discipline
 
 offenders under rules laid down by the general superintendent. 
 He should also have a fixed salary. 
 
 A liberal appropriation should be made for the maintenance of 
 an efficient chaplain one who should have the moral and reli- 
 gious care of the men; the^ regulation of their religious services; 
 should select books for the library, (for which purpose a liberal 
 appropriation should be made;) be allowed to write letters for the 
 convicts ; and should have free access to the prisoners and the hos- 
 pital. And here I must say, in most emphatic terms, that the fact 
 that the State allows only five dollars per week to the chaplain of 
 the State, and where there are six hundred convicts, is a disgrace 
 to the State, which this Legislature, I trust, will wipe out, and give 
 to the chaplain a salary of not less than one thousand dollars per 
 year. Also, as not one dime is allowed for newspapers, I recom- 
 mend that at least one hundred dollars be appropriated for news- 
 papers, to be selected by the superintendent, and circulated among 
 the convicts. 
 
 The province of the physician should be to administer to the 
 infirmities of the convicts, and be responsible to the general super- 
 intendent for his care and attention. 
 
 Such, generally, in my humble opinion, should be the outline of 
 the penitentiary management. I have no hesitation in suggesting 
 that some such system, perfected by men of practical wisdom and 
 experience, would result in vast saving to the State, and largely 
 promote the welfare of the unhappy multitudes thrown upon its 
 care, and lead to many permanent reformations of the prisoners. 
 All the dictates of humanity require that particular attention 
 should be given to this important subject by the members of the 
 General A*, e mbly. I refer you to two interesting communications 
 irom the present and former chaplains, transmitted herewith. 
 
 EDUCATION. 
 
 For a view of the progress and present condition of the common 
 and Normal schools of the State, I refer you to the report of the 
 Superintendent of Public Instruction, and invite your attention to 
 the necessity of making provision for the immediate expansion and 
 more perfect development of the system. The grand procession 
 of events, political and military, which crowd the present, must not 
 blind us to the inexorable demands of the future. No lesson of 
 3
 
 18 
 
 this historic period is being more impressively taught us than this : 
 that under a constitution like ours the whole people must be trained 
 to a just conception of their rights as men ; of their duties as citi- 
 zens ; and of their sacred obligations as patriots. This, in theory, 
 is the end sought by our system of free schools, and very great 
 progress has been made. But the time has come when a vast acces- 
 sion must be made to the educational forces of the State. Ten 
 years have brought us to a new era, demanding new agencies, new 
 measures, and a more comprehensive, aggressive and liberal educa- 
 tional policy. More money must be appropriated, more men must 
 be employed, more forces organized and put in operation. The 
 progress of events has superannuated the scale of operations upon 
 which our free school system was inaugurated. What did very 
 well in 1855, will not do for 1865. 
 
 Much of the machinery of common schools needs to be simplified, 
 reorganized and perfected; temporary schools of instruction for 
 teachers must be organized arid conducted, at suitable points, 
 throughout the State ; the changeless laws of mental growth and 
 action must be proclaimed to the people everywhere, that they may 
 be able to estimate the difference between right and wrong methods 
 of teaching the priceless blessings of good teachers and schools, 
 and the worthlessness of bad ones ; the duty of obedience to hygi- 
 enic laws in the management of schools, must be inculcated, that 
 we may have a generation of youth sound in body as well as in 
 mind ; a spirit of taste and beauty must be diffused until the 
 chaste and attractive, though simple and uncostly, designs of mod- 
 ern improved school architecture shall be substituted for the mo- 
 notonous deformity which now prevails in most of our rural dis- 
 tricts ; in a word, the people must be led to understand the true 
 idea and end of education itself why men should be educated, and 
 how they should be educated, as set forth with unanswerable power 
 in the last biennial report, to the end that they may see the inevita- 
 ble abyss into which a republican government must ultimately 
 plunge without intelligence and virtue co-extensive with the fran- 
 chises of the citizen under the constitution. 
 
 To realize these grand aims, the resources of the central educa- 
 tional office of the State must be increased, both in men and means. 
 It cannot be done by the Superintendent, confined to his office, for 
 lack of clerical help, with no traveling fund and no competen 
 assistants. It can only be done in Illinois as it has been done in
 
 19 
 
 Massachusetts and other eastern States, and as it is being done in 
 Michigan, Wisconsin, and other western States, by a liberal appro- 
 priation for State Institutes and for the State Department of Public 
 Instruction, that the living heralds of these great educational prin- 
 ciples may go forth among the people. Proper legislative action 
 is of course necessary, but if our school laws were as perfect as 
 inspiration itself could make them, they would be powerless to 
 achieve the desired end without the living agency of qualified, 
 experienced men. The salary of the State Superintendent should 
 be increased to an equality, at least, with that of the Principal of 
 the Normal University, and he should be allowed at least two 
 assistants, with salaries sufficient to command the very best educa- 
 tional experience and ability. The compensation of the head of 
 the Normal School is not too large, and should not be reduced; 
 but no good reason can be given why the head of the whole system 
 should receive only three-fifths as much (which is now the fact) as the 
 presiding officer of an institution which is but a unit in that system. 
 A comparison of the duties and responsibilities of the two positions 
 would justify no such disparity of compensation. Much is said 
 about the "necessity of economy in public expenditures. No *nan 
 shall be before me in acting upon that principle. I advocate 
 liberal appropriations for educational purposes because it is the only 
 true economy, in the long run. No investment will prove more 
 profitable on final settlement. 
 
 The Normal University, under its present very able administra- 
 tion, is more than fulfilling the most sanguine expectations of its 
 founders and friends, and should be regarded with just pride by 
 every citizen of the State. Its halls are literally crowded with 
 students from all parts of the State. It is doing a great and good 
 work. I commend it and its interests to the confidence and favor 
 of the Legislature. 
 
 In dismissing thus briefly this great public interest, I proclaim 
 it as my belief that no other should receive more serious attention 
 and enlightened action at the hands of this General Assembly. 
 The character of our future as a State and people will depend more 
 upon the educator than the politician. It is a disgraceful fact that 
 this great State, so matchless in all the elements of material wealth 
 and power so illustrious in her record of heroism and devotion to 
 the Union so soon to exercise, by her position and character, a 
 controlling influence in the councils of the nation this great State
 
 20 
 
 is among the most meagre and inadequate of all the free-school 
 States of the Union in the endowment of her State Department of 
 Education. I trust that this will be so no longer. We cannot 
 afford to neglect these interests. 
 
 CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF LANDS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. 
 
 It will be remembered that Congress, by act approved July 2, 
 1862, donated to the several States, under certain conditions, pub- 
 lic lands, or scrip for the same, in the proportion of thirty thousand 
 acres for each senator and representative in Congress, the proceeds 
 of the sale of which, or the land scrip to be issued therefor, is to 
 be invested in stocks of the United States, or of the States, or some 
 other safe stocks, yielding not less than five per cent, upon the par 
 .value of said stocks, and to constitute a perpetual fund, the interest 
 of which is to be inviolably appropriated to the endowment, sup- 
 port, and maintenance of at least one college in each State, where 
 the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and 
 classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such... 
 branches of learning as are related to agricultural and mechanic 
 arts, in such manner as the Legislature may prescribe, in order to 
 promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes 
 (n the several pursuits and professions in life; also further pro- 
 viding that any State which may take the benefits of the provisions of 
 the act, shall provide, within five years of the date of such act, at 
 least one college, as described in the act, or the grant to the State 
 to cease, and requiring the State, by its Legislature, to express its 
 acceptance of the provisions of the act within two years after the 
 date of its approval. The latter provision has been carried out by 
 the act of the last Legislature accepting the donation, but no 
 steps were taken to carry into effect the provisions requiring the 
 establishment of a college, and it is for you to take such action .as 
 will secure to our State the benefit of this valuable grant. 
 
 This brief synopsis of the general features of the act of Con- 
 gress, will enable you to understand more fully the position which 
 this State, by the action of the last Legislature, occupies in 
 reference to the subject 
 
 Pursuant to the acceptance, and after being duly notified thereof, 
 the Secretary of the Interior has placed in my hands land scrip 
 for the location of four hundred and eighty thousand acres. There 
 being no public lands within the limits of this State subject to private
 
 21 
 
 entry, upon which said scrip can be properly located, it becomes 
 the duty of the General Assembly to provide by law, for its sale 
 and investment of the proceeds thereof in stocks, as contemplated 
 and required by said act of Congress. There remains but a 
 little more than two years within which time the State must com- 
 ply with the provisions of the act, and to establish a college or col- 
 leges for the purposes specified, or the grant, as to this State, is to 
 cease. 
 
 The shortness of the time, the importance and magnitude 
 of the enterprise, its effects upon the educational interests of the 
 State, and the variety of great questions involved, justify me in 
 calling your special attention to the subject at this time. I there- 
 fore advise that a commission be appointed, charged with the duty 
 of carrying out the provisions of the act of Congress, under 
 such safeguards as your wisdom may suggest and approve. No 
 part of the fund arising from this grant can be appropriated to the 
 erection or repair of edifices or buildings, and it therefore becomes 
 necessary for the General Assembly to provide for the same with- 
 in the time limited by the act of Congress. Doubtless there are 
 many localities within the State, which would undertake to furnish 
 the requisite buildings and structures for such an institution with- 
 out cost to the State, in consideration of the local benefits they may 
 be supposed to derive from the same ; and I, therefore, recommend 
 that the appointment of a commission, to locate said institution, be 
 provided for by act of the General Assembly, and that the powers 
 and duties of said commission be so specified and defined as to in- 
 sure a due consideration of the best interests of the cause of indus- 
 trial education, in its relation to the whole people of the State. 
 
 At the fair of the State Agricultural Society, held during the 
 month of September last, this subject was ably discussed, by the 
 farmers and mechanics present, at a series of conventions called for 
 the purpose. The views and suggestions, will be submitted 
 to you by the committee appointed at that time, together with the 
 draft of a bill, embodying the views of the agricultural and me- 
 chanical interests represented at said fair. The eminent qualifica- 
 tions of the gentlemen composing this committee, for determining 
 what would be to the best educational interests of the mechanical and 
 agricultural classes, as well as the respectable and prominent stand- 
 ing which they occupy in society, entitle their recommendations to 
 your most favorable consideration. A committee, also representing
 
 22 
 
 the views of the mechanics of Chicago, will lay a communication 
 before you, which, with any other communications on the subject, 
 will, I trust, receive your careful consideration. 
 
 It is needless for me to add, that to this General Assembly is 
 committed this great and sacred trust, in which not alone the pre- 
 sent, but future generations of this State are deeply interested. If 
 it is economically and wisely administered, it will be a source of 
 great blessings, and will reflect credit upon this General Assembly, 
 upon whom has devolved the important responsibility of devising 
 the best mode for carrying out the great purposes of its creation. 
 There are other features of said act of Congress which should be 
 responded to by legislation on the part of the General Assembly, 
 but which need not be enumerated. The whole subject, freighted 
 as it is with the most important hopes and promises for the future 
 of our young and growing State, I leave iii your hands, trusting that 
 in whatever may be done, the rights of the farmers and mechanics, 
 for whoso benefit this munificent donation was made, will be fully 
 
 regarded. 
 
 
 
 A EEGISTRY LAW. 
 
 The elective franchise is a distinguishing feature of our republi- 
 can system. The legislation of the country, its policy and its insti- 
 tutions, are determined by the majority of the legal voters of the 
 state or nation, and the mode of ascertaining that majority is by 
 the ballots of the voters deposited in the ballot box. In the absence 
 of any guards or restrictions thrown around the ballot box, a fair 
 expression of the will of the majority may be defeated by illegal 
 Voting. It is but too often the case that corrupting influences are 
 brought to bear upon voters who, from mercenary considerations, or 
 under political excitement, are led to vote oftener than they are en- 
 titled, and who lack the requirements of age, residence, or other 
 qualifications required by the constitution and laws. It is some- 
 times the case that men who plead exemption from military service, 
 and claim the protection of foreign governments in case of a draft, 
 are yet among the first to claim and exercise the right of suffrage 
 at the polls. Again, instances are known of unworthy citizens who 
 go from place to place, casting their votes under assumed names, 
 wherever, through the oversight or political connivance of the judges 
 of the election, they can have them received. To prevent such
 
 23 
 
 practices, I recommend the passage of a stringent registry law, re- 
 quiring the name of each voter to be recorded for a given number 
 of days previous to such general election. The time should be 
 sufficient to secure an investigation into the qualifications of the 
 voter in every doubtful case. Laws of this character have been 
 found to operate well and meet the approbation of men of all par- 
 ties who desire to maintain the purity of the ballot box. 
 
 BLACK LAWS. 
 
 Of the black laws I have but little to say, except to recommend 
 that you sweep them from the statute book with a swift, relentless 
 hand. My opinion of them cannot be better expressed than in the 
 language of a resolution, which as a member of the General Assem- 
 bly in February, 1849, I had the honor in a feeble minority to ad- 
 vocate, "declaring the laws of the State, applicable to negroes and 
 mulattues, tyrannical, iniquitous and oppressive upon this weak, 
 harmless and unfortunate class, and unbecoming the statutes of a 
 free, magnanimous, enlightened and Christian nation." They were 
 originally enacted to gratify an unjustifiable public prejudice against 
 the friends of liberty, and an inhuman feeling towards a poor, un- 
 fortunate class of our fellow citizens. They assumed a fact, which, 
 to the honor of the JefFersonian ordinance of 1787, never existed, 
 that slavery did or could exist in the free state of Illinois. Section 9 
 of these laws provides that "if any slave or servant shall be found 
 ten miles from the tenement of his or her master 'without a pass, 
 he may be punished with stripes not exceeding thirty-five" thus 
 by the phraseology of the law recognizing the existence of the in- 
 stitution of slavery within our borders and prescribing an infamous 
 punishment. It is unconstitutional, as decided by the Supreme 
 Court in this State, "in attempting to legislate upon the subject of 
 the rendition of fugitive slaves to their masters, over which subject 
 the court decides that Congress has supreme and exclusive power." 
 It authorizes a system of slavery, by providing that every colored 
 man who shall be found in this State "without having a certificate 
 of freedom" shall be deemed a runaway slave or servant "to b 
 committed to the custody of the sheriff of the county, who shall ad- 
 vertise him at the court house door," and "to hire him out for the 
 best price he can get," "from month to month," "for the space of 
 one year." Any law, thus placing any man, white or black, in the 
 power of a purchaser, for money, is utterly inconsistent with the
 
 24: 
 
 humanity of the age and the spirit of our free constitution. These 
 laws are unconstitutional, because by the laws of many of our States 
 free colored persons are citizens, and the constitution of the United 
 States expressly provides that "the citizens of each State shall be 
 entitled to all the privileges of citizens in the several States." 
 
 An examination of the various provisions of these laws will sat- 
 isfy this General Assembly of their inhumanity, and the humane 
 and philanthropic will everywhere hail their repeal with joyful ac- 
 clamations. 
 
 In reply to those who say that if these laws are repealed we shall 
 have a large influx of free negroes into this State, I have to answer 
 that the laws are now almoct a dead letter. Negroes are not 
 kept out of the State by them, for it is only now and then, indeed 
 a rare case, that a man can be found who is barbarian enough to in- 
 sist upon the application of the penalties imposed by these laws. 
 And upon the subject I cannot present my views better than by 
 the following extract from my message of January 5th 1863. Re- 
 ferring to the emancipation policy of the administration, I say : 
 
 "I am sure of two things : First that when slavery is removed, 
 this rebellion will die out, and not before. Second I believe and 
 predict, and commit the prediction in this State paper to meet the 
 verdict of my successors in office and of posterity, that the change 
 brought about by the policy of emancipation will pass off' in a way 
 so quietly and so easily, that the world will stand amazed that we 
 should have entertained such fears of its evils. During the war, 
 there will be necessarily some suffering among so many slaves 
 thrown out of employment, and many, perhaps large numbers of 
 them, will seek a temporary refuge in the free states, and every 
 man who has a human heart within him, will treat them kindly ; 
 but with the return of peace, the demand for labor in the south will 
 be greatly increased, and there will be an exodus not only of these 
 fugitives, but of the free colored population to the south. The de- 
 mand for labor in the south will be greatly increased by the sub- 
 division of large farms into numerous small ones, in the hands of a 
 much larger number of owners ; also by the reclamation of immense 
 regions of fertile country in all our southern states, waiting only 
 the plastic touch of free labor, the settlement of which has been re- 
 tarded by the existence of slavery, tending, as it always has, and 
 necessarily always will, to discourage the immigration of free white
 
 citizens. No reasonable fears of competition with the free labor of 
 the northern states need be entertained, because the emancipated 
 slave will have protection and employment upon the soil which he 
 has heretofore cultivated in bondage. Emancipation does not in- 
 crease the number of negroes by an additional one. There will not 
 be a single acre of land less for cultivation, but a great deal more will 
 probably be cultivated ; there will be the same and an increasing 
 demand for the culture of cotton, tobacco, sugar, and rice, for which 
 the negro is peculiarly adapted ; the southern climate will remain 
 unchanged, congenial to his constitution ; and it is in the highest 
 degree improbable that the negro will leave the state of his nutivi" 
 ty, where his labor is in demand, where he understands, better than 
 any one else, the business to be done, and where the climate is adap- 
 ted to him, to seek the cold climates of the north, to face the strong 
 competition of northern, skilled free-labor, to encounter the preju 
 dice against his color, and the pauperism and neglect which would 
 meet him on everyvhand." 
 
 I will not say that legislation will not be necessary upon this sub- 
 ject of the residence of free negroes in our midst ; but I will say, that 
 whatever is necessary should be free from political prejudice, 
 having regard to the welfare of our own, free, white citizens, and, 
 at the same time, marked with humanity and a due regard to that 
 unfortunate class of our fellow beings whom Providence, in its 
 wise and inscrutible plans, has placed in our care. 
 
 SOLDIKKS' VOTING. 
 
 In my last message I recommended, in strong term's, the impor- 
 tance and justice of an enactment extending to our citizen soldiers, 
 in the field, the right of suffrage, but no action was had upon the 
 same. During the last two years the subject has been fully consid- 
 ered and acted upon in many of the loyal States, and although the 
 constitutions of the States have been framed without reference to 
 a state of war, yet the subject has undergone the scrutiny of the 
 highest judicial tribunals, and the right to take the votes of soldiers 
 in the field has been clearly recognized. Laws passed for this pur- 
 pose have been carried into operation and found to operate well, 
 without any public injury. I can see nothing in our State consti- 
 tution which prohibits the passage of such a law. Section 1, Art. 
 6 of our State constitution, provides as follows : " In all elections,
 
 26 
 
 every white male citizen, above the age of twenty-one years, hav- 
 ing resided in the State one year next preceding any election, shall 
 be entitled to vote at such election ; and every white male inhabi- 
 tant, of the age aforesaid, who may be a resident at the time of the 
 adoption of this constitution, shall have the right of voting as 
 aforesaid ; but no such citizen or inhabitant shall be entitled to 
 vote, except in the district or county in which he shall actually reside 
 at the time of such election." It is evident, from this clause, that 
 the elector cannot vote in any other precinct than that in which he 
 actually resides. 
 
 Section 4, Art. 6 of the constitution of the United States, pro- 
 vides that " No elector shall be deemed to have lost his residence 
 in this State by reason of his absence on the business of the Uni- 
 ted States or of this State." 
 
 Under this latter clause, a minister of the United States to a 
 foreign court, though absent for years, is an actual resident of the 
 district or county in which he resided at the time he left the coun- 
 try, on his mission. The same may be said of the soldier who has 
 left the county or district, because he is absent on the business of 
 the United States, and therefore does not lose his residence. Now, 
 is it reasonable to presume that the framers of our constitution^ 
 while thus preserving the residence of the soldier, evidently for 
 the purpose of securing to him the right of suffrage, at the same 
 time meant to prohibit the Legislature from making any provision 
 to enable him to exercise that right ? "While the elector is required 
 " to vote in the district or county" in which he resides, it is not 
 necessarily required that he is to be present, in person, at the polls, 
 and cast his vote. The object of the framers of the constitution 
 was to preserve the purity of the ballot box, and to prevent the 
 voter from voting more than once, or at more places than one, at 
 the same election. The object evidently was, to provide that his 
 vote should only be cast in the one district or county in which he re- 
 sided. Now the constitution, and the object of its framers, are fully 
 complied with, when the soldier has cast his vote in his district or 
 county, whether he be present, and cast his vote there in person^ 
 or whether the ballot is deposited there by his attorney, under the 
 proper checks and restrictions as to his qualifications of age, resi- 
 dence, etc. or whether his vote is taken in the field, in some mode 
 to be provided by the Legislature, and deposited in the ballot box 
 of the district or county in which he resides, as has been provided
 
 27 
 
 in the laws of several of the States. The following plan, with such 
 guards and details as will prevent frauds, is suggested, as a practica- 
 ble way of effecting the object : The three field officers, or, in their 
 absence, the three ranking officers of each regiment of infantry or 
 cavalry, and three highest commissioned officers, or those acting in 
 their places, of each battery of artillery, or each company or squad- 
 ron of infantry or cavalry on detached service, might be made the 
 inspectors of the election, with power to appoint the proper person 
 clerk of the election, so that the vote may be taken on the day fixed 
 by the constitution. 
 
 There is no way of reaching the case by amendment to the con- 
 stitution, without disfranchising the soldier for at least two years 
 to come, for the constitution requires that two-thirds of the General 
 Assembly shall recommend to the people to vote for or against 
 calling a convention to amend the constitution, at the next regular 
 election of members of the General Assembly, and that the General 
 Assembly thus elected shall, within three months, call an election 
 for members to the convention. It would require a still longer 
 time to reach the object under the clause which provides for amend- 
 ment by submitting it as a single proposition. It is therefore plain 
 that if this General Assembly fails to pass a law authorizing our 
 soldiers to vote y these gallant defenders of our homes and liberties 
 must be disfranchised for over two years to come. 
 
 I recommend therefore to you, as one of your first acts, the pas- 
 sage of a law providing for taking the votes of our soldiers in the 
 field. Indeed, I will say, decorously however, that failure to pro- 
 tect the rights of the noble men who have left business and prop- 
 erty, home and kindred, to preserve to you the enjoyment of this 
 same peaceful right of suffrage, together with all other rights you 
 hold dear, would subject you to the charge of being unfaithful ser- 
 vants to your country. The soldiers are citizens ; they are the 
 people of the country ; their persons, their families, their property, 
 their rights are as deeply affected by the legislation of the country 
 as those of the citizens who remain at home, in the quiet enjoy- 
 ment of peace and safety. If the soldier is not worthy to vote, 
 who is ? If he who bares his breast to the storm of battle, and 
 bears aloft our flag, against the hordes who are madly striving to 
 tear down our magnificent temple of constitutional liberty ; if he 
 shall have no voice in selecting his rulers, who shall? Therefore 
 let this General Assembly signalize its patriotism by this act of
 
 prompt and necessary justice to the gallant citizen soldier of the 
 State. 
 
 I would suggest to the General Assembly that, while I do not 
 anticipate an unfavorable decision of the Supreme Court upon an 
 enactment to be passed securing the right of suffrage to the soldiers, 
 yet, in view of any such contingency, proper action should be taken 
 for amendment to the constitution, as the next oaly mode of secur- 
 ing the object. 
 
 WAR RECORD OF ILLINOIS. 
 CONDUCT OF THE WAR. 
 
 Appreciating, before the first gun was fired at Sumter, the deter- 
 mination of treasonable political leaders to inaugurate rebe.lion, 
 and, when war was actually made against the government, the 
 great preparation made by them for revolt, and the magnitude of 
 the struggle we would be compelled to pass through, I earnestly 
 insisted upon and urged more extensive preparation for the prose- 
 cution of the war. The conciliatory policy which looked towards 
 avoiding a bitter struggle, by appeals to the loyal sentiment of the 
 southern States, and the justification in the ultimate rigid prosecu- 
 tion of war, should that fail ; thus placing the government in a 
 consistent and peaceful attitude toward foreign nations, and estab- 
 lishing, by long forbearance, the disposition of one section, ir, the 
 majority and in power, to concede and allay the animosities of the 
 other section, in the minority, and defeated at the ballot-box; also, 
 that if the struggle endangered the existence of the government and 
 Union under our old constitution, that the President, as comman- 
 der-in-chief of the armies and navy of the Republic, would be 
 justified by the civilized world, and by the trust reposed in him, 
 in waging war, even to the destruction of institutions which endan- 
 gered the peace of all other nations, and which foreign powers 
 admit, and the majority of our own people had declared, as sub- 
 versive of the constitution, and dangerous to the existence of the 
 Union. These views are perhaps sound in theory, and may ulti- 
 mately redound to our credit in historic pages; but I never alto- 
 gether sympathized with the policy. The events of the war, and 
 revolutions in public sentiment, have sustained the warnings given 
 in the early days of open treason, and my position taken at the firs
 
 29 
 
 declaration of secession and war : " that secession was disunion; 
 that to concede to one State the right to release her people from the 
 duties and obligations belonging to their citizenship, and you would, 
 by that act, annihilate the sovereignty of the Union, by prostrat- 
 ing its ability to secure allegiance ; " also, that the violation of 
 law, and a defiance of the authority and power of the General 
 Government, however small, demanded the immediate punishment 
 of the offenders, and the complete vindication of national integ- 
 rity ; and that the President should immediately employ the whole 
 material of the government, moral, political and physical, if need 
 be, to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 After the war had progressed a year, and the mild measures 
 which were still persistently advocated by many friends of the 
 administration, and with all the evidence, on the part of the rebels, 
 for complete preparation and determination to wage a long and 
 desperate war against the government, I sent the President the 
 following dispatch : 
 
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, July \\th, 1862. 
 President Lincoln, Washington, D. U.: 
 
 The crisis of the war and our national existence is upon us. The time has come for the 
 adoption of more decisive measures. Greater vigor and earnestness must be infused into 
 our military movements. Blows must be struck at the vital parts of the rebellion. The 
 government should employ every available means compatible with the rules of warfare to 
 subject the traitors. Summon to the standard of the Republic all men willing to fight for 
 the Union. Let loyalty, and that alone, be the dividing line between the nation and its 
 foes. Generals should not be permitted to fritter away the sinews of our brave men in 
 guarding the property of traitors, and in driving back into their hands loyal blacks, who* 
 offer us their labor, and seek shelter beneath the federal flag. Shall we sit supinely by, 
 and see the war sweep off the youth and strength of the land, and refuse aid from that 
 class of men, who are at least worthy foes of traitors and the murderers of our govern- 
 ment and of our children? 
 
 Our armies should be directed to forage on the enemy, and to cease paying traitors and 
 their abettors exorbitant exactions for food needed by the sick or hungry soldier. Mild 
 and conciliatory means have been tried iu vain to recall' the rebels to their allegiance. 
 The conservative policy has utterly failed to reduce traitors to obedience, and to restore 
 the supremacy of the laws. They have, by means of sweeping conscriptions, gathered in 
 countless hordes, and threaten to beat back and overwhelm the armies of the Union. 
 With blood and treason in their hearts, they flaunt the black flag of rebellion in the face 
 of the government, and threaten to butcher our brave and loyal armies with foreign bay- 
 onets. They arm negroes and merciless savages in their behalf. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln, the crisis demands greater and sterner measures. Proclaim anew the good 
 old motto of the Republic, "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable," 
 and accept the services of all loyal mtn, and it will be in your power to stamp- armies out 
 of the earth irresistible armies, that will bear our banners to certain victory. 
 
 In any event, Illinois, already alive with at of drum, and resounding with the tramp
 
 30 
 
 of new recruits, will respond to your call. Adopt this policy, and she will leap like a 
 flaming giant into the fight. 
 
 This policy for the conduct of the war will render foreign intervention impossible, and 
 the arms of the Republic invincible. It will bring the conflict to a speedy close, and 
 secure peace on a permanent basis. 
 
 RICHARD YATES, 
 
 Governor of Illinois. 
 
 Impressed with these views, and the necessity of each State 
 giving immediate and the most practical support to the govern- 
 ment, and inspired by the unparalleled enthusiasm of the people 
 of Illinois, I asked that millions should be armed where the gov- 
 ernment asked, in limited calls, only for a few hundred thousand 
 men. Bull Run, Carthage, Wilson's Creek, and the attitude of 
 Kentucky and Missouri, painfully demonstrated the inadequacy of 
 preparation on the part of the government for the crisis ; and had 
 it not been for the overpowering uprising of the people of the free 
 States, and their loyal and determined expression to take the war 
 in their own hands, we might have had enacted on our own soil 
 the scenes which have desolated border States, and the country 
 involved in a strife for a period and in bitterness far exceeding the 
 darkest periods we have passed in the last three years. 
 
 Before the battle of Bull Itun, and before important points being 
 occupied by rebel troops after consultation with the Governors of 
 the loyal States, and with distinguished citizens of Illinois, who, as 
 commanding generals, have led our gallant soldiers to brilliant victo- 
 ries I recommended the occupation of New Orleans, Memphis, 
 Columbus, and commanding positions on the Cumberland and 
 Tennessee rivers, by United States regular troops ; thus obviating 
 the necessity of arraying sections against each other by the employ- 
 ment of a volunteer army, and plainly foreshadowing the determi 
 nation of the government to firmly resist and punish violations of 
 law, and overwhelm the presumptuous insolence of rebel leaders 
 in the act of inaugurating rebellion in the States. These afforts 
 were unavailing ; and the government was afterward compelled to 
 occupy these important positions by larger armies of volunteer 
 troops, and at fearful sacrifice of life, and expenditure of millions 
 of dollars. The conciliatory policy, so destructive to our interests 
 in the west, entered largely into the organization of the army 
 formed for the defense of the national capital, and offensive opera- 
 tions in Virginia ; and we had the lamentable picture of the Gene- 
 ral chosen to chief command issuing orders that slaves discovered
 
 31 
 
 in making war for the government against their rebellious masters 
 should be put down with an iron hand, and one temporizing Gov- 
 ernor of Missouri pronouncing the act of the President, in calling 
 for a detachment of militia to enforce the national authority, 
 " illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, diabolical, and 
 cannot be complied with." Another replied that " Kentucky will 
 furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her siste r 
 southern States;" and "Tennessee will not furnish a single man 
 for coercion." 
 
 Kid glove in civil council, and kid glove and warm sympathy 
 "for our erring southern brethren" in the organization of the 
 eastern army, made service there distasteful to western volunteers ; 
 and this sentiment impressed me with the importance of securing 
 the close consolidation of our State forces at the commencement of 
 the war; and, as far as it was consistent or possible for me to do 
 so, I secured the intimate association of all our regiments in brig- 
 ade and division organizations in the field. This also facilitated 
 the convenient distribution of supplies then issued by the State for 
 the General Government ; provided the earliest relief possible to 
 the largest number, after long marches and severe engagements ; 
 afforded the easiest and cheapest transit of sanitary supplies to lield 
 and general hospitals; and concentrated our contingents to the na 
 tional army in corps designed for campaigns through territory famil. 
 iar to both officers and men, and in which they would more speedily 
 develop their genius for military life, and render the most efficient 
 and practical service to the government. It was natural to presume 
 that our young men who passed their early days in States south of 
 the Ohio, and deplored the dedication of their old homesteads and 
 associations to the cause of rebellion; and that the immigrant from 
 New England, the Middle States, and Europe, dwelling upon our 
 fertile prairies, and growing rich and independent from the products 
 of free labor, would recognize the importance and more zealously 
 prosecute the re conquest of the valley of the Mississippi, and the 
 control of its great river our natural outlet to the ocean, so vital 
 to the success of our enemies, and so necessary to the protection 
 of our local interests, and the integrity of the Union and that 
 , our whole people would sympathize with and sustain efforts to thus 
 gather. and unite the whole strength of the State in solid force 
 against treason, and for tho restoration of the national unity, per- 
 fect in all its parts.
 
 32 
 
 Belmont, Donelson, Island No. 10, Shiloh, Corinth, Parker 8 
 Cross Roads, Port Gibson, Raymond, Champion Hills, Black 
 River, Siege of Yicksburg, Perryville, Stone River, Chickamauga, 
 Lookout Mountain, Atlanta, Franklin, .Nashville, and the triumphal 
 march of Sherman, speak in thunder tones of the consolidated 
 efforts ot Illinois, vieing with the volunteers of other States in 
 battling for the Union. 
 
 We have lost thousands of our best men, and whole regiments 
 and batteries, in the conflicts of this fearful war; but we have not 
 to deplore the decimation of the ranks of gallant regiments, led by 
 timid and halting generals on fruitless and purposeless campaigns, 
 prosecuted without skill or vigor, and with the deplorable morale of 
 a fear to punish traitors not actually in arms, and the employment 
 of the best strength of their armies in protecting rebel property. 
 
 The following exhibits the quotas of the State under respective 
 calls since commencement of the war, and the number of men 
 furnished to the national armies to the present time : 
 
 Our quota, under calls of the President 
 
 In 1861, was 47,785 
 
 In 1862, " 32,685 
 
 In 1863, " 64,630 
 
 In 1864, " 52,260 
 
 Total quotas under all calls prior to Dec. 1, 1864 197,360 
 
 During the years 1861, 1862, and to the 18th day of October, 
 1863, the State, by voluntary enlistment, had exceeded its quota 
 under all calls. Prior to that date settlements had not been made 
 with the "War Department, because of the voluntary action of our 
 people in meeting the requirements of the country and their per- 
 sistence in organizing, with unparalleled enthusiasm and determi- 
 nation, a larger number of regiments and batteries than the actual 
 quotas under each levy called for. Prior to 17th October, 1863, 
 the State had furnished and been credited with one hundred and 
 twenty-five thousand three hundred and twenty-one (125,321) men 
 a surplus of eight thousand one hundred and fifty-one (8,151) 
 over all other calls, to be credited to our quota for that call, and 
 which reduced it to 19,779 men ; and we claimed, besides, other 
 credits, which could not be fully adjusted because of imperfect 
 record of citizens (and in some cases whole companies of Illinoisans)
 
 33 
 
 who had entered the service in regiments of other States, at times 
 when our quotas on special calls were full, and because of which I 
 was compelled to decline their services. Six thousand and thirty, 
 two (6,032) citizens of Illinois prior to that date had been enlisted 
 in Missouri regiments, and residents of Missouri had enlisted and 
 been mustered in Illinois regiments, which left a credit, as between 
 the States, in favor of Illinois of 4,373 men. 
 
 After adjustment of credit of 125,321, at and prior to October, 
 
 1863, it was ascertained we were entitled to an additional credit of 
 10,947, which increased the number enrolled in our own regiments, 
 and for which we were entitled to credit prior to that call, to 136,- 
 268 leaving the whole account, at that date, thus : 
 
 Quotas under all calls to October, 1863.. 145,100 
 
 Credits for enlistments in Illinois regiments.. 136,268 
 
 Balance in Missouri regiments 4,373 
 
 / 140,641 
 
 Balance due the government 4,459 
 
 At this time there was a claim made by the State for volunteers 
 previously furnished, which would more than account for the bal- 
 ance against us of 4,459. This adjustment was made in February, 
 
 1864. and was exclusive of old regiments re-enlisting as veterans, 
 and disclosed the fact that at the time the first draft was ordered, 
 viz : January 1st, 1864, under the call of October, 1863, Illinois 
 had exceeded her quota, and, by the voluntarily demonstrated 
 patriotism of her people, was free from draft. 
 
 The unadjusted balances of the State claimed as above were 
 allowed in the settlement made with the "War Department, in 
 August last. 
 
 Between the first day of October, 1863, and the first day of 
 December, 1864, we have furnished and received additional credits 
 for fifty -five thousand six hundred and nineteen (55.619) men 
 which, added to credit of 140,641 to October 1, 1863, makes 19Y,- 
 260 men, which leaves our whole account thus : 
 
 Quotas of the State under all calls prior to Dec. 1, 1864. . .197,360 
 Total credits for three years volunteers, drafted men and 
 
 substitutes to Dec. 1, 1864 ,. . .197,260 
 
 Balance due the government Dec. 1, 1864 ^V.'* 1 100
 
 34: 
 
 The deficit of one hundred men has been more than balanced by 
 enlistments during the month of December, 1864. 
 
 Of the entire quota of one hundred and ninety-seven thousand 
 three hundred and sixty (197,360) men, we have furnished one 
 hundred and ninety-four thousand one hundred and ninety-eight 
 (194,198) volunteers and three thousand and sixty-two (3,062) 
 drafted men organized as follows : 
 
 138 regiments and one battalion of infantry. 
 17 regiments of cavalry. 
 
 o / 
 
 % regiments and 8 batteries of artillery. 
 
 t-ifj-fj , i >j;'.[> : MnK'-n.; Oi- ,'lw oilt *>nrrf&l *fk 
 
 ONE HUNDRED DAT TKOOPS. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing the State has furnished thirteen (13) 
 regiments and two companies of one hundred day volunteers, the 
 following being the numerical designation, name of commanding 
 officer and strength of each : 
 
 No. of 
 regiment. 
 
 Commanding Officer. 
 
 Aggregate 
 
 132 
 188 
 134 
 135 
 136 
 
 m 
 
 138 
 139 
 140 
 141 
 142 
 143 
 145 
 
 C 
 C 
 
 
 853 
 851 
 878 
 85S 
 842 
 849 
 835 
 878 
 871 
 842 
 851 
 865 
 877 
 181 
 
 Thaddeus Phillips , 
 
 Walter W. McChesney 
 
 John S. Wolfe 
 
 
 
 John W. Goodwin 
 
 
 
 Stephen Bronson 
 
 
 Dudley C. Smith 
 
 
 ipt. Simon J. Stookey, (Alton battalion two companies) 
 Total 
 
 
 11,328 
 
 After the fall of Vicksburg, in 1863, and General Sherman's raid 
 into Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama, active military operations 
 were transferred from the Mississippi to Eastern Tennessee and 
 Georgia. The forces of the enemy, during the winter of 1863-4, 
 were being largely increased and carefully prepared for a desperate 
 spring and summer campaign, east and west, and in April he had 
 concentrated his strength for offensive operations in Virginia and 
 Georgia, or, in the event of our advance, for the most determined
 
 and bitter resistance. To hold the vast extent of country wrested 
 from the enemy, embracing many States and territories, many 
 thousand miles of sea coast, the whole length of the Mississippi, 
 and most of her tributaries, and protect our long lines of sea and 
 river coast and rail communication, required an immense stationary 
 force. The towns and cities surrounding strongholds, posts and 
 garrisons, situated in the midst of a doubtful and in most part dis- 
 loyal population, required too great a portion of our large army for 
 their protection and defense. In view of these circumstances, and 
 of the palpable evidence which surrounded us that the battles about 
 to be fought in Virginia by the army under direct supervision of 
 Lieutenant-General Grant, and in Georgia under General Sherman, 
 would doubtless decide the fate of the country, the Governors of 
 the Northwestern States believed that the efficiency of the army 
 and the prospects of crowning victories to the national arms would 
 be greatly increased by a volunteer force, immediately raised, and 
 which should occupy the 'points already taken and relieve our vet- 
 eran troops, and send them forward to join the main army soon to 
 engage the effective forces of the enemy. I therefore, in connection 
 with Governors Brough of Ohio, Morton of Indiana, and Stone of 
 Iowa, offered the President infantry troops for one hundred days' 
 service, to be organized under regulations of the War Department, 
 and to be clothed, equipped, armed, subsisted, transported and paid 
 as other United States infantry volunteers, and to serve in fortifi- 
 cations wherever their services might be required, within or with- 
 out the State. There being no law authorizing it, no bounty could 
 be paid or the service credited on any draft. Our quota offered 
 was 20,000 men, which was a fair proportion to the aggregate 
 number (85,000) to be made up by all of said States. 
 
 Our regiments, under this call, performed indispensable and in- 
 valuable services in Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri, relieving 
 garrisons of veteran troops, who were sent to the front, took part 
 in the Atlanta campaign, several of them, also composing a part 
 of that glorious army that has penetrated the very vitals of the re- 
 bellion, and plucked some of the brightest laurels that this heroic 
 age nas woven for the patriot soldier. Five of our one hundred 
 days regiments, after their turn of service had expired, voluntarily 
 extended their engagement with the government,, and marched to 
 the relief of the gallant and able Kosecrans, who, at the head of
 
 an inadequate and poorly appointed army, was contending against 
 fearful odds for the preservation of St. Louis and the safety of 
 Missouri. The officers and soldiers of these regiments evinced 
 the highest soldierly qualities, and fully sustained the proud record 
 our veterans have ever maintained in the field and the State and 
 country owe them lasting gratitude, and we have, in a great degree, 
 to attribute our successes in Virginia and Georgia to the timely or- 
 ganization and efficient services of the one hundred day volunteers, 
 furnished by all of said States. The President lias, by order, re- 
 turned them the thanksof the government and the nation for the 
 service thus .rendered, and accords the full measure of praise to 
 them, as our supporters .and defenders in the rear, to which the reg- 
 ular reserve force of large armies are always entitled. 
 
 RECRUITING- SERVICE. 
 
 The General Government has aimed to divide the burden of 
 supplying troops for the national army equally between the loya^ 
 States, and, according to the best information attainable, I believe 
 the States have responded fully. To .husband the resources of the 
 State, in its number of arms-bearing men, I have thrown every 
 guard possible around the recruiting system. In 1861, by proc- 
 lamation, issued in July, I forbade the recruitment of volunteers 
 in Illinois for the regiments of other States, and discouraged 
 our citizens from leaving the State to join the organizations of 
 others but in that year was partially unsuccessful, because of the 
 small number of regiments accepted in proportion to the very 
 large number of our citizens who tendered their services. Dili- 
 gent efforts were made to trace out organizations and individuals 
 who left the State under these circumstances, and the records in 
 the Adjutant General's office exhibit our success in reclaiming sev- 
 eral whole regiments, and nearly 10,000 men, distributed through 
 various regiments of Missouri and other sister States. 
 
 In 1861 and 1862 a few arrests were made for violation of the 
 order, and parties guilty, upon surrendering the recruits, were dis- 
 missed, upon obligation to observe the prohibition in future. In 
 1863 there was no marked violation of the regulation ; but, in 1864, 
 when the emergencies and casualties of the service demanded the 
 reinforcement and large increase of the army, many of the States 
 became almost exhausted in number of citizens who could volunta-
 
 37 
 
 rily offer their services to the country ; and, to protect their agricul. 
 tural, manufacturing and other industrial interests, their legisla- 
 tures had provided, by law, for the payment of large bounties, from 
 their State treasuries, and authorized towns and counties also to 
 pay bounties, and to levy a tax to provide for the same thus afford- 
 ing additional inducements (to residents of other States, not ma- 
 king such provisions,) to the general bounty and premium provided 
 by laws of Congress. 
 
 The enrollment act of last Congress also provided for enlistment 
 of volunteer recruits in insurrectionary districts, and provided for 
 the appointment, by Governors of the respective States, of agents 
 to recruit there, at State expense, and that volunteers, thus en- 
 listed, should be credited to the quota of the town, township, 
 ward of a city, precinct, or election district of a county procuring 
 them. 
 
 As there was no State law for, or appropriation made, from which 
 to pay the expenses of this system, I was unable to employ agents 
 to recruit for the State ; but in my proclamation of August 9th, 
 1864, announcing the quotas and credits to July 18th, 1864, and 
 calling upon the people to fill our quota by volunteering, this sys- 
 tem was fully presented, and towns, cities and districts invited, at 
 their own expense, to avail themselves of the privileges of the law 
 and orders of the war department, made in pursuance thereof, to 
 meet delinquencies of past calls, or to fill up their quotas under 
 call of July 18th, 1864, then pending. A very small number had 
 agents appointed, but, I believe, without practical results the in- 
 ducements they were enabled to offer being inferior to those pre- 
 sented by agents of other States. 
 
 To provide against the enlistment of citizens of this State, or 
 persons, white and colored, who had taken refuge here from States 
 or districts in rebellion, in the regiments, or to be used as the con- 
 tribu^on of wealthy counties or localities of other States, which 
 would result in increasing the burdens of war (either in men or 
 dollars) upon our citizens, I deemed it proper to issue the following 
 proclamation : 
 
 EXECUTIVE OFFICE, ) 
 
 SPRINGFIELD,. ILLINOIS, August 6, 1864. | 
 
 It is hereby ordered that no recruiting for companies or regiments of other States 
 shall be permitted in this State. 
 All recruiting officers or agents for other States, and the agent or attorneys of com-
 
 panies organized to procure substitutes for persons drafted in other States, are hereby 
 peremptorily forbidden to recruit or enlist volunteers or substitutes within this State 
 during the war. 
 
 This order shall apply to all residents or citizens of Illinois, as well as the citizens 
 of other States, recruiting within this State for regiments of other States. 
 
 All recruiting agents for Illinois regiments, Provost Marshals, and loyal citizens are 
 requested to give notice of any violation of this order, that offenders may be arrested 
 and punished, and the objects designed by this limitation to recruiting entirely accom- 
 plished. 
 
 Illinois has heretofore promptly responded to all calls for volunteers, and it behooves 
 every good citizen to contribute every reasonable influence to sustain our veteran 
 regiments, which have so honored the State in efforts to sustain the Union, and I earn 
 estly entreat all citizens who desire to enter the military service of the country to 
 join Illinois regiments only. As our brave boys have struggled to give our State its 
 proud position, let us eschew all selfish inducements (presented by other States) and 
 generously sustain them and our veteran organizations in the field. 
 
 RICHARD YATES, Governor. 
 
 Besides enforcing the view that the State should not be called 
 npon or allowed to furnish more than her quota, I was impelled to 
 insist upon her husbanding our resources for the future demands of 
 the country ; also by a desire to have our entire quota assigned to 
 our old regiments, that they might, without consolidation, retain 
 their names and organizations rendered illustrious by gallant 
 deeds on scores of battle fields and in justice to tried officers, 
 who ceuld not be promoted until their companies and regiments 
 were full ; and because of the immediate effectiveness of new re- 
 cruits, in veteran organizations, under experienced officers. I am 
 glad to state that the Secretary of War issued orders to the United 
 States officers, on duty in this State, to enforce the provisions of 
 the order. 
 
 In prompt support of the government at home, and in response 
 to calls for troops, the State stands pre-eminently in the lead 
 among her loyal sisters ; and every click of the telegraph heralds 
 the perseverance of Illinois Generals and the indomitable courage 
 and bravery of Illinois sons, in every engagement of the war. 
 Our State has furnished a very large contingent to the fighting 
 strength of our National army. In the west, the history of the 
 war is brilliant 'with recitations of the skill and prowess of our 
 general, field, staff and line officers, and hundreds of Illinois boys 
 in the ranks are specially singled out and commended by Generals 
 Grant, Sherman, and otiier Generals of this and other States, for 
 their noble deeds and manly daring on hotly contested fields.
 
 One gallant Illinois boy is mentioned as being the first to plant the 
 stars and stripes at Donelson ; another, at a critical moment, anti- 
 cipates the commands of a superior officer, in hurrying forward an 
 ammunition train, and supervising hand grenades, by cutting short 
 the fuses of heavy shell, and hurling them, with his own hands, in 
 front of an assaulting column, into a strong redoubt at Vicksburg; 
 and the files of my office and those of the Adjutant General are 
 full of letters mentioning for promotion hundreds of private sol- 
 diers, who have, on every field of the war, distinguished themselves 
 by personal gallantry, at trying and critical periods. The list of 
 promotions from the field and staff of our regiments to Lieutenant 
 and Major Generals, for gallant conduct and the prerequisites for 
 efficient and successful command, compare brilliantly with the 
 names supplied by all other States, and is positive proof of the 
 wisdom of the Government in conferring honors and responsibili- 
 ties ; and the patient, vigilant and tenacious record made by our 
 veteran regiments, in the camp, on the march and in the field, is 
 made a subject of praise by the whole country, and will be the 
 theme for poets and historians of all lands, for all time. 
 
 Prominent among the many distinguished names who have 
 borne their early commissions from Illinois, I refer, with special 
 pride, to the character and priceless services to the country of 
 Ulysses S. Grant. In April, 1861, he tendered his personal servi- 
 ces to me, saying " that he had been the recipient of a military ed- 
 ucation at West Point, and that now, when the country was in- 
 volved in a war for its preservation and safety, he thought it his 
 duty to offer his services in defense of the Union, and that he would 
 esteem it a privilege to be assigned to any position where he could 
 be useful." The plain, straight forward demeanor of the man, and 
 the modesty and earnestness which characterized his offer of assist- 
 ance, at once awakened a lively interest in him, and impressed me 
 with a desire to secure his counsel for the benefit of volunteer 
 organizations then forming for government service. At first, I 
 assigned him a desk in the Executive office ; and his familiarity 
 with military organization and regulations made him an invaluable 
 assistant in my own and the office of the Adjutant General. Soon 
 his admirable qualities as a military commander became apparent, 
 and I assigned him to command of the camps of organization at 
 " Camp Yates," Springfield, " Camp Grant," Mattoon, and "Camp 
 Douglas," at Anna, Union county, at which the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th,
 
 4:0 
 
 llth, 12th, 18th, 19th and 21st regiments of Illinois volunteers, 
 raised under the call of the President, of the 15th of April, and 
 under the " Ten Regiment Bill," of the extraordinary session of 
 the Legislature, convened April 23d, 1861, were rendezvoused. 
 His employment had special reference to the organization and mus- 
 ter of these forces the first six into United States, and the last 
 three into the State service. This was accomplished about the 
 tenth day of May, 1861, at which time he left the State for a brief 
 period,, on a visit to his father, at Covington, Kentucky. 
 
 The 21st regiment of Illinois volunteers, raised in Macon, Cum- 
 berland, Piatt, Douglas, Moultrie, Edgar, Clay, Clark, Crawford 
 and Jasper counties, for thirty-day State service, organized at the 
 camp at Mattoon, preparatory to three years' service for the gov- 
 ernment, had become very much demoralized, under the thirty 
 days' experiment, and doubts arose in relation to their acceptance 
 for a longer period. I was much perplexed to find an efficient and 
 experienced officer to take command of the regiment and take it 
 into the three years' service. I ordered the regiment to Camp 
 Yates, and after consulting Hon. Jesse K. Dubois, who had many 
 friends in the regiment, and Col. John S. Loomis, Assistant Adju- 
 tant General, who wa? at the time in charge of the Adjutant Gen- 
 eral's office, and on terms of personal intimacy with Grant, I de- 
 cided to offer the command to him, and accordingly telegraphed 
 Captain Grant, at Covington, Kentucky, tendering him the Colo- 
 nelcy. He immediately reported, accepting the commission, 
 taking rank as Colonel of that regiment from the 15th day of June, 
 1861. Thirty days previous to that time the regiment numbered 
 over one thousand men, but in consequence of laxity in discipline 
 of the first commanding officer, and other discouraging obstacles 
 connected with the acceptance of troops at that time, but six hun- 
 dred and three men were found willing to enter the three years' 
 service. In less than ten days Col. Grant filled the regiment to 
 the maximum standard, and brought it to a state of discipline sel- 
 dom attained in the volunteer service, in so short a time. His was 
 the only regiment that left the camp of organization on foot. He 
 marched from Springfield to the Illinois river, but, in an emergency 
 requiring troops to operate against Missouri rebels, the regiment 
 was transported by rail to Quincy, and Col. Grant was assigned to 
 command for the protection of the Quincy and Palmyra, and Han-
 
 41 
 
 nibal and St. Joseph railroads. He soon distinguished himself as 
 a regimental commander, in the field, and his claims for increased 
 rank were recognized by his friends in Springfield, and his promo- 
 tion insisted upon, before his merits and services were fairly un- 
 derstood at Washington. His promotion was made upon the 
 ground of his military education, fifteen years-' services as a Lieu- 
 tenant and Captain in the regular army, (during which time he was 
 distinguished in the Mexican war,) his great success in organizing 
 and disciplining his regiment, and for his energetic and vigorous 
 prosecution of the campaign in North Missouri, and the earnestness 
 with which he entered into the great work of waging war against 
 the traitorous enemies of his country. His first great battle was at 
 Belmont, an engagement which became necessary to protect our 
 Southwestern army in Missouri from overwhelming forces being 
 rapidly consolidated against it from Arkansas, Tennessee and Co- 
 lumbus, Kentucky. The druggie was a desperate one, but the 
 tenacity and soldierly qualities of Grant and his invincible little 
 army, gave us the first practical victory in the west. The balance 
 of his shining record is indelibly written in the history of Henry, 
 Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth, Yicksburg. Chattanooga, The Wilder- 
 ness, siege of Richmond, and the intricate and difficult command 
 as Lieutenant General of the armies of the Union written in the 
 blood and sacrifices of the heroic braves who have fallen, following 
 him to glorious victory written upon the hearts and memories of 
 the loyal millions who are at the hearth-stones of our gallant and 
 unconquerable " Boys in Blue." The impress of his genius stamps 
 our armies, from one end of the Republic to the other ; and the 
 secret of his success in executing his plans, is in the love, enthusi- 
 asm and confidence he inspires in the soldier in the ranks, the 
 harmony>and respect of his subordinate officers, his own respect 
 for and deference to the wishes and commands of the President, 
 and his sympathy with the government in its war policy. 
 
 As evidence of the materials of the State of Illinois for war pur- 
 poses, at the beginning of the war, and a pleasing incident of 
 Grant's career, I refer to an article in a Yicksburg paper, the 
 " Weekly Sun," of May 13th, 1861, which ridicules ,our enfeebled 
 and unprepared condition, and says: "An official report made to 
 Governor Yates, of Illinois, by one Captain Grant, says that after 
 examining all the State armories he finds the muskets amount to 
 just nine hundred and four, and of them only sixty in serviceable
 
 4:2 
 
 condition." Now the name of that man, who was looking up the 
 rusty muskets in Illinois, is glory-crowned with shining victories, 
 and will nil thousands of history's brightest pages to the end of 
 time. I know well the secret of his power, for afterwards, when I 
 saw him at head quarters, upon the march, and on the battle field, 
 in his plain, thread-bare uniform, modest in his deportment, careful 
 of the wants of the humblest soldier, personally inspecting all the 
 dispositions and divisions of his army, calm and courageous amidst 
 the most destructive fire of the enemy, it was evident that he had 
 the confidence of every man, from the highest officer down to the 
 humblest drummer boy in his whole command. His Generalship 
 rivals that of Alexander and Napoleon, and his armies eclipse those 
 of Greece and Rome, in their proudest days of imperial grandeur. 
 He is a gift of the Almighty Father to THE NATION, in its ex- 
 tremity, and he has won his way to the exalted position he occupies 
 through his own great perseverance, skill and indomitable bravery, 
 and it is inexcusably vain for any man to claim that he has made 
 Grant, or that he has given Grant to the country, or that he can 
 control his great genius and deeds for the private ends of selfish 
 and corrupt political ambition. 
 bttfiBifflO'JlfojJEl mi B bns .Uotaibtftlo s^aia ^a.on 
 
 WAR EXPENDITURES. 
 
 }4iuwo!iot .U;>iUj'i -jv.sii orf'nr %O'rid oioiou osii to -.}'>>*' 
 
 The inability of the government to clothe, arm, subsist, trans- 
 port and pay the first quota of troops, devolved upon the State ex- 
 tensive expenditures. 
 
 The Legislature, specially convened in April, 1861, provided for 
 supplying troops raised under the first calls, and passed laws au- 
 thorising the issuing of bonds to defray war expenses, and the ap- 
 pointment of a Board of Army Ofiicers, to audit accounts. This 
 board were governed by the provisions of the State law in adjust- 
 ing war claims, and, upon their recommendation, approved by the 
 Governor, the Auditor issued warrants on the Treasurer to claim- 
 ants. The difficulty of getting accounts of the State adjusted, and 
 reimbursements from the United States, created the necessity of 
 frequent journeys to Washington, by myself and agents, as it was 
 found impossible, in the immense pressure upon the departments, 
 to accomplish much without persistent personal application. It was 
 at length found necessary to adopt the plan of other States, and 
 appoint a State agent there. Hon. Thos. H. Campbell, formerly State
 
 43 
 
 Auditor, was appointed, and gave constant attention to the settle- 
 ment of the State accounts, up to the time of his death. After- 
 wards, Hon. James C. Conkling was employed to go to Washington 
 and press the settlement of our accounts, and succeeded in procur- 
 ing payment of sufficient sums to relieve the Treasurer from the 
 pressure of claimants holding warrants on the war fund. But owing 
 to the immense pressure of business upon the Treasury Depart- 
 ment, and difficulties experienced in making satisfactory explana- 
 tions of accounts suspended and disallowed, he found it impossi- 
 ble, at the time of his last visit, to secure a final adjustment of our 
 claims. 
 
 In March, 1864, I sent Col. John S. Loomis, who had been con- 
 nected with the State Department from the commencement of the 
 war first as Assistant Adjutant General, and recently, as my prin- 
 cipal Aid-de-Camp to Washington, with instructions to urge final 
 adjustment of all our accounts. His extensive acquaintance with 
 the origin and history of our military organization and contract- 
 ing and settlement of war claims, enabled him to make full expla- 
 nation of our vouchers, and prosecute appeals from what was con- 
 sidered erroneous decisions of adjusting officers of the Treasury, 
 in disallowing and suspending a part of our claims. He was ac- 
 companied by Gen. John Wood, Quartermaster General of the 
 State, whose services were required to aid settlement of the class 
 of claims originating in his department. From the report of Col. 
 Loomis, and copies of his appeals on suspended and disallowed ac- 
 counts, herewith transmitted, it will be seen that the claims of the 
 State against the government, filed in the Treasury Department, 
 for war expenses, amounted to three millions eight hundred and 
 twelve thousand five hundred and twenty-five dollars and fifty-four 
 cents ($3,812,525 54) ; of which amount there has been allowed, 
 on various settlements with the Third Auditor, three millions seven 
 hundred and twenty-six thousand seven hundred and ninety-two 
 dollars and eighty-seven dints ($3,726,792 87) ; leaving a difference 
 between the claims and allowances, in that department, of eighty- 
 five thousand seven hundred and thirty-two dollars and sixty-seven 
 cents ($85,732 67) suspended and disallowed, because, in the opin- 
 ion of the said Auditor the law did not sufficiently provide for 
 them. Of the amount allowed by the Third Auditor, and passed 
 to the Second Comptroller of the Treasury, it will also be seen, 
 that the Comptroller suspended nearly all of our State claims upon
 
 ground of insufficiency of vouchers, but which decision, upon the 
 appeal of Col. Loomis, the Secretary of the Treasury reversed^ 
 and ordered a settlement of the accounts. An appeal was also 
 taken upon the suspension and disallowment of accounts in the 
 Third Auditor's office ($85,732 67), which is set forth in the re- 
 port. 
 
 I am recently advised, by letter from the Treasury Department, 
 that upon last settlement there was found to be due the State four 
 hundred and sixty-eight thousand two hundred and sixty-five dol- 
 lars and ninety-eight cents, ($46 ,265 98,) and that the amount of 
 suspensions and disallowances has been reduced to twenty-seven 
 thousand three hundred and ninety dollars and seventy-four cents, 
 ($27,39074.) 
 
 Thirty thousand dollars have recently been paid by the govern- 
 ment on the balance found due on our accounts ; which sum is suffi- 
 cient to pay off all warrants drawn upon the State Treasury against 
 the war tund. 
 
 There being no provision made by the Legislature for paying 
 contingent expenses of the State government or for expenses 
 of prosecuting claims against the government, the expenses in- 
 curred since the death of Mr. Campbell have been advanced by 
 these agents, who should be reimbursed by the State. 
 
 In this connection, I desire to call your attention specially to the 
 report of Colonel Loomis. It gives a complete history of a ne- 
 cessity for all the expenses incurred by the State for the General 
 Government, and, in my opinion, clearly establishes the right of 
 the State to reimbursement of every dollar we have advanced, and 
 which yet remain suspended. Colonel Loomis' labors in the adjust- 
 ment of our war accounts have been invaluable, and it is recom- 
 mended that a sufficient appropriation be made for his services and 
 expenses. 
 
 REPORT OF THE ADJUTANTT GENERAL. 
 
 I regret that on account of the severe illness of Adjutant Gene- 
 ral A. C. Fuller, in November and December last, he has been 
 unable to submit his regular biennial report. I transmit herewith 
 a communication from him, exhibiting the expenses of his depart- 
 ment during the past two years, the inadequate appropriations 
 made by the Legislature to meet such expenses, and the amount
 
 45 
 
 
 
 required to pay the balance due various persons therein mentioned, 
 and I recommend that an appropriation be made at an early day 
 to pay it. 
 
 I have also lately inspected the Adjutant General's office, and 
 deem it proper to say, that it is as complete in all its arrangements 
 and in the perfection of its system and method as any similar office 
 in the United States. General Fuller has been a most able, faith- 
 ful and energetic officer, and is entitled to the gratitude of the 
 State. 
 
 THE STATE SANITARY COMMISSION. 
 
 During the first year of the war our soldiers in the field received 
 their supplies of sanitary stores principally through "Soldiers' Aid 
 Societies," which were established in different parts of the State, 
 and operated by the loyal wtfmen of Illinois, and the very pratical 
 and patriotic munificence of citizens of Chicago, who established 
 the "Sanitary Commission of Chicago." The operations of all 
 these societies were conducted on the most liberal scale, and were 
 in the highest degree useful. Almost every village and neighbor- 
 hood in the State were engaged in the noble work. Humane and 
 large hearted men contributed bountiful supplies of money and 
 material, and loyal and patriotic women plied the needle and pre- 
 pared articles of food and stores of every description, indispensa- 
 ble to the soldier ; and the agents of these no'ble men and women 
 covered the field with ambulances and filled the hospitals with ap- 
 pliances for the sick and wounded. These Soldiers' Aid Societies 
 were the nucleus for all the great sanitary fairs which have so boun- 
 tifully replenished the treasuries of the United States and Chris- 
 tian Commissions. 
 
 The government, in the early part of the war, depended upon 
 the States for supplies for the regiments of each State entering the 
 United States service, and from the embarrassed position attendant 
 upon the organization of so large an army, it was impossible to 
 provide so many at the right time and place with sanitary supplies. 
 Appeals came to me, as Governor of the State, from agents already 
 in the field, and from surgeons and commanding officers, urging the 
 forwarding of sanitary stores, and I deemed it my duty to render 
 the aid of the State to the extent of my power, by sending relief 
 to the brave men who had with such enthusiasm and patriotic de-
 
 46 
 
 
 
 votiom to country, to peril health, life and property for the 
 preservation of the Union. 
 
 On the 20th of August, 1862, I established a State Sanitary 
 Bureau, and assigned charge of the department to Colonel 
 John Williams, Commissary General of the State, to whom all 
 communications and supplies were to be sent and distributed. I 
 then addressed a circular to the people of the State of Illinois, 
 soliciting contributions of money and supplies, and requesting 
 them to forward them to this commission. As proof of the libe- 
 ral response of the people, both in money and supplies, I 
 take pleasure in referring you to the comprehensive report 
 of Colonel "Williams, set forth in "Keport of Transactions 
 of the Illinois State Sanitary Bureau," and transmitted herewith, 
 and I take special pleasure in referring to the patient labors of 
 Colonel Williams, who, during these long years of war, has afforded 
 me invaluable advice and assistance in discharging our mutual 
 obligations to the people and the army. Upon his advice and 
 the enlarged and extensive field of usefulness prepared for us by 
 the liberality of the people, in subscriptions, I changed the organi- 
 zation of the Sanitary Bureau on the 12th day of September, 1863, 
 by establishing the "Illinois State Sanitary Commission," with 
 Colonel John Williams, Hon. William Butler, John P. Reynolds, 
 Esq., Robert Irwin, Esq., and Eliphalet B. Hawley, Esq., consti- 
 tuted as a Board of Directors, to supervise and control the opera- 
 tions of the Commission, and referred to this board the annual re- 
 port of the "Sanitary Bureau," embracing a complete statement of 
 receipts and disbursements of stores and moneys contributed by 
 citizens of the State for sanitary purposes. The "Sanitary 
 Bureau," to this time, had received, in addition to a large amount 
 of sanitary stores, twenty-eight thousand dollars, ($28,000,) and 
 expended twenty thousand dollars, ($20,000,) leaving a balance 
 of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) to be transferred to the treasury 
 of the "Illinois State Sanitary Commission." A statement of the 
 receipts and disbursements of this com mission, from its organization 
 to the 31st day of December, 1863, will be found in the joint re- 
 port of the "State Sanitary Bureau" and "Illinois State Sanitary 
 Commission," before referred to, and transactions since that time 
 will soon be communicated to your honorable body. 
 
 The time and services of all the directors of the "State Commis-
 
 47 
 
 sion" have been given gratuitously, and they have been most faithful 
 and worthy custodians of the people's bounty to our brave boys in 
 the field. 
 
 t I may be pardoned for doing merited justice to the aid societies 
 of Quincy, Jacksonville, Springfield, Alton, Bloomington, Decatur, 
 Peoria, Galesburg, and other cities and towns throughout the State, 
 and especially to our metropolitan city of Chicago, which through 
 her Board of Trade, her various sanitary associations, Soldiers' 
 Aid Societies, and individual efforts of many of her citizens have 
 rendered most munificent aid, and, in this respect, has fully come 
 up to that high standard, which in so many other matters of patri- 
 otic and public spirited enterprise, has given her justly a proud 
 rank among the first cities of the Union. 
 
 REPORTS W SANITARY AGENTS. 
 
 I refer the General Assembly to the very interesting reports of 
 our sanitary agents, and more especially to the reports of Colonel 
 T. P. Robb, who has been agent for the State from the commence- 
 ment of the war, and whose labors have been most severe, arduous 
 and efficient. I recommend that a large number of his reports be 
 printed and circulated for information of the people. The reports 
 of Dr. O. M. Long, State Agent at New Orleans, Edwa/d I. Eno, 
 at Nashville, and Mr. Dunseth, at Louisville, and some others 
 which I submit, contain valuable information. I also recommend 
 that the Legislature make proper appropriations for their services 
 and expenditures. 
 
 STATE ARSENAL. 
 
 During the four years past, vast quantities of ammunition have 
 been fabricated at the arsenal, for field guns and small arms for 
 the General Government. Arms have been repaired, cleaned and 
 stored, and nearly all the arms used by the various arms of the 
 service in the field from this State, have been received, stored and 
 issued through the Engineer-in-Chief of the State. The State- 
 arsenal, for the most part, has been used as an ordnance depot for 
 the General Government. Frequently the arsenal has had stored 
 within it more than a million dollars worth of valuable property. 
 Much and constant labor has been given, in arming and equipping 
 the various regiments of the State. All the regiments for the three
 
 48 
 
 months' service were armed and equipped from its stores ; also, all 
 the arms of the various veteran regiments have been received and 
 stored, and, at the expiration of furloughs, re-issued by the officer 
 in charge of the department. The arsenal, located in the midst of 
 the city, in which is stored a large quantity of materials liable to 
 explode at any moment, has given rise to much dissatisfaction on 
 the part of the citizens living in the immediate vicinity. Quite 
 recently, two fires occurred in the frame buildings adjacent, and 
 it was saved from destruction only by prompt efforts and the re- 
 moval of a stable adjoining. In view of the complaints, which 
 seem to be well grounded, I would respectfully suggest that the 
 General Assembly, in the exercise of sound discretion, take such 
 steps for its removal, or the building of a larger and more suita- 
 ble ordnance depot, beyond the limits of the city. 
 
 I would also recommend that a sufficient appropriation be made, 
 to reimburse the party, the destruction of whose property was ne- 
 cessary to save the arsenal. 
 
 I cannot speak in too high terms of Col. W. D. Crowell, the 
 officer in charge of the arsenal. He has shown the utmost faith- 
 fulness and ability in the discharge of his duties. 
 
 THE MILITIA. 
 
 I will not discuss the importance of a military organization of 
 the State further than to refer you to my former messages on this 
 subject, and to add my firm conviction that it is the duty of this 
 General Assembly to pass a law providing for putting the State 
 upon a complete military footing. There have been times, during 
 my administration, when I felt the want of such a law. The raids 
 into Pennsylvania by Lee, and into Indiana and Ohio, when those 
 States had no military organization ;to meet them, show that our 
 statesmen have not paid much attention to the safe maxim, "in 
 peace prepare for war." The threatened raids upon the Ohio at 
 Paducah and Shawneetown, were sufficient to create general alarm. 
 If Forrest had been successful at Paducah, or Price had been suc- 
 cessful in Missouri, they would have looked to the rich fields of 
 Illinois for conquest and plunder. The first duty of every citizen 
 is to the State, and, therefore, let the General Assembly enact such 
 laws as will, in case of emergency, upon the shortest notice, secure 
 the services of every able-bodied citizen to the State. At my re-
 
 49 
 
 quest, one of our best and ablest officers, Colonel John M. Loomis, 
 late of the 26th Illinois infantry, has commenced the preparation 
 of a bill, which he will, if desired, submit to the committee on 
 military affairs, for their consideration. 
 
 RECORD OF ILLINOIS SOLDIERS. 
 
 I would recommend to the Legislature that a work be prepared 
 and published, giviug the name, age, residence, occupation, nativity, 
 date of enlistment and muster of every Illinois soldier engaged in 
 government service during this war. Also, a historical memoranda, 
 embracing the casualties to officers and men, and the marches, 
 skirmishes and battles in which each company and regiment have 
 participated, and the different brigade, division, army corps and 
 departments to which they have been attached during their term of 
 service. This record could be compiled from rolls and files of the 
 Adjutant General's office, and reports from the field, which could, 
 with proper attention, be procured. To secure an accurate history 
 of men and organizations, the work should be immediately com- 
 menced, and finished before regiments now in service are disbanded 
 on expiration of term of enlistment. The work would be of price- 
 less value to our State for all time, and would remain the most 
 glorious history of the part we have taken in the war for defense 
 of the Union, that could possibly be written. I sincerely hope the 
 Legislature will seriously consider and carry out this recommenda- 
 tion. 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TAX FOR DESTITUTE FAMILIES OF SOLDIERS, 
 SCHOOLS FOR SOLDIERS 7 ORPHANS, AND A STATE SANITARY BUREAU. 
 
 I solicit the earnest consideration of the General Assembly to 
 several important propositions. First that a tax be levied of not 
 less than two mills to the dollar during the continuance of the war, 
 for the relief of the destitute families of our deceased and disabled 
 soldiers. In some states, large provision has been made by the 
 Legislature for this object, while in ours none has been made. 
 The cases of actual suffering which have come to my notice have 
 been very numerous. Ohio levies a tax of two mill's on the dollar 
 for this purpose. Illinois is not a parsimonious people, and while 
 no state has beat her in the valor of her troops, I trust none shall 
 in the generosity of her people. Second that a State Sanitary 
 5
 
 50 
 
 Bureau be established, and ample appropriation be made for send- 
 ing efficient agents to all the principal points where our troops are 
 operating to distribute supplies, or to see that our troops receive 
 their full share of the supplies from this State which are required 
 to be distributed through the United States Sanitary Commission ; 
 .also to visit our sick and wounded, and minister to their wants on 
 -the battle-field, to aid them in procuring furloughs, discharges, pay, 
 etc. Indeed, I think that an agent might be usefully employed in 
 accompanying each regiment of Illinois Volunteers, for the pur- 
 pose of -taking care of the sick, burying the dead, marking the spot 
 of burial and corresponding with the friends and government at 
 home, and making an annual report to the Adjutant General's of- 
 fice of 'the condition, wants, sufferings and achievements of the regi- 
 ment. Under the supervision of this Bureau might be established 
 .a claim agency, through which all claims, pensions and bounties 
 might be collected, free of cost to the claimant. 
 
 Second each county court should be vested with authority to 
 erect a monument to the officers and soldiers from that county 
 who had died from wounds received in battle. 
 
 Third that a stipulated sum be appropriated by a well digested 
 enactmest of this General Assembly, with all the proper details, 
 guards and restrictions, setting apart a fund to erect buildings and 
 endow an institution as a home for the maintenance and education 
 of the orphan children of our deceased or disabled soldiers, or that 
 the said fund be properly distributed for their support, and their 
 education in the district schools of the State. 
 
 At Chicago. Quincy, Mattoon, and other places in the State, 
 patriotic and benevolent individuals have already made large sub- 
 scriptions towards the erection of homes for the orphan children 
 of our soldiers, which entitles them to the gratitude of the country, 
 and while very much has been, and doubtless will be done by pat- 
 riotic and benevolent men and women in this direction, I appeal to 
 the General Assembly not to suffer the performance of this great 
 duty to depend upon the uncertain contingency of private benev- 
 olence. 
 
 If this government, with its million blessings, is to be secured to 
 us, and transmitted to future generations, it will be done by our 
 soldiers. If the army saves the republic, should there not be some- 
 thing like adequate remuneration to the men who have sacrificed
 
 51 
 
 BO mnch for the country ? and should not we who have remained 
 at home, having a million bayonets between us and danger, eujoy- 
 ing all the blessings of peace, and many actually reaping benefits 
 besides from the war, in all kinds of business revived, provide for 
 the comfort of their families? These brave boys comprise the 
 flower of the commonwealth are as intelligent and worthy as we. 
 Many of them have left wives and children dependent upon them 
 for support, and, with the present scanty pay, they find it impos- 
 sible to keep them from penury, and I know hundreds of instances 
 of actual suffering. It would be a burning shame if the exercise of 
 noble devotion of our citizens, who are willing to give up their 
 homes, their wives and children, should be the cause of suffering to 
 those dearer to them than life. Let the provision be ample enough 
 for every child in Illinois who can say, "my father fell at Belmorrt, 
 or at Donelson, or Shiloh, or Corinth, or Vicksburg, Stone Kiver, 
 Chattanooga, Mission Ridgfe; Mobile, the capture of Richmond, 
 the siege and destruction of Charleston, or the last grand triumph- 
 ant struggle between freedom and slavery." It is no charity that 
 I ask you to bestow upon them it is your duty to take notice of 
 every household saddened by the loss of a father or son in this 
 war, and no man can enjoy the blessings of an approving con science 
 in this life, or the hope of salvation hereafter, who dares to rteglect 
 them. If the country will not take care of and provide for them, 
 we are unworthy the sacrifices of our patriot sires of the revolution, 
 and the shining record of manly courage and lofty patriotism of tne 
 Union armies of this day. No State is worthy of its sovereignty., 
 and no government the respect of its people, who will not protect 
 and nurture the children of its soldiers. No marble shaft marts 
 the spot where sleep in the valley of the Cumberland or Tennessee, 
 or on the banks of the father of waters, the remains of the brave 
 Illinois volunteer, but we will most honor the dead by taking care 
 of the living ; and I speak in the name of the loyal millions of Illi- 
 nois when I say that in all the ranks of the destitute children df 
 our fallen and disabled soldiers, not one shall be left to beg or grow 
 up in ignorance for want of an education. Illinois ! the first upon 
 the roll of honor among all the States, shall she not be among tba 
 first to emblazon her proud historic record by setting apart a liberal 
 and unfailing endowment for the support and education of the* indi- 
 gent orphans of the soldiers of the Stated
 
 SOLDIERS NATIONAL CEMETERY AT GETTYSBURG. 
 
 In August, 1863, shortly after the battle of Gettysburg, Penn- 
 sylvania, it was proposed by the Governor of Pennsylvania, that a 
 National Cemetery should be establised at Gettysburg, for the 
 burial of all the Union soldiers killed in said battle. This proposition 
 was made to the Governors of all those States whose soldiers had 
 participated in the battle, to wit : the States of Maine, New Hamp- 
 shire, Yermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New 
 York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, In- 
 diana, "Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois ; and in it was 
 embodied a plan for the establishment of the cemetery, which pro- 
 vides for the purchase of the ground, transfer of the bodies, and 
 the establishment and maintenance of the cemetery, and also for 
 the erection of a suitable monument, and the expenses for the es- 
 tablishment and maintenance of the cemetery, etc., to be appor- 
 tioned among the States having soldiers buried there, each State 
 to be assessed according to its population, as indicated by its repre- 
 sentation in Congress. Without express authority, I deemed it 
 my duty to join the Executives of other States named, in the ac- 
 ceptance of the plan, and thus securing to the noble sons of Illinois 
 who had lost their lives in that sanguinary struggle a suitable rest- 
 ing place. The grounds were accordingly purchased and laid out 
 by the State of Pennsylvania, and in November, 1863, 1 appointed 
 Messrs. Clark E. Carr, of Galesburg, and Wm. L. Church, of Chi- 
 cago, commissioners, to represent the State of Illinois at the inau- 
 guration ceremonies, which took place on the 19th of November, 
 1863. I would call your attention to all the correspondence on 
 this subject herewith submitted, and the interesting report of the 
 commissioners, which will be submitted to you. 
 
 I doubt not that my action in thus accepting, in behalf of the 
 people of the State, a proposition securing to their brave dead a 
 resting place and a monument worthy of their gallant deeds, will 
 be approved, and that an appropriation will be made by the General 
 Assembly of the proportionate share of Illinois, to be paid to the 
 treasurer of the National Cemetery Association, in' such install- 
 ments as may be called for by the officers of the association ; and 
 also that an appropriation be made to pay the expenses of the com- 
 missioners, as set forth in their report.
 
 53 
 
 OUK COUNTRY. 
 
 In my inaugural and messages I presented at length my views 
 upon the causes and remedies for the political troubles in which 
 our country is involved. I shall now only refer to the present 
 military situation, and to the hopeful prospects from the emphatic 
 endorsement of the measures of the administration at the late elec- 
 tion. Of the former, it is sufficient to say that, without feeling the 
 first symptoms of exhaustion in the free loyal states, our arms are 
 everywhere victorious, upon the land and upon the sea. We have 
 lost no important "ground ; we have reclaimed the larger part of 
 the territory and national property which had been taken from us. 
 Grant has driven the enemy, step by step, from its siege of "Wash- 
 ington to the gates of Richmond ; Sheridan has swept clean the 
 valley of the Shenandoah, driving Early backward, no more to lay 
 waste our borders ; Farragut remains undisputed conqueror of the 
 seas ; Sherman dashes, with Napoleonic tramp, and roams unre- 
 strained, from city to city, through the very heart of the confede- 
 racy, unfurls our flag defiantly in the face of Charleston soon to 
 wave in re-established glory upon the very hights from which 
 traitor hands struck it. And the very latest, perhaps the cleanest 
 and most glorious victory of the war, displaying the most indomita 
 ble valor and brilliant achievements of our troops, is that of Gen 
 eral Thomas and his brave army. The bonds of the confederacy 
 are worthless in their own and every foreign market, all hope ol 
 foreign intervention or northern revolution, has failed them, and 
 to-day our nation stands under brighter skies than have smiled 
 upon us since the inauguration of the President on the 4th day of 
 March, 1861, and before us the cheering prospect of speedy and 
 final victory. 
 
 The verdict of the American people, at the late election, solved 
 finally and forever all the questions of doubt as to the policy which 
 is hereafter to be pursued. The history of the world presents no 
 such grand results achieved in the interests of human liberty as 
 that presented on the 8th day of November last, when the people, 
 in the face of heavy taxation and enormous debt, in the face of im- 
 mense sacrifice of life and treasure, when, amidst the trials, stress 
 and storms of civil war, and the most intense political excitement, 
 they went in almost breathless quiet to the polls, and recorded
 
 54 
 
 their solemn verdict upon all the controverted questions which 
 before have divided and agitated the country. 
 
 The result of that election has defeated all the hopes and expec- 
 tations of the rebel leaders. Vice President Stephens, by far the 
 greatest of all the insurgent leaders, confidently looked to divided 
 counsels in the north as almost the last and only hope of success. 
 But the verdict of the American people has declared, in language 
 which does not admit of misconstruction, an invincible determina- 
 tion to prosecute the war to the bitter end of their final subjugation 
 and annihilation, if they wickedly persist in their purposes and 
 efforts to overthrow the government. 
 
 Every patriot contemplates with gratitude to God the safe pas- 
 sage of the nation through the ordeal of the Presidential election. 
 We were in the midst of a terrible war a fierce party contest was 
 raging in all' the loyal states, with personal hatreds and private 
 ambition, and every element calculated to fan into frenzy the popu- 
 lar passions there were ominous threatenings of civil war in the 
 free states the enemies of our government, in Europe as well as 
 in the disloyal states, expected and predicted fatal divisions, and 
 loyal men everywhere held their breath, in anxious fear of anarchy 
 and disruption. But universal quiet everywhere prevailed, and 
 peace, like the breath of spring, settled upon all the territory of the 
 loyal states ; and be it recorded as one of the sublirnest spectacles 
 in history, that the defeated party cheerfully acquiesced in the 
 will of the majority. It is a pleasure now to record that, whether 
 the minority was right or wrong before the election, they are all 
 right now, and all bow in reverence and submission to the deci- 
 sions of the ballot box and whether they do believe the meas- 
 ures of the administration were the best or not, they yield a cheerful 
 acquiescence, and evince every determination to stand by the 
 authorities, and prosecute the war with the utmost vigor, because 
 such is the verdict of the people. 
 
 I am far from disposed to consider the triumph at the late elec- 
 tion in the light of a mere party triumph. It was a national vic- 
 tory. The enemies of the government need not lay the flattering 
 unction to their souls that, because there was not perfect unanimity, 
 there was any great division upon the leading question of the war, 
 whether the Union shall be preserved. It would be absurd, and 
 maliciously false, as well as detracting from the strength of the
 
 55 
 
 nation, to denominate as rebels all who have differed with the 
 measures and policy cf the government. It is but justice to say of 
 our fellow citizens in Illinois, who constitute the minority, that 
 however they differed from us as to the men and measures of the 
 administration, yet by far the larger part of them had convictions 
 as strong and deep as our own in favor of the preservation of our 
 glorious Union, and that to-day the sentiment of the free loyal 
 states approximates closely to a unit in favor of all the leading 
 principles of our republican institutions. This important fact is 
 evidence of our national strength, and a warning to traitors and 
 tyrants that though our people do not vote alike, yet they feel, 
 think and will act alike upon the main question of preserving un- 
 broken our nationality. 
 
 It teaches to foreign nations that there is an intense and undivi- 
 ded sentiment in favor of tite preservation of the Union at every 
 hazard of human life and national treasure, and that while the 
 United States desires and prays for peace with all the world, she 
 is not so divided as to brook any interference from any foreign 
 government, potentate or power, in the adjustment of the question 
 whether she shall require and enforce obedience to her constitution 
 and laws. And protesting that peace is our desire and not war, I 
 speak in behalf of the two millions of Illinois, when I say that they 
 stand ready to repel with the strong arm of military power, inter- 
 ference from any foreign country, or any of its dependencies ; and 
 that we will meet them on the land or on the sea, whenever they 
 seek to te the issue. "We mind our own business, let foreign na- 
 tions mind theirs. We ask no favors, nothing but the neutrality 
 which every nation interested to maintain its national authority 
 must have, and that we will have or we will have war. Such lan- 
 guage is not diplomatic, but it is the feeling of every true hearted 
 American, who has reluctantly been forced to believe that through 
 jealousy of our growing power and our free and liberal institutions, 
 the two great nations of Europe have not only sympathized with 
 but contributed material aid to the rebels in their attempt to over- 
 throw our government. For such offences the United States has 
 too long been paid with diplomatic apologies. The United States 
 could well overlook the unauthorized acts of reckless British sailors 
 and bravadoes ; but British statesmen, men of rank and power, the 
 large portion of the British nobility and the government press have 
 from the beginning of the war exhibited to our cause bitter hostility
 
 56 
 
 and rejoiced in the reverses to our arms. They have given friend- 
 ly connivance to vessels which ran our blockades, and to pirates 
 who preyed upon our commerce ; have suffered piratical ships to 
 be built in her ports, and to be manned with sailors from her navy, 
 and our brave boys fighting for the Union have been shot by Eng- 
 lish cannon and English muskets placed in the hands of the rebels 
 by British gold. Rebel ambassadors and conspirators have been 
 feted and lionized at British courts, while our ministers have been 
 treated with the cold formalities of diplomatic intercourse. In u 
 neighboring British province traitors from the south and the north, 
 and foreign emissaries, have holden their counsel of treason and 
 conspiracy against our government, while southern traitors have 
 sought the protection of English soil from which to send their raid- 
 ers to burn our vessels on the lakes and rob and murder our citi- 
 zens. 
 
 Now our only reliance for a continuation of peace with England 
 is thorough and ample preparation for war. "We cannot calculate 
 upon her justice when her sympathies and prejudices are so marked 
 against us. Our immunity from war with England is in our strength. 
 Our policy and our safety is to let it be made apparent to England 
 and all foreign nations that we ask no favors, and that we can make 
 war more destructive to them than they csn to us. While we ap- 
 peal to their justice, we will let them understand that we expect it 
 more from the strength of our naval marine and the calibre of our 
 guns, than from any fair foreign appreciation of our cause. In 
 this connexion I recommend the General Assembly to express in 
 strong terms their approval of the action of the President, that af- 
 ter the expiration of the six months conditionally stipulated in the 
 arrangement with Great Britian, the United States will proceed to 
 increase her naval armament upon the lakes. The State of Illinois, 
 as well as every State bordering upon the lakes, is deeply inter- 
 ested in this question. Our cities and harbors are exposed to raids 
 and incursions without vessels of war to protect them. Indeed, 
 the power to control the northern lakes is now in the hands of the 
 British government, because by her canals she could in a few 
 weeks place a fleet of gunboats upon them by which she could an- 
 nihilate our commerce and place all of our lake cities, without a 
 single exception, at the mercy of the invader. And here also is 
 the war argument in favor of our own ship canal, by which we 
 could transfer our fleets of gunboats, transports and munitions of
 
 57 
 
 war from our seaboard to the lakes, if required by the emergency 
 of war with a foreign nation. 
 
 But again, the verdict of the people at the late election is the 
 death of the traitorous theory of secession. It reasserts the doctrine 
 of our fathers, as maintained in the late Baltimore platform, that the 
 Union is not a mere compact or league from which any State may 
 recede at its mere caprice or pleasure ; and we send down to our 
 children our solemn verdict that the national government is the 
 sovereign power of the land that the constitution of the United 
 States and the laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme 
 law of the land. There is no political heresy so dangerous to the 
 existence of our government as the doctrine of the right of secession 
 which southern politicians have sugar coated with the plausible sobri- 
 quet of State Sovereignty. The theory is full of danger of inevita. 
 ble national disintegration an4 n'nal overthrow. "Were I to presume 
 to leave a lesson to my children most serviceable to my country, it 
 would be to guard against the insidious doctrine of State sovereignty 
 in the meaning which nearly all southern politicians and many north- 
 ern politicians have given to it. To understand the immense danger, 
 look at the action of Governor Seymour, who during the war has 
 thrown the power of the Empire State of the Union against the 
 constituted authorities of the government, and consequently against 
 a vigorous prosecution of the war, under an hypocritical pretense 
 that his action was dictated by a controlling desire to preserve the 
 rights of the States from federal usurpation. 
 
 The nKrtto of the State of Illinois is " State Sovereignty and 
 National Union," which, properly understood, is, in my estimation, 
 the best and most beautiful motto which adorns the armorial bear- 
 ings of any State in the Union. I am for unlimited state sove- 
 reignty in the true sense : in the sense that the State is to control 
 and direct all its municipal and local legislation ; and I would be 
 among the first to resist all attempts upon the part of the Federal 
 Government to interpose tyrannical usurpation of power in con- 
 trolling the legislation of the States. The States are sovereign, in 
 every sense in which it is desirable they should have sovereignty 
 that is, the people know and understand their immediate wants, 
 social, agricultural, commercial, mechanical, educational, munici- 
 pal ; and the interference of Congress, except in aid of these, with 
 the consent of the people of the States, would be a flagrant abuse 
 of power, which every patriot son of Illinois would resist with all
 
 58 
 
 his energies, and all his life. But how immensely absurd is the 
 idea that the people of the States should unite together, and form 
 a written constitution, and constitute a national government, with 
 representation from the people from every State, and confer upon 
 that government all the powers of peace and war, and every power, 
 in fact, which affected the safety and prosperity of all the States, 
 and all the people, as one nationality, and constitute a Congress to 
 make the laws necessary for the government of the whole an 
 executive, chosen from all the people, to execute the laws, and 
 a judiciary composed of men, residents of the different states, and 
 declare the constitution and laws the supreme authority in the land, 
 to decide the questions at variance between the government and 
 the States, and between the several States themselves, and yet 
 admit that any State may, at its mere pleasure, peaceably withdraw 
 from the Union. Such was the doctrine of the old confederacy. 
 The States first formed a confederacy in the nature of a mere 
 league ; but, being found ineffectual, a constitution was formed by 
 the people of the States for a more perfect union, for the express 
 purpose of doing away with the principle of unlimited State sove- 
 reignty. 
 
 I hail it as the most important result of our glorious war that 
 the doctrine of the fathers has been re-asserted, and that, while we 
 are opposed to a monarchy or to a consolidated government, which 
 would ignore the existence of state sovereignty, yet we recognize 
 as essential to union and national perpetuity, the centralization 
 somewhere of a power which shall be the arbiter in the case of 
 disagreement between the States. Otherwise, indeed, our govern- 
 ment is a rope of sand. If any one will carefully study the form > 
 of our government, he will see the necessity of the checks and 
 balances which our fathers threw around it ; for there are two 
 powers in constant and increasing conflict, and if a fair equilibrium 
 is not maintained, the government is lost. In the solar system, 
 the sun holds the planets in their orbits, and, but for its power, 
 each planet would fly off darkling through the realms of space ; 
 but if its power were uncontrolled, and above all the laws of forces 
 and equilibrium, it would, by the force of natural gravity, draw 
 every planet headlong into tin central orb, which would be con- 
 solidation, and resemble the despotism and powers of Europe. 
 But, on the other hand, if the sun were to lose its supremacy alto- 
 gether, and the planets should become the supreme forces, they
 
 50 
 
 would fly off lawless through the void, producing wild anarchy in 
 the solar system, which nothing but the Almighty Power, who cre- 
 ated them and all things, could subdue. Our only safety is in the 
 hope that these forces, in our State and national governments, will 
 balance each other; that, in strict obedience to constitutional law, 
 the States will perform their duties to their own citizens, to each 
 other, and to the whole nation ; and that the national government 
 will commit no usurpation of state privileges. The careful obser- 
 ver of our government will perceive that the tendency is not to 
 consolidation, but to anarchy and dissolution. The rapidity in 
 growth and population of the States, makes them feel their conse- 
 quence and strength more, and their dependence less sensibly on 
 the Federal Government ; like the high-spirited youth who feels 
 less dependent, from day to day, as he approximates the age of his 
 majority. ^ 
 
 Indeed, we may say that our government is fearfully and won- 
 derfully made, and the great machine of state must move, self- 
 poised, magnificently onward between the dead calm of consolida- 
 tion and the convulsions of anarchy and disunion. 
 
 The late election has settled all disputed questions. It is settled 
 that traitors may be arrested and hung ; it is settled that the first 
 duty of every citizen is to his country, and that he may be drafted 
 into the military service ; it is settled that men, irrespective of 
 color, may be employed in the military service of the country. 
 
 But, again, this election has settled the great question of slavery. 
 It has indorsed the proclamation of the President, and all the 
 measures of his administration tending to the emancipation of the 
 slave. Whatever may have been the sentiment of the American 
 people heretofore on the subject of slavery, it cannot be denied 
 that they have fully resolved that it must cease to exist in every 
 State and Territory of the Union. 
 
 I have ever believed that the slavery question was the source of 
 all our national troubles ; that it was at war with the genius of our 
 institutions, and that we can never have permanent peace and a 
 harmonious Union without its thorough eradication ; and while 
 statesmen of the highest standing, and many good men every- 
 where, have feared lest radical measures might endanger the unity 
 of the friends of the government, and that some end short of radi- 
 cal and universal emancipation was the best policy of the govern-
 
 ment, and necessary to the preservation of the Union, yet I have 
 ever believed, and now believe, that it is in the councils of a higher 
 power than man that this rebellion will know no end except upon 
 the basis of unconditional and universal emancipation. In fact, I 
 may go further and say that I scarce desire to see this war termi- 
 nated with this disturbing element left to divide our councils, to 
 embroil citizen against citizen and State against State, to result in 
 another bloody war and perhaps in final disunion. I do not 
 desire to see the war terminated until it shall be a recognized 
 fact recognized not only by our own government, but by the 
 Confederate States, including both government and people, and be 
 made patent to all the civilized nations of the world, that not under 
 the constitution of the United States not under any constitution 
 or law of any seceded State not under any decision of any legal 
 tribunal, State or National and not even in any conventional, 
 moral, social or individual sense, shall the relation of slave and 
 master, in the form of absolute submission on the one hand and 
 uncontrolled ownership on the other hand, be recognized upon any 
 portion of North American soil. Blindly reeling and tottering 
 beneath the blows it has already received, it is our duty to give 
 this accursed wrong and cause of all our sufferings a final blow, 
 and send it to a grave from which it will have no resurrection. 
 When the shout of victory comes to us from Grant, or Sherman's 
 armies, we rejoice, because we consider each victory brings us 
 nearer peace and the restored authority of the government. We 
 rejoice when we hear that Atlanta, Mobile or Savannah is ours, 
 but I shall consider peace nearer when, either through the legisla- 
 tion of Congress or from the act of our armies, or of the rebels 
 themselves, slavery is destroyed. It is significant to me of victory 
 when I see the recent movement of the south towards organizing 
 the negroes into regiments, putting arms into their hands, and 
 giving them their freedom. It is a strange phenomenon in history : 
 the leaders of an insurrection calling upon the cause of that insur- 
 rection to save it. Driven to madness and despair, they themselves 
 commence putting down their "divine institution" for which they 
 commenced the war. Providence is shaping their destiny so that 
 with their own hands they shall bring to destruction the very thing 
 that they meant to maintain, and which they designed to make the 
 permanent corner-stone of their new confederacy. Of what use
 
 61 
 
 will a new government be to the rebels when their slaves are free, 
 and when they can have no use for it ? 
 
 I am for freeing the negro by every constitutional means ; and I 
 believe, as I ever did, that had the seceded States behaved them- 
 selves had they been true and loyal to the Government they 
 had from all the people of all the loyal States an unfailing guar- 
 antee of non-intervention in their domestic institutions. Indeed, 
 very few if any prominent statesmen believed that Congress had 
 any power whatever to interfere with the institution of slavery. 
 But what government may lawfully do, in time of peace, against 
 its own citizens who are loyal to the government, and what it may 
 lawfully do towards those citizens in time of war, when they them- 
 selves have thrown off their allegiance to the government, and 
 become open and diabolical enemies of that government, is quite 
 another thing. To illustrate : the humblest American citizen has 
 rights which the whole American government and all the powers 
 of darkness cannot deprive him of while he is a good, loyal citizen 
 and obeys the laws of his country. To him, personal liberty and 
 protection is a sacred right, which the lordliest in the land dare not 
 infringe with impunity ; but if he violates the law if he commits 
 theft or murder if he becomes an outlaw then he may be 
 deprived of his personal liberty. So, although it was in the bond 
 that slavery should not be interfered with in the States, yet when 
 those States and the people break the bond trample the very 
 constitution and laws, which were the shield of their protection, 
 under their feet deny their allegiance to that constitution, take up 
 arms to overthrow the government, and become the public enemies 
 of the country then the government may take that man's life, or 
 his property of any and every kind, if necessary, to compel his 
 submission and save the government. And, therefore, I have no 
 doubt of the power of Congress, in such a case, to pass a broad, 
 manly act of emancipation, breaking the chains of every slave in 
 every seceded State ; and my doctrine is the immediate, total abo- 
 lition of slavery in every seceded State. 
 
 Of course, Congress would have no power to abolish slavery in 
 the loyal and adhering States, without their consent, and hence the 
 necessity of an amendment to the constitution, by which slavery 
 shall be abolished in every State, loyal as well as disloyal, under 
 the forms and in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and 
 thus free the whole land forever from the everlasting curse of
 
 62 
 
 human bondage. It will be one of the earliest duties, I trust, ot 
 your honorable bodies, to urge upon Congress immediate action 
 upon the proposed amendment of the constitution abolishing 
 slavery throughout the United States. During the last session of 
 Congress it passed, by a majority of two-thirds in the Senate, both 
 the Senators from Maryland, both the Senators from West Vir- 
 ginia, and both the Senators from Missouri, and a large majority 
 of the Senators representing slave States voting for it. In the 
 House it failed for want of a two-thirds vote, and lacked only 
 eleven votes of passing, so that, although the same Congress is to 
 sit again* this winter, yet so emphatic has been the verdict of the 
 people in its favor, as to induce the belief that there will be enough 
 members, who opposed it before, to conform to the national will 
 and carry it through the present Congress; but if they do not, then 
 the next Congress, already elected upon that issue, will carry the 
 measure triumphantly through. Then it will be part of the organic 
 law of the republic, wiping out the last blot upon the fair charter 
 of our freedom universal freedom for all every where under the 
 folds of our starry banner. 
 
 It is perhaps difficult to tell in how many new and different 
 phases the question may during the next two' years assume how 
 many plans for gradual or half-way emancipation how many com- 
 promises may be devised by politicians, but I confidently trust that 
 the voice of Illinois shall be ever living and potential, through her, 
 honored representatives in the General Assembly, for the most 
 direct and shortest route to radical and universal emancipation. 
 
 Another lesson taught by the late election was, that the war 
 shall be vigorously prosecuted until every armed rebel shall lay 
 down his arms and submit to the rightful authority of the govern- 
 ment, and until our national flag shall wave in triumph over all 
 our broad territory in all its geographical bounds, one and un- 
 broken, from gulf to gulf, and from ocean to ocean. The triumph 
 of the war policy at the polls is the triumph of the war itself. It 
 never has been a question in the mind of any sound statesman or 
 general, whether we had the power to conquer the rebels into obedi- 
 ence to the government ; the only question was whether we would 
 do it and we have now decided the question of the result of the 
 war by the emphatic announcement of the people that they intend 
 to fight the war through yes ! fight it through, and settle all ques-
 
 63 
 
 tions in dispute for all time to come. No one can fail to admire 
 the wisdom and humanity of the President in his late message, 
 wherein he says, in substance, that while he declines to hold out 
 terms of negotiation to the insurgent leaders, yet he holds out the 
 olive branch of peace to the masses who follow their leaders, and 
 tell them that "they can at any moment have peace by laying down 
 their arms and submitting to the national authority under the con- 
 stitution." He says, "the door has been and is still open to all, 
 but the time may come, probably, when public duty shall demand 
 that it be closed, and in lieu, more vigorous measures than hereto- 
 fore shall be adopted." 
 
 Now is a time, if ever, the nation can afford to be magnanimous, 
 in view of our great strength and the unanimity of our people, as 
 expressed at the recent election in view of the fact that the enemy 
 is everywhere close pressed by our conquering legions we can 
 now, not taking counsel froni*our fears, but from our magnanimity 
 and with the power of conscious strength, knowing that our final 
 triumph is but a question of time, we can invite the deluded masses 
 of the south to lay down their arms and come in again to share the 
 protection and blessings of the government. 
 
 But in the mean time every effort should be made to push for- 
 ward vigorously the car of war. Not for one moment should 
 the executive stay his strong military arm in the suppression of 
 the rebellion. The greatest calamity which could befall this coun- 
 try now; in fao the greatest danger to be apprehended is that, from 
 the very consciousness of our strength and the speedy prospect of 
 success, we may relax our efforts, and the war become a protracted, 
 lazy, heavy, draggling war. Should such be the case, there is no 
 telling what may be the final issue what demoralization may sehe 
 our army what divisions may spring up among the people at 
 what time foreign nations may consider it their duty to intervene, 
 and finally what disgraceful compromise and dishonorable peace 
 may be brought about, leaving all the blood and treasure of four 
 years' terrible war to have been expended in vain. The only hope 
 of the enemy is that we will fail to follow up the advantages already 
 gained. If ever, now is the time to press forward with overwhelm- 
 ing demonstration of our national power and forces to the goal of 
 speedy and final victory. Onward with the war. The people should 
 demand it; every legislative assembly should press it upon Congress; 
 Congress should press it upon the President, and the President upon
 
 64 
 
 the Generals in the army ; the whole nation should wake up to the 
 one great purpose, and resolve that there shall now be no lagging 
 in the war. And while we hold out the words of kindness and the 
 olive branch of peace to the south, let us resolve upon quick, sharp, 
 decisive war, and besides paying liberal bounties to our soldiers at 
 home, let us adopt the ancient mode of war, hold out to our boys 
 in blue the sunny fields of the south, capture the territory, divide 
 the lands among the soldiers, to be held by them and their heirs 
 in fee simple forever. We have long held out this same olive 
 branch by the proclamations of the President. The only answer 
 has been insult and injury. The most savage cruelties have been 
 heaped upon our prisoners in the hands of the enemy, and from 
 Jeff. Davis has come the bold and defiant language that he will 
 never consent to any peace his voice is still for war until the Uni- 
 ted States shall acknowledge the independence of the Confederate 
 States." Now I am here to-day to say in behalf of the loyal mil- 
 lions of Illinois, and I trust this General Assembly is prepared to 
 say, and to throw in the face of Jeff. Davis and of his minions, and 
 of all traitors who would destroy our Union, the determined re- 
 sponse that in the booming thunders of Farragut's cannon, in the 
 terrible onslaught of Sherman's legions, in the flaming sabres of 
 Sheridan's cavalry, and in the red battle glare of Grant's artillery, 
 our voice is still for war war to the knife all the dread enginery 
 of war persistent, unrelenting, stupendous, exterminating war, jtilj. 
 the last rebel shall lay down his arms and our flag float in triumph 
 over the land. 
 
 Upon the subject which agitates the minds of many, whether 
 the north and south, after such deadly strife, can ever resume friend- 
 ly relations and live in harmonious fellowship in one Union and 
 under the same government, is a question which has never given 
 me any doubt. Slavery has been the only ground of bitterness and 
 division. All other questions were political and commercial, 
 which all were ready to submit to the common arbitrament of the 
 ballot ; but the question of slavery was social, domestic and organ- 
 ic, and perhaps like all the questions involving the rights of man 
 and the principles of liberty, which have engendered bloody wars 
 in all ages and all nations. There could have been no solution to 
 this question, except the war which has grown out of it. But 
 slavery once removed, there will be an homogeneousness of senti- 
 ment, having the effect to bind together the north and the south.
 
 65 
 
 The tides of emigration are already thrown imto new channels. 
 Emigration from the south to the north and from the north to the 
 south now crosses each other at all our commercial points on our 
 rivers and along all our thoroughfares of trade. 
 
 The black wall of slavery, which, like a frightful specter, drove 
 the emigrant from the sunny fields and rich savannahs of the south, 
 is, or soon will be, broken down the process of intermixture, in- 
 termarriage, reciprocal business and commercial relations, will 
 assume the place of the unsocial isolations which have heretofore 
 divided the sections. And though the war has been bitter and 
 bloody, yet the history of most nations of Europe teaches that they 
 have survived long and bloody civil wars, and yet afterwards lived 
 in peace and harmony under the same government. Such is the 
 history of France, after her revolution. The civil war of England, 
 in the memorable days of Cromwell, was marked by scenes of vio- 
 lence, of confiscation of property, of devastation of estates and deso- 
 lation of towns and cities, as intense and terrible as those which 
 have marked the progress of our civil war. Upon the re-establish- 
 ment of the government, the people became united, and every 
 memory of the rancour of the war soon disappeared. And so, 
 after the vindication of our national authority, each section award- 
 ing to the other the credit due to lofty and indomitable prowesi, 
 like friends who have fought it out and are better friends ever 
 after, so will the north and the south bury the memory of their 
 wrongs. Massachusetts and Illinois will again reunite with Vir- 
 ginia and Georgia over the grave of treason, and, together with the 
 new-born sisters of the confederacy, will live on in the bonds of a 
 new brotherhood ; and, with fresh allegiance to the constitution, 
 and an unfailing faith in the proved strength of our institutions and 
 man's capacity for self-government, strengthened and reassured by 
 the baptism of blood through which the nation has passed, they 
 will move on as one people, united forever. 
 
 Such is to be the end of events passing before us ; and I trust 
 that the people of the United States, and their posterity, while they 
 offer up praises and thanksgiving to Almighty God for the deliv- 
 erance he has brought to our people out of this red sea of blood 
 Jhey will bless with a nation's gratitude, from age to age, the mem- 
 ories of the brave men who have periled all for their country in 
 i 
 
 6
 
 66 
 
 its dark and trying hour. And when our own Illinois, upon some 
 national holiday, shall meet all our returning soldiers, as they shall 
 pass in serried ranks, with their old battle scarred banners and 
 shivered cannons, and rusty bayonets and sabres with rebel flags 
 and rebel trophies of every kind at this mighty triumphal pro- 
 cesBion, surpassing the proudest festivals of ancient Kerne and 
 Greece, in their palmiest days, then the loud plaudits of a grateful 
 people will go up : All hail to the veterans who have given our 
 flag to the God of storms, the battle and the breeze, and consecrated 
 our country afresh to union, liberty and humanity. 
 
 Gentlemen of the General Assembly: In taking my leave of 
 the high responsibilities of the executive of this great State,.! can 
 congratulate you and the people that the administration of its affairs 
 will pass into the hands of a successor who is fully competent to 
 the trust committed to his care who has given the highest evidence 
 of devotion to the country, by both distinguished civil and military 
 service and in whose great ability, sound judgment and unswerv- 
 ing integrity I have the most entire confidence. 
 
 I cannot fail here to refer in kindness and gratitude to Lieutenant 
 Governor Hoffman, who has been my constant adviser and coun- 
 selor, and who has acted as Governor in my absence, with great 
 ability and efficiency; and to my associate State officers. Hon. 
 Jesse K. Dubois, Hon. O. M. Hatch and Hon. "William Butle*, 
 to whom I am deeply indebted for wise counsel and cordial co- 
 operation in important matters of my administration. Also, to 
 Quartermaster General Ex-Governor John Wood, and Commis- 
 sary General John Williams, for most indefatigable and efficient 
 Eerrice; and also to the aid-de-camps in my office, and in the 
 office of the Adjutant General, and to the clerks in all the de- 
 partments of the State government, for their faithful and useful 
 labors. 
 
 I must be indulged in saying that, while, doubtless, many omis- 
 sions have occurred, and many errors have been committed, yet 
 my labors have been severe and arduous, and that perplexities of 
 a most difficult and unusual character, growing out of the unsettled 
 condition of the country, have met me on every hand among which 
 was lack of co-operatien in a co-ordinate branch of the government, 
 and the want of adequate appropriations required in the new emer-
 
 67 
 
 gencies to be met by the Executive. However, I shall never 
 regret the anxieties, cares and responsibilities which have devolved 
 upon me, if, in some degree, I have discharged the high trust com- 
 mitted to me to the satisfaction of the people of the State. 
 
 KICHAKD YATES. 
 
 January 2, 1865.

 
 MESSAGE 
 
 OV HIS EXCELLENCY, 
 
 EICHAED YATES, 
 
 GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 IN RESPONSE TO RESOLUTIONS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA- 
 TIVES, OF JANUARY 6, 1865, IN RELATION TO THE 
 
 
 CLAIM OF ILLINOIS AGAINST THE UNITED STATE 
 
 FOR TWO PER CENT. OF THE NET PROCEEDS ARISING 
 FROM THE SALE OF PUBLIC LANDS. 
 
 SPRINGFIELD: 
 
 BAKER & PHILLIPS, PRINTERS. 
 
 1865.
 
 frt'T A Y OH A 
 
 ILL, I .^.jk. JL V..1 JJL JWk. 
 
 (4 ,'i'Vroff 

 
 MESSAGE. 
 
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, 
 Springfield, Illinois, January 10, 1865. 
 
 To the Honorable the House of Representatives : 
 
 In response to certain resolutions adopted by the House of Represen- 
 tatives, on the 6th instant, having reference, as I understand them, to 
 the claim of Illinois against the United States for two per cent, of the 
 net proceeds arising from the sale of public lancte, which was reserved 
 in the compact between the United States and Illinois, to be expended, 
 under the direction of Congress, in constructing roads leading to the 
 State, I have the honor to communicate the facts in relation to the claim 
 made by the State and my action in connection therewith, together 
 with such suggestions as, in my opinion, will fully enable the State to 
 arrive at a just conclusion on the subject. 
 
 In 1818, Congress passed an act to enable the people of Illinois Ter- 
 ritory to form a constitution and State government, and for the admis- 
 sion of such State into the Union. The sixth section of that act offered 
 four certain propositions to the convention of said territory, when 
 formed, for their free acceptance or rejection, and which, if accepted by 
 the conwntion, should, as the law expressly declares, "be obligatory on 
 t/ie United States" These propositions were accepted, and the condi- 
 tions upon which they were made strictly observed, by which the State 
 lost a large amount of revenue in refraining to tax the public lands for 
 five years from and after the day of sale, and the patented lands for 
 three years after the date of the patents, respectively, where they were 
 continued to be held by the patentees or their heirs, as an equivalent 
 for this, and not as a gratuity or donation. The third proposition 
 declares " that five per cent, of the net proceeds of the lands lying 
 within such State, and which shall be sold by Congress, from and after 
 the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, 
 after deducting all expenses incident to the same, shall be reserved for 
 the purposes following, viz : two-fifths to be disbursed under the direc- 
 tion of Congress, in making roads leading to the State, the residue to 
 be appropriated by the Legislature of the State for the encouragement 
 of learning, of which one-sixth part shall be exclusively bestowed on a 
 college or university."
 
 The three per cent., thus set apart to the State, for educational purpo- 
 ses, has been, from time to time, paid over by the United States, but 
 not a dollar of the two per cent., set apart for road purposes, has ever 
 been paid ; nor can it be shown that it has been expended in a manner 
 required by the trust. The money, as it accumulated in the treasury, 
 belonged to the State, and Congress was only empowered, as trustee, to 
 disburse it in conformity to the terms imposed upon them. It has not 
 been pretended that the money was used in "making roads leading to 
 the State." The Interior Department has, however, claimed that the 
 State should be charged with the sums expended within her limits on 
 the National or Cumberland road, while the Treasury Department, 
 where such matters are properly cognizable, has never made a charge 
 of such character against the fund. While my limits forbid a discus- 
 sion of the ground assumed by the Interior Secretary, I feel it my duty 
 to say, I believe it wholly untenable, and it certainly operates very 
 unjustly towards the State. 
 
 A provision, setting apart five per cent, of the net proceeds arising 
 from the sales of public lands, will be found in the enabling act of each 
 new State admitted into the Union, in which such lands were situated, 
 or in the act providing for such admission, barring California; and, 
 with three exceptions, each State to which the amount was granted 
 received it in money from the National treasury, and disposed of it by 
 their own legislative enactments. Congress did not attempt to execute 
 the trust, but transferred it to the Legislatures of the states respectively. 
 The three exceptions, referred to, are Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Their 
 road fund of two per cent., together with that of Missouri, which was 
 subsequently paid over to that State, was reserved by certain acts of 
 Congress, to reimburse the treasury for appropriations made out of it 
 to construct the National road, but not in a manner warranted by the 
 trust. Ohio and Indiana, however, by solemn acts of their legislatures 
 accepted the portions of the road lying within their respective limits, 
 upon which some three and a half millions of dollars were expended, 
 and have derived a revenue from them. Illinois never adopted such 
 legislation ; never recognized the work done within her boundaries as 
 of any value, and never, in any way, made an appropriation of it, so 
 that she, of all the States, has derived no advantage from the road fund 
 pet apart for her benefit, either in the way of expenditures or receipts 
 of money. 
 
 If Congress had kept its faith and constructed the road, as it provided 
 should be done through Illinois, instead ot abandoning the enterprise, 
 after making a few wasteful expenditures between her eastern limit and 
 Yandalia, the equity of tho case would be vastly different; though, 
 even then, it could not be properly and justly insisted that the fund set 
 apart for the special benefit of the State, and for which she had rendered 
 a full equivalent, could be legally absorbed by Congress in a great 
 National work, undertaken and prosecuted for the common benefit of 
 the whole United States, especially in view of the fact that she had 
 never accepted of such legislation. 
 
 From whatever point the subject may be contemplated, it seems to 
 my mind clear that the State is entitled to receive from the United 
 States the amount of her claim. That there is ample legislative provis-
 
 ion requiring the payment I have as little doubt. The second section 
 of an act of Congress, approved March 3, 1859, entitled "An act to 
 settle certain accounts between the United States and the State of Mis- 
 sissippi and other States," makes it the duty of the Commissioner of 
 the General Land Office to settle the account of Illinois, as one of the 
 "other States" allow and pay it. However, it is not necessary that I 
 should enter into an argument upon this point with the Legislature. 
 There can be but one mind among us on the subject. 
 
 As early as 1857, Hon. Isaac IN. Morris, then a member of Congress 
 from Illinois, commenced the prosecution of this claim before the Land 
 Department, at Washington, and obtained the promise of that depart- 
 ment that it should be adjusted and paid ; whereupon, he sent a copy of 
 his correspondence with the commissioners to his excellency Governor 
 Bissell, and suggested the propriety of the appointment of an agent on 
 behalf of the State to attend to the settlement of the account. Governor 
 Bissell requested him to do it. Soon after my term of office, as execu- 
 tive of the State, commenced, Mr. Morris spoke to me upon the subject, 
 and subsequently made a presentation of the laws and facts upon which 
 he claimed the money was due the State. Upon an investigation of the 
 matter I became satisfied his views were correct, and, inasmuch as he 
 had, after great patience arift labor, entirely familiarized himself with 
 the whole subject, I deemed it my duty to appoint him to prosecute the 
 claim for the 'State. He has submitted to me three different reports, 
 pertaining to the business with which he was entrusted two in printed 
 form and one in manuscript which are herewith transmitted, and to 
 which I respectfully call your careful attention. These reports will be 
 found very full, and exhibit clearly and conclusively the right of the 
 State to payment of the claim. 
 
 The difficulties surrounding the prosecution of claims against the 
 General Government, at this period, have environed Colonel Morris on 
 all sides, yet he has brought to the discharge of his intricate and diffi- 
 cult mission the great skill and persistent industry requisite to success ; 
 and I feel, that for his distinguished fidelity and consciencious labors, 
 the State is greatly indebted. 
 
 I recommend that the Legislature make a firm expression of their 
 opinion in behalf of the claim of the State, and that a reasonable appro- 
 priation be made to defray the expenses of its prosecutor. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 KICIIARD YATES, Governor.
 
 REPORT OF THE HON. I. K MORRIS, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TWO PEK CENT. FUND, 
 
 MADE TO HIS EXCELLENCY KICHAKD YATES.
 
 or 
 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 To His EXCELLENCY, RICHARD YATES, 
 
 Governor of the State of Illinois: 
 
 SIR 1 beg leave most respectfully to submit to you a partial report 
 in the matter of the two per cent, fund arising from the net proceeds of 
 the sales of public lands made within the State since January 1, 1819. 
 In making this report I cannot, in view of the public interest or justice 
 to myself, embrace in it all that it might be important and valuable to 
 communicate. Hence I shall do but little more now fhan compile the 
 record as far as it is made up, and add such observations as will be 
 necessary to explain its different parts. On some future occasion I may 
 transcend these limits. 
 
 Soon after my election to the 35th Congress, I entered upon an inves- 
 tigation of the claim of Illinois against the United States, for the two 
 per cent, on the public lands sold in the State, and set apart in her 
 enabling act "to be disbursed under the direction of Congress, in 
 making roads leading to the State." The result of that investigation 
 was to satisfy me that the amount was due the State, and that existing 
 legislation required its payment. Consequently in a day or two after 
 my arrival in Washington in December, 1857, I opened a correspond- 
 ence upon the subject with the Hon. Thomas A. Hendricks, then Com- 
 missioner of the General Land Office, which is hereto subjoined : 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, December 12, 1857. 
 HON. THOMAS A. HENDEICKS, 
 
 Commissioner of the General Land Office; 
 
 SIR Will you have the goodness to communicate to me, at your 
 earliest convenience, the gross amount of two-fifths of the five per cent, 
 of the net proceeds of the public lands sold in the State of Illinois, to 
 which said State is entitled for road purposes, under and by virtue of 
 the third proposition contained in the sixth section of "An act to enable 
 the people of the Illinois Territory to form a Constitution and State 
 Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an 
 equal footing with the original States, approved April 18th, 1818." 
 Yours very respectfully, 
 
 I. N. MORRIS.
 
 10 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, December 17, 1857. 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS, 
 
 House of Representatives: 
 
 SIR I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your commu- 
 nication of the 12th instant, in reference to the three per cent, accruing 
 to the State of Illinois under the provisions of the act of Congress, 
 approved April 18th, 1818, and in reply have to state that the amount 
 for the year 1856, was adjusted on the 27th July last, and forwarded to 
 the First Comptroller of the Treasury for his decision thereon. The 
 balance found to be due the State on the 31st of December, 1856, under 
 the provisions of the said act amounted to $13,791 69. 
 I am sir, very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 THOS. A. HENDRICKS, Commissioner. 
 
 WASHINGTON, H. E., December 19, 1857. 
 HON. THOS. A. HENDRICKS, 
 
 Commissioner of the General Land Office: 
 
 SIR I have the honor to be in receipt of your reply of the 17th to 
 my letter of the 12th instant, and allow me to say that you either 
 greatly misapprehended my communication, or I made a great mistake 
 in writing it. I think if you will refer to it again, you will find the 
 error is with you. I did not inquire for the amount of the three per 
 cent, accruing to the State of Illinois under the provisions of the act 
 for her admission into the Union, but desired to know the gross amount 
 of the two per cent, to which said State is entitled for road purposes by 
 virtue of said act. 
 
 Your early answer to that interrogatory will greatly oblige me. 
 I have the honor to remain, sir, 
 
 Yours very respectfully, 
 
 I. K MOERIS. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, December 23, 1857. 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS, 
 
 House of Representatives; 
 
 SIR I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your commu- 
 nication of the 19th instant in reference to the two per cent, to which 
 the State of Illinois is entitled under the act of 1818. 
 
 In reply, I have to state that the amount will be adjusted at as early 
 a day as practicable, and the information you desire will be transmitted 
 to you. 
 
 1 am sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 THOS. A. HENDRICKS, Commissioner, j 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, January 7, 1858. 
 HON. THOS. A. HENDRICKS, 
 
 Commissioner of the General Land Office: 
 
 SIR On the 12th and 19th of last month, I had the honor to address 
 you, inquiring for the gross amount of the two per cent, arising from
 
 11 
 
 the sales of public lands within the State of Illinois, to which said State 
 is entitled by virtue of the act for her admission into the Union. Not 
 having received an answer communicating the desired information, 
 owing, as I am told, to the indisposition of the clerk whose duty it is 
 to furnish it, I have to ask of you whether you will be prepared on the 
 proper application being made to pay over to said State the aggregate 
 amount of said two per cent, when the same shall be ascertained, as 
 required by "An act to settle certain accounts between the United 
 States and the State of Mississippi, and other states," approved March 
 3, 1857, and the said act of admission. Your early answer will greatly 
 oblige rne. 
 
 I remain, sir, yours, very respectfully, 
 
 I. K. MOKEIS. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, January 8, 1858. 
 HON. I. N MORRIS, 
 
 House of Representatives: 
 
 SIR I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
 yesterday, in which you inquire whether the government will be pre- 
 pared to pay over to the State of Illinois the two per cent. fund, to 
 which she will be entitled in virtue of the act of April 18, 1818, for her 
 admission into the Union, when the same shall have been ascertained, 
 as required by the act of the 3d of March, 1857, and the said act of 
 admission. 
 
 In reply, I have to state that the amount you refer to shall be adjusted 
 as soon as the great pressure of business will admit of it, and I am not 
 aware of any reason for withholding payment of the amount to which 
 the State may be entitled when the same shall have been ascertained. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 THOS. A. HENDKIOKS, Commissioner. 
 
 WASHINGTON, January 9, 1858. 
 HON. THOS, A. HENDRICKS, 
 
 Commissioner of ike General Land Office: 
 
 SIR I had the honor lo receive, this morning, your letter of yester* 
 day in reply to mine of a previous date. In alluding to my inquiry 
 whether you will be ready, when the aggregate amount is ascertained, 
 to pay to the State of Illinois the two per cent, to which she is entitled 
 on the sales of public lands made within her limits, ad to which I ha,ve, 
 in previous communications, more particularly called your attention, 
 you say, " I am not aware of any reason for withholding payment of 
 the amount to which the State may be entitled when the same shall 
 have been ascertained." 
 
 As I design to transmit to the Governor of my State our correspond- 
 ence for his consideration, I shall be happy to have all doubts as to your 
 determination removed. The language which I have above quoted 
 from your letter, while I have no question in my mind of its purport, 
 may be regarded by some as ambiguous, and with a view of removing 
 any misapprehension as to its meaning, I will be exceedingly obliged if
 
 12 
 
 you will state definitely whether the amount will be paid upon the sanio 
 being fully adjusted. 
 
 I remain, dear sir, very respectfully, 
 
 1. N. MORRIS. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, January 13, 1858. 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS, 
 
 House of Representatives: 
 
 SIR I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your commu- 
 nication of the 9th instant, in which you request that I will state more 
 definitely than I did in my letter of the 8th instant, whether the amount 
 of the two per cent, fund to which the State of Illinois may be found 
 to be entitled, will be paid on the account being fully adjusted. In 
 reply, I have to state that I cannot give any more positive assurance 
 than is contained in the communication referred to by you ; and for the 
 reason that it is only the province of this office to audit the account and 
 report the balance which may be found to be due to the State, to the 
 First Comptroller of the Treasury, who is charged by law with the 
 revision of accounts as the controlling officer, and who will have the 
 sole direction in regard to the payment. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 THOS. A. HEKDRICKS, Commissioner. 
 
 Upon the receipt of the letter of the Land Commissioner to me of 
 the 13th, I transmitted copies of the correspondence to Governor Bis- 
 sell, as will appear from the following letter from me to him, and his 
 reply : 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, January 16, 1858. 
 His EXCELLENCY, WM. II. BISSELL, 
 
 Governor of the State of Illinois: 
 
 SIR I transmit herewith copies of communications between myself 
 and the Commissioner of the General Land Office, which will explain 
 themselves. 
 
 You will observe that the correspondence closes for the present, with 
 the Commissioner's letter to me of the 13th instant. After its receipt, 
 X called at the Land Office, and urged, personally, that the account of 
 the State against the general government for the two per cent, fund 
 should be adjusted as soon as possible, and was assured no time should 
 be lost in stating it. I therefore concluded that no benefit could result 
 to the State by a further correspondence, and hence terminated it. 
 
 It will be perhaps six weeks before the account will be made up. I 
 shall keep an eye to the matter, and about the time, or just before its 
 completion, will apprise you of it, so you can at once cause the proper 
 demand to be made on the treasury for the money. In the meantime, 
 I hope to receive such suggestions and instructions from you as you 
 may think proper to give. 
 
 Col. Miller, State Treasurer, was here a few days ago, and I commu- 
 nicated my action in the premises to him, and was glad to find it met 
 his approval, and trust it may yours. I wish you to talk with him on 
 the suljiect. I remain yours truly, 
 
 I. K MORRIS.
 
 13 
 
 SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, January 22, 1858. 
 
 DEAR SIR I am very much obliged for a copy of the correspond- 
 ence lately had between yourself and the Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office. 
 
 You have acted well, indeed, in bringing this matter to our attention, 
 and your perseverance has already brought an apparently reluctant 
 officer to the proper point. I have no suggestions to make, and only 
 request that you will exercise your own judgment in regard to the 
 proper time for renewing your efforts, and that you will keep me 
 apprised of the progress of the matter. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 WM. H. BISSELL. 
 HON. ISAAC N. MORRIS. 
 
 After admitting the legality of the claim of the State and agreeing 
 to have the account made up for presentation to the treasury, Mr. Hen- 
 dricke declined further action in the matter, and never did explain to 
 me the reason why. I supposed at the time, that inasmuch as he was 
 a member of Mr. Buchanan's administration, he refused to comply with, 
 his assurance to me that tK$ account should be stated, for the reason 
 that the Democratic members of Congress from Illinois had fallen out 
 with that administration, the consequence of which was that as little 
 was granted to them as possible. While the foregoing consideration 
 doubtless had its full weight in preventing an act of justice to the State, 
 I subsequently learned upon high authority that !Mr. Buchanan had 
 issued private instructions to the different departments not to pay any 
 claim or demand on the government which could be postponed or 
 defeated, with the view of lessening the expenditures of his administra- 
 tion. 
 
 The foregoing statements will explain why the matter was not closed 
 up in Mr. Buchanan's time. 
 
 The laws upon which I based the claim of the State in my corres- 
 pondence with Mr. Ilendricks, and upon which I still rely are as follows : 
 
 CHAPTER C XXXIX. 
 
 An act to settle certain accounts between the United States and the 
 
 State of Alabama. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Commissioner of 
 the General Land Office be, and he is hereby required, to state an 
 account between the United States and the State of Alabama for the 
 purpose of ascertaining what sum or sums of money are due to said 
 State, heretofore unsettled, under the sixth section* of the act of March 
 
 * The following is the third condition of the sixth section of " An act to enable the people 
 of the Alabama territory to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission 
 of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, approved March 
 2, 1819, and is the only portion of the 6th section of the act relating to the five per cent, 
 on the public lands." 
 
 "That five per cent, of the net proceeds of the lands lying within the said territory, nd 
 which shall be sold by Congress, from and after the first day of September, in the year one 
 thousand eight hundred and nineteen, after deducting all expenses incident to the san:e,
 
 14: 
 
 second, eighteen hundred and nineteen for the admission of Alabama 
 into the union; and that he be required to include in said account the 
 several reservations under the various treaties with the Chickasaw, 
 Chocktaw, and Creek Indians within the limits of Alabama, and allow 
 and pay to the said State five per centum thereon, as in case of other 
 sales. 
 
 Approved March 2, 1855. 
 
 CHAPTER CIY. 
 
 An act to settle certain accounts between the United States and the 
 State of Mississippi* and other states. 
 
 J3e it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Commissioner of the 
 General Land Office be, and he is hereby required to state an account 
 between the United States and the State of Mississippi, for the purpose 
 of ascertaining what sum or sums of money are due to said State, 
 heretofore unsettled on account of the public lands in said State, and 
 upon the same principles of allowance and settlement as prescribed in 
 the "Act to settle certain accounts between the United States and the 
 State of Alabama," approved the second of March, eighteen hundred 
 and fifty-five; and that he be required to include in said account the 
 several reservations under the various treaties with the Chickasaw and 
 Chocktaw Indians within the limits of Mississippi, and allow and pay 
 to the said State five per centum thereon, as in case of other sales, esti- 
 mating the lands at the value of one dollar and twenty-five cents per 
 acre. 
 
 2. And be it further enacted, That the said commissioner shall 
 also state an account between the United States and each of the other 
 statesf upon the same principles, and shall allow and pay to each State 
 
 shall be reserved for making public roads, canals, nnd improving the navigation of rivers, of 
 which three-fifths shall be applied to those objects within the said State under the direction 
 of the Legislature thereof, and two-fiit'.is to the making of a road or roads leading to the 
 said State, under the direction of Congress." 
 
 * The 5th section of an net to enable the people of the western part of the Mississippi 
 Territory to form a constitution and State government, etc., approved March 1, 1817, is as 
 follows: 
 
 " That five per cent., of the net proceeds of the lands lying within said territory, and 
 which shall be sold by Congress from and after the first day of December next, after deduct- 
 ing all expenses incident to the same, shall be reserved for making public roads and canals, 
 of which three-fifths shall be applied to those objects within the said State, under the direc- 
 tion of the Legislature thereof, and two-fifths to the making of a road or roads leading to the 
 said State, under direction of Congress." 
 
 \ The act admitting Illinois into the Union, entitled "An act to enable the people of the 
 Illinois Territory to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such 
 State into the Union on an equal footing with the original states," approved April 18, 1818, 
 says in section 6, condition third : 
 
 " That five per cent, of the net proceeds of the lands Iving within such State, and which 
 shall be sold by Congress, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hun^ 
 dred and nineteen, after deducting all expenses incident to the same, shall be reserved for the 
 purposes following, viz: two-fifths to be disbursed under the direction of Congress, in 
 making roads leading to the State, the residue to be appropriated by the Legislature of the 
 State, for the encouragement of learning, of which one-sixth part shall be excluf ; vely 
 bestowed on a college or university."
 
 15 
 
 such amount as shall thus be found due, estimating all lands and per- 
 manent reservations at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. 
 Approved March 3, 1S5T. 
 
 After Mr. Buchanan's administration had refused justice to Illinois, 
 I introduced a bill into the House of Representatives to compel the 
 payment of the amount due the State, not that I believed such legisla- 
 tion necessary, except to remove the obstacle created by the refusal of 
 reluctant officers to do their duty. The bill passed the House in a 
 modified form at the last session of the 36th Congress, and was sent to 
 the Senate, where, on motion of Senator Fitch, it was referred to the 
 committee on the judiciary, who never reported it back. I urged, time 
 and again, upon Senators Douglas and Trumbull, to get the bill before 
 the Senate arid pass it, but it was never done ; for what reason it is not 
 necessary to inquire. 
 
 Thus the matter stood at the time of Mr. Lincoln's inauguration. At 
 that period I met your Excellency in Washington City, and as I was 
 going out of Congress, and not expecting to be able to give any further 
 attention to the subject, I cowamunicated the facts to you, and suggested 
 that you should appoint some one to look after the interest of the State, 
 as she was certainly entitled to the money I claimed for her. You 
 requested me to send you a copy of my correspondence with Mr. Hen- 
 dricks, (the original of which is of course on record in the General 
 Land Office, as it is of an official character,) and I promised to do so. 
 Soon after my return home, however, I was taken sick, and for eighteen 
 months was not able to attend to business. In the meantime the war 
 broke out, and I thought that perhaps you would conclude that a 
 demand for the money had as well be postponed until the excitement 
 consequent upon that event had somewhat abated. I concluded also 
 that I could make you understand the facts more satisfactorily at a per- 
 sonal interview than by writing. It could not be expected you would 
 remember them sufficiently distinct to act upon them from our hasty 
 interview at Washington. I took the papers with me to Springiield 
 two or three times during the latter part of the past year, but was never 
 fortunate enough to find you at home. You were always absent on 
 official business. 
 
 At the commencement of the last session of the Legislature we met, 
 and conferred upon the subject. I submitted to you my correspondence 
 with Mr. Hendricks and called your attention to the laws upon which I 
 based the claim of the State. I am gratified to be able to add that you 
 manifested a prompt, earnest, sincere, and highly commendable zeal for 
 the interest of the State, and at once determined to prosecute her 
 demand. Without solicitation on my part, you were generous enough 
 to tender me an appointment as agent on behalf of the State, under 
 w r hich I repaired to Washington, arriving there on Saturday evening, 
 the 7th of February, taking with me a letter from you to the President, 
 explaining the object of my mission, and inviting his co-operation. On 
 Monday evening following, I called upon his Excellency, delivered your 
 communication, and conferred with him in regard to the nature and 
 character of the State's claim. All that he appeared willing to do at 
 the time was, and I think perhaps that was as far as he ought to have
 
 16 
 
 gone, to indorse upon the back of your letter the following words, 
 which I laid before the Commissioner of the General Land Office : 
 \J 
 
 "I shall be obliged if the Commissioner of the General Land Office 
 > will give Mr. Morris a full he.aring on the business indicated within, 
 and do what may be directed by the law in the case. Please give Mr. 
 Morris an early hearing." A. LINCOLN. 
 
 February 9, 1S63. 
 
 On the same day I called upon the President, I addressed the follow- 
 ing communication to the Commissioner of the General Land Office : 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, February 9, 1863. 
 HON. J. M. EDMUNDS, 
 
 Commissioner of the General Land Office: 
 
 SIR I am charged by his Excellency, Richard Yates, Governor of 
 the State of Illinois, with the duty of prosecuting the claim of that 
 State against the general government for the two per cent, fund due her 
 under existing laws of Congress for road purposes. I therefore have 
 to respectfully inquire if you will direct the account to be made up 
 under "An act to settle certain accounts between the United States and 
 the State of Mississippi and other states," approved March 3, 1857, and 
 the enabling act preparatory to the admission of Illinois into the Union. 
 Your early answer will greatly oblige me. 
 
 I have the honor to remain, yours very respectfully, 
 
 I. K MORRIS. 
 
 Besides the foregoing letter I furnished the commissioner with a copy 
 of the laws upon which I based the State's claim, and my interpretation 
 of them. On the next morning I was informed by one of his clerks, 
 who seemed to have charge of the business, that the commissioner and 
 himself gave the same construction to the laws that I did, but that Mr. 
 Joseph Wilson, chief clerk, whose opposition I had anticipated, differed 
 with them. Believing the commissioner's views to be as I had been in- 
 formed they were, I felt no great concern about the result, and was 
 therefore, surprised to receive from him the subjoined letter : 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, February 13tfA, 1863. 
 
 SIR I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
 the 9th inst, in which you inform me that you are charged by His Ex- 
 cellency, Richard Yates, Governor of Illinois, with the duty of prosecu- 
 ting the claim of that State against the general government for the two 
 per cent, fund due her under existing laws of Congress, for road pur- 
 poses, &c. 
 
 In reply, I have to inform you, that I have carefully examined the 
 several acts of Congress to which you refer in the memorandum which 
 accompanied your letter above referred to, and all other acts of Con- 
 gress relating to that subject so far as Illinois is concerned, and I do not 
 find that Congress has relinquished its control over two-fifths of the 
 fund set apart for certain purposes by the third clause of the^sixth sec-
 
 IT 
 
 tion of the act of April 18th, 1818, vol. 3, page 430, and now claimed by 
 Illinois. 
 
 The acts to which you refer relate to moneys received by the govern- 
 ment for lands which had been reserved for certain Indian tribes. 
 
 The acts for the admission of the States of Alabama and Mississippi, 
 and other acts of Congress in relation to this subject, are almost identi- 
 cal with the acts relating to Illinois, and it was necessary for those two 
 States to have special legislation by Congress before they could control 
 the two per cent, grant for roads, (see act of Congress df September 4th, 
 1841, sections 16 and 17, pages 457, 458, vol. 5.) 
 
 For the reasons here stated, this office is not, in my opinion, author- 
 ized to adjust to the credit of the State of Illinois, the two per cent, fund 
 referred to, without further legislation by Congress on the subject. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J.M.EDMUNDS, 
 
 Commissioner. 
 Hon. I. N. MOBKIS, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Your Excellency will observe by reference to the letter of the com- 
 missioner that all he says about the laws to which 1 directed his atten- 
 tion, is that "the acts to which you refer relate to moneys received by 
 the government for lands, which had been reserved for certain Indian 
 tribes" a very summary way, indeed, of disposing of so important a 
 matter. My understanding is, that the government "received" no 
 money for the lands referred to by the commissioner reserved for certain 
 Indian tribes, but notwithstanding this paid to the States of Alabama 
 and Mississippi the full five per cent, on those lands. It appears, there- 
 fore, that the commissioner mistook the fact as well as the law. 
 
 What, as he seems to suppose, two sections incorporf ted into the pre- 
 emption act of 1841, relating to the five per cent, fund due Alabama and 
 Mississippi, can have to do with the construction of the acts of 1855, and 
 1857 ; making no reference to the special legislation referred to, is more 
 than I can discern. The commissioner seems to forget that the laws of 
 1855, and 1857, were passed long subsequent to the special legislation of 
 1841, and that the act of 1857, is a general act, intended for the benefit 
 of all the States, and requires the five per cent, to be paid to each State. 
 Is each State to be deprived of its rights under that act because some 
 sixteen years before, Congress passed a special law for Alabama and 
 Mississippi ? The commissioner certainly cannot doubt but that Missis- 
 sippi, if she had not previously received her five per cent, could receive 
 all or any part of it under the act of 1857, and if Mississippi, why not 
 "each of the other States ?" The law so provides, and covers the origi- 
 nal sum and all arrears due Mississippi and other States. 
 
 After the claim of the State had been decided adversely by the com- 
 missioner, I presented all the laws bearing upon the subject to the Presi- 
 dent, and at his instance read them over three or four times that their 
 import might be fully and accurately comprehended. Fortunately, 
 Judge Norton, a clear headed and able lawyer of Joliet, who is member 
 elect to the 38th Congress, was present by accident. After a careful 
 
 3
 
 18 
 
 consideration of the question, the President and Judge Norton gave it 
 as their concurrent opinion that Illinois was legally entitled to the full 
 five per cent, arising from the sales of public lands made within her lim- 
 its since January 1st, 1819, under and by virtue of the act of 1857, for 
 the Fe'tlement of the accounts of Mississippi and other States, and the 
 provisions of the enabling act fur our own State, thus fully and entirely 
 sustaining the legal view I had always taken of the claim. The Presi- 
 dent at the interview referred to, was exceedingly kind and courteous, 
 and very ready and frank in expressing his opinion, and I am gratified 
 to be able to add that lie has expressed that same opinion 'to various 
 other persons, and among them to yourself. He said to you a short 
 time ago when you were in Washington, and when you requested he 
 should listen to the reading of ray communication to the Interior Secre- 
 tary, under date of March 10th, 1803, that he would have no objection, 
 if his time would permit; that he had, however, gone over the premises 
 with me once that the conclusion had been reached that the State was 
 entitled to the money, and it was not worth while to go over the premises 
 again. I had two or three other interviews with him, to which it is not 
 now necesrary to refer in detail. What followed the one above indica- 
 ted, the following letters will sufficiently show. I need not tell you 
 how laborious is the task to accomplish any business in a department at 
 Washington. 
 
 In pressing with zeal and ardor the Secretary of the Interior for a 
 iormal decision of the appeal to him from the Land Commissioner, I did 
 no more than I believed my duty to the State required. You will ob- 
 serve the somewhat singular fact that I was unable to get written re- 
 plies to my communications except from the Commissioner ot the 
 General Land Office. I was therefore compelled to make my calls and 
 those of my friends sufficiently numerous upon public functionaries to 
 make up a record myself, and I believe it will not be found the less in- 
 complete or objectionable on that account. But to commence it: 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, D. C., I'elruary 18^A, 1863. 
 HON. J. M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner of the General Land Office : 
 
 SIR I respectfully appeal from your decision in the matter of the 
 application of the State ot Illinois claiming from the United States the 
 two per cent, on the net proceeds of the public lands sold in said State 
 since 1819, and request that with the least possible delay you transmit 
 the papers in the case to the Secretary of the Interior for review. 
 Respectfully, I. K MORRIS, 
 
 Agent for said State of Illinois. 
 
 Alter the appeal was perfected and the case argued before the Interior 
 Secretary, I transmitted to that officer the following letter, showing 
 briefly as I had shown more in extenso, verbally, that the suhjcct of legis- 
 lation was the five per cent., arid its application tke public lands sold in 
 the States, including Indian reservations, &c.; that it was the design of 
 Congress to place all the new States in which there were public lands 
 on an equal footing in regard to the five per cent, with Mississippi, Al- 
 abama and other States which had received it, and that the law of 1857
 
 19 
 
 does so plare them. All the time between the 19th of February and the 
 27th of March when sickness compelled me to leave for home, I spent in 
 earnest endeavors to get the Interior Secretary to decide the appeal : 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, February 20A, 1863. 
 HON. J. P. USHER : 
 
 SIR It has occurred to me this morning that I would very briefly 
 state, in writing, some of my views of the laws to which I referred last 
 evening, in presenting the claim of Illinois to the two per cent, fund 
 due her under various acts of Congress. I will, of course, only mention 
 the points. 
 
 The 6th section of the enabling act of Alabama sets apart five per 
 centum of the net proceeds of the public lands for certain purposes, three 
 parts of which was left at the disposal of the legislature, and two parts 
 to be expended under the direction of Congress. 
 
 "An act to settle certain accounts between the United States arid the 
 State of Alabama," approved March 2cl, 1855, requires the Commissioner 
 of the General Land Office to state an account "between the United 
 States and the State of Alabama," for the purpose of ascertaining "what 
 sum or sums of money are due to said State heretofore unsettled." un- 
 der the said sixth section of the enabling act, and he is also required to 
 ''include in said account the several reservations under the various trea- 
 ties with the Chickasaw, Chocktaw, and Creek Indians, and allow and 
 pay to the said State Jive per centum thereon, as in case of other sales." 
 
 The iirst thing required of the commissioner is, that he shall state an 
 account between the United States and Alabama, under the sixth section 
 of her enabling act, setting apart five per cent, of the net proceeds of the 
 Bales of public lands, which means all public lands sold in the State, 
 and iinder which account the State could obtain the amount, if no other 
 act relating thereto had ever passed. The Indian reservations are only 
 cumulative, and the five per cent, is also required to be paid on those lands. 
 
 The act "to settle certain accounts between the United State- and the 
 State of Mississippi and other States" approved March 3d, 1857, re- 
 quires the settlement to' be made with Mississippi "on the same princi- 
 ples of allowance and settlement as prescribed in the Alabama act, and 
 directs the payment of the five per cent, on the public lands" in said 
 State, adding thereto the Indian reservations as in the case of Alabama. 
 
 The second section of the act relating to Mississippi, requires the com- 
 missioner to state an account between the United States "and each of 
 the other States upon the same principles," that is, as is required by the 
 act in regard to Alabama, "and shall allow and pay over to each State 
 such amount as shall' thus be found due." This section also provides 
 .that "ALL lands and permanent reservations," shall be valued at one 
 dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. The title of the act itself, clearly 
 shows it was designed to include all the States in which public lands 
 had been or would be sold, and was intended to be, as it is, a general 
 public act. Its language verities this conclusion. 
 
 The laws to which 'I have referred were passed by Congress long sub- 
 sequent to the acts relating to the National Road, and hence, if the 
 States were ever deprived by previous legiglation of any part of the two
 
 20 
 
 per cent, which I do not admit, it was re-invested in them by the laws 
 upon which I based the claim of Illinois, together with the enabling act 
 relating thereto. 
 I have the honor, sir, to subscribe myself, 
 
 Your obliged friend, 
 
 I N MORRIS 
 
 March 23d, I called at the Interior Department to learn the Secreta- 
 ry's conclusion, but he postponed the matter, saying among other things, 
 that if he did decide the case and the money was paid, the Democratic 
 members of Congress from Illinois would probably abuse the adminis- 
 tration for it. I assured him to the contrary, and to put his apprehen- 
 sions on that score at rest, and to show what their opinion was of the 
 legal and equitable character of the State's claim, I procured the signa- 
 tures of all the members of the last Congress, and Judge Norton, Gen- 
 eral Farnsworth and Col. Morrison's, members elect to the 38th Con- 
 gress, to the letter given below, the original of which I filed in the Inte- 
 rior Secretary's office. 
 
 ilT !>/(: iM'rw-iw" Jijijooou RG lte ot eonK; hnJ (irt>rt'jf> d.il 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, February 23^, 1863. 
 HON. J". P. USHER, Secretary of the Interior ; 
 
 SIE In the matter of the appeal before you, in which the State of 
 Illinois claims two per cent, of the net proceeds of the sales of the pub- 
 lic lands sold in that State since 1819, we have to say that we regard 
 the State as legally and equitably entitled to it under existing laws, and 
 trust you will not hesitate to direct the account to be made up, with a 
 view to its payment by the government. 
 
 Although the sum may be large, that of course cannot constitute a 
 valid objection to the claim or furnish a reason for withholding the 
 amount justly due, nor do we mention it under the supposition that any 
 such consideration will at all effect the decision of the appeal. 
 
 Certainly no sound reason can be given why Illinois should not be 
 placed on an equal footing with Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Ar- 
 kansas, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, Iowa and Minnesota, 
 in respect to the five per cent, set apart in their enabling acts for the 
 objects specified therein. The laws requiring the liquidation of the 
 claim, Congress alone is responsible for, and no just censure can attach 
 to the administration for executing them ; on the contrary, its clear and 
 undoubted duty is to give effect to their provisions. Blame might pro- 
 perly attach if it failed to do so. 
 
 Again appealing to you to act in the premises, we acknowledge our- 
 selves, Yours very respectfully, 
 
 J. C. ROBINSON, A. L. KNAPP, 
 
 W. A. RICHARDSON, L. TRUMBULL, 
 
 ISAAC N. ARNOLD, P. B. FOUKE, 
 
 WM. J. ALLEN, E. B. WASHBURNE, 
 
 W. KELLOGG, O. LOYEJOY, .. 
 
 JESSE O. NORTON, J. F. FARNSWORTH, 
 
 WM.R.MOBRISON.
 
 21 
 
 Still the foregoing brought no decision of the appeal, and led to the 
 production of the following letters and divers personal applications, 
 which were alike unavailing without an} 7 justifiable cause for the delay, 
 as I am pursuaded your Excellency will admit. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, February 27, 1863. 
 HON. JOHN P. USHER, 
 
 Secretary of the Interior: 
 
 SIR I acknowledge the kind and courteous manner with which you 
 listened to my presentation of the claim of Illinois to the two per cent, 
 fund arising from the sales of public lands within her limits. Since 
 that time, now some ten days, I have called twice at your office to learn 
 your conclusion. On the lirst occasion you spoke of the amount being 
 large, and expressed apprehension that the payment of it would create 
 excitement, and asked that I would not urge a decision then. Being 
 satisfied that the determination, when officially expressed, would be iu 
 favor of my state, and not wishing to be too importunate, I concluded 
 that a few days 1 delay would only be a matter of personal inconvenience 
 to myself, and hence readily yielded to your desire. 
 
 On the last occasion you still asked for further time, and expressed 
 the fear that Mr. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, might not be satis- 
 fied if such a sum as my state is entitled to was directed to be paid, and 
 advised me to return home, leaving the question undisposed of. I an- 
 swered I could not see what Mr. Chase had to do with the matter ; that 
 he was not charged with the execution of the law, his duty being merely 
 a compliance with the demand on him for the money, and that I could 
 not think of leaving here until the subject was finally acted on. You 
 will, I am pursuaded, on a moment's reflection, be convinced I was 
 right in this. To go to Illinois and report I left the claim pending on 
 an appeal before you, would prove I was an unfaithful agent, and sub- 
 ject me, as it ought, to public disrespect. Under no circumstances 
 could I think of doing so or abandoning the trust reposed in me. 
 
 To obey one law and fulfill one obligation is just as sacred a duty on 
 the part of the government, as to obey another law and fulfill another 
 obligation, for both are equally imperative, and leave an administration 
 without any right or power of discrimination. 
 
 The mere question of the embarrassment of the treasury, cannot and 
 ought not, and I am convinced will not be plead as an excuse for the 
 non-compliance with a plain statute. I do not desire nor does my state, 
 to injure the national credit or embarrass the government finances, but 
 when will there be a more propitious moment than the present for the 
 payment of the amount due? Already the state has been deprived of 
 it for years, and, of course, has lost the interest upon it. Since 1857 I 
 have been prosecuting the demand, and have orally explained to you 
 why it has not heretofore been paid. Hence it is no new or sudden 
 claim brought up at the present time from sinister motives. I trust 
 therefore, you will direct the account to be made up as the law certainly 
 requires of you. 
 
 As our communications have heretofore been of a verbal character, I 
 think it best that hereafter they shall be in writing, for in that way
 
 22 
 
 they will not only be more certain, but more satisfactory. This is es- 
 pecially important to me and the governor of my state, to whom I will 
 of course make a full and accurate report, embracing the entire corres- 
 pondence and papers of my actions in the premises. 
 
 Awaiting your reply, and believing it will not long be delayed, and 
 feeling the utmost confidence that duplicate legislation will not be de- 
 manded to compel the general government to do justice to a sovereign 
 and loyal state, 
 
 1 have the honor, dear sir, to subscribe myself your friend and obe- 
 dient servant, 
 
 I. K MORRIS. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, March, 2, 1863. 
 HON. JOHN P. USHER, 
 
 /Secretary of the Interior: 
 
 SIK My interview with you on Saturday left a deep and unpleasant 
 impression on my mind. For the first time, you suggested that the 
 case relating to the business of my state was not perhaps properly be- 
 fore you on an appeal from the Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office, inasmuch as all the papers pertaining thereto had not been trans- 
 mitted as you alleged. On subsequent examination, I found you were 
 mistaken in this, for I traced them to your own table. 
 
 You also suggested, for the first time, that the case might have to go 
 to a clerk for his examination and revision, adding, "perhaps he will be 
 able to find something against it." 
 
 On a previous occasion you advised me to obtain a mandamus, which 
 if I am correctly informed, cannot be sued out against a government 
 officer in this city; still if it could be, what reason can be assigned 
 why Illinois should be driven to the necessity of having the writ issued 
 to force a decision she is otherwise justly entitled to. 
 
 These facts, transpiring at the time and under the circumstances they 
 did, would seem to convey the belief that while the lav is in favor of 
 my state, she is to be deprived of its benefit by dilatory pleas. Jf such 
 should be the result, and the clerk, who is not a lawyer, or charged with 
 any responsibility, is to review the application or claim after it has been 
 argued and submitted to you for decision, I must be frank enough with 
 you to say such a procedure would be totally unwarranted. Illinois 
 asks only that she shall be treated with respect and awarded her just 
 due. She is no eleemosynary beggar at the national treasury, yet in 
 her name and on her behalf, I solemnly and earnestly protest against a 
 construction and policy, if they should be finally adopted, which I am 
 yet unwilling to believe will be the case, relying as I do upon your 
 great legal ability and high sense of justice, that would discriminate to 
 her wrong and injury. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 I. K MORRIS.
 
 23 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C, March 10, 1863, 
 HON. JOHN P. USHEE, 
 
 Secretary of the Interior: 
 
 SIR When I arrived in this city, more than a ?nonth ago, I did not 
 anticipate the delay to which I should be subjected, and the -exertions I 
 would be compelled to make, to obtain for the State of Illinois the two 
 per cent, fund arising from the proceeds of the sales of public lands 
 made within the limits of the state since January 1st, 1819. The right 
 of the state rests upon a few statutes that are so plain and emphatic in 
 their provisions, and that have been so uniformly construed to have 
 no ambiguous meaning by legal minds, that I confidently expected a 
 ready assent to the proposition I presented. And especially was this 
 the case when the president, after a careful examination of the laws 
 bearing upon the subject, expressed the opinion to you, to Judge Norton, 
 member of congress elect from Illinois, and to myself, that the state is 
 entitled to the benefit I claim the laws confer upon her. I arn disap- 
 pointed, therefore, that these weeks of waiting, and repeated requests 
 for official action, have brought me no formal decision of the appeal 
 now pending before you. And I am the more surprised at this pro- 
 crastination in vrew of the fact that yon have never given to me or to 
 others, so far as I can ascertain, any intimation that you entertain a 
 doubt as to the equity or legality of the claim I represent. On the con- 
 trary, the remarks you have made at our various interviews, have given 
 me the impression that you are satisfied that the demand made by the 
 state is a just one, and others who have been with me at some of those 
 interviews, and who at the time, suggested that if any doubt existed, it 
 could be in a moment expressed, have shared with me that impression. 
 
 At first you stated that the amount involved is large, and that the 
 payment of it might create some excitement. I answered that the 
 amount in issue could not, properly, affect the decision of the case in 
 any way, and that the real question is and was, what are you legally re- 
 quired to do, and not what may be the consequences of the discharge 
 of your duty. 
 
 At another time you. advised me to sue out a writ of mandamus, but 
 it appeared to me, aside from insuperable legal objections, that a writ of 
 mandamus could not, if granted, make more clear my right to ask from 
 an appellate tribunal the decision of an appeal properly taken. 
 
 Subsequently, you interposed other obstacles, and among them the 
 suggestion that the President might feel some delicacy in having a 
 decision made in favor of his own State, and that you also felt some 
 hesitation in making a decision that might determine the rights of the 
 State of Indiana, the place of your residence. To such excuses there 
 can be but one reply. The duty of executive officers in construing and 
 executing laws cannot be affected in any way by extraneous circum- 
 stances, or by the individual peculiarities in the relations of the officers, 
 and it would be strange, indeed, if a State could be deprived of the 
 benefits of legislation, simply because it, happened that one of the citi- 
 zens of the State was the executive officer charged with the execution 
 of the law. The character of the law affixes no responsibility to the 
 officer, neither is there any dispretion given to the Executive to suspend
 
 24 
 
 the solemn enactments of the legislative department. When an appeal 
 is taken from a subordinate officer to a higher one, if the one to whom 
 an appeal is taken, arbitrarily refuse to consider the appeal, of what 
 avail is the legislation providing for it ? I do not charge that your delay 
 had such intentional effect, but I do say that such is the practical 
 result. 
 
 Learning that you intended to take your departure for Indiana, on 
 Saturday evening, the 7th inst, I made two special efforts to obtain a 
 decision before you left, but was unsuccessful. I even asked that, in 
 the event that you were unwilling to decide, you would refer the case to 
 your learned and ; ble assistant, Judge Otto, or that you would make an 
 agreed case and submit it to the Court of Claims. These requests you 
 also declined. With deference, I ask if such treatment is just and 
 respectful to a sovereign State ? I make no complaint of the inconve- 
 nience I have personally suffered, although I came a distance of twelve 
 or fifteen hundred miles to urge the rights of Illinois, under an appoint- 
 ment from her Governor, and remained here greatly to the injury of my 
 health. 
 
 I have presented the foregoing considerations without any unkind 
 feeling, and only because the interests of my State seemed to demand 
 that I should not fail to express my dissatisfaction,.at your course. 
 
 There is one other matter to which I wish to call your particular at- 
 tention. On Saturday last, the day you left for Indiana, I called at your 
 office, and you informed me that "the claim of Illinois for the two per 
 cent, fund had long ago been disposed of at the Treasury Department, 
 on my application." I replied that it must be a mistake, as no applica- 
 tion I had made had ever reached that department. You affirmed that 
 it was so, and referred me, for a confirmation of the statement, to Judge 
 Otto, the Assistant Secretary, saying that he had a paper or document 
 to show it. I went immediately to Judge Otto's room and informed 
 him what you said. He at once replied that you were mistaken, as I 
 knew you must be. Upon further inquiry, I was informed that the 
 paper or document you referred to w r as the opinion of the Comptroller 
 of the Treasury, to the effect that Missouri was entitled to the two per 
 cent, fund on the lands sold in that State a paper exhumed from the 
 Treasury Department by a land office clerk, and transferred to your de- 
 partment, to furnish an insurmountable obstacle in the way of the rights 
 of Illinois. The subsequent examination 1 made on Monday, disclosed 
 the fact that it was not in any sense an official paper; that it was no part 
 of the Government archives, but was the private property of Colonel 
 Wm. II. Jones, for many years chief clerk in the office of the First 
 Comptroller, and now the acting Comptroller; a paper prepared by 
 Colonel Jones for his private information and satisfaction, in view of 
 the fact that a difference had arisen between himself and Governor 
 Medill, (at that time the First Comptroller,) who constantly urged that 
 if Missouri obtained the five per cent, the other States were legally 
 equally entitled to it, as to the right of the State of Missouri ; which 
 question, that is the claim of Missouri, had been referred to the Attor- 
 ney General for his opinion. Subsequently, the private views expressed 
 by Colonel Jones in the said paper, were sustained and approved by the
 
 25 
 
 Attorney General, as appears from a letter addressed to the Treasury 
 Department by him, dated May 30th, 1860, and containing the follow- 
 ing words : "I have examined the papers you sent me relative to the 
 claim of Missouri for two per cent, on the sales of public lands, and am 
 clear that she is entitled to what she claims." 
 
 If this "document" had been an official paper it could not be used 
 injuriously to the State of Illinois. Her interests were in no way in- 
 volved with those of Missouri, nor could a decision in regard to the 
 rights of Missouri affect the rights of Illinois. However, as you deemed 
 the paper of sufficient importance to have copied, I will refer to it briefly 
 in connection with what I have to say relative to the appropriations for 
 the Cumberland commonly called the National Koad. I do not re- 
 gard the legislation concerning this road important to the determination 
 of the legal question of the right of Illinois, but I refer to it as a matter 
 of contemporaneous history. 
 
 The first appropriation made by Congress to the national road was 
 one of $30,000, made by act of March 29, 1806, and long prior to the 
 era of railways. It was the intention of the National Legislature to 
 establish a better and more direct communication between the National 
 capital and the Ohio river. Two per cent, of the money arising from 
 the sales of public lands in the State of Ohio was reserved to reimburse 
 the treasury. From 1806 to 1825 various appropriations were made to 
 carry OH the work. In the latter year Congress passed a law to extend 
 the road to Zanesville, Ohio, and provided that the appropriations made 
 for that object should be reserved out of the two per cent, fund of Ohio, 
 Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. The same act provided that the Presi- 
 dent should appoint commissioners to complete the examination and 
 survey of the road to the permanent seat of government in the State of 
 Missouri, through the seats of government of the States of Indiana and 
 Illinois. From that time until 1839, about which period the under- 
 taking was abandoned, because Congress refused to make further appro- 
 priations, various appropriations were made in which the two per cent, 
 fund of Missouri, as well as that of other States, was reserved to replace 
 the amounts expended. 
 
 That part of the road passing through Maryland, Yirginia, Pennsyl- 
 vania and Ohio was competed and large amounts expended on it for re- 
 pairs, and, if I am not misinformed, that portion of it lying within the 
 eastern and western boundary of Indiana was entirely graded and 
 graveled or McAdamized the greater part of the way. In Illinois some 
 culverts and bridges were built and the track graded at different points 
 between the western boundary of Indiana and Vandalia, the old seat of 
 government, but it never passed through that place, nor was ay part of 
 it graveled or completed. Consequently, Illinois derived no benefit 
 from it, as I admit Missouri did not, and on the score of justice they 
 stand on equal ground. The General Government never kept the faith 
 it pledged to Illinois when it reserved the two per cent, by constructing 
 the road through that State, as there was an obligation to do, any more 
 than it complied with its promise to Missouri. The amounts expended 
 upon the road, in the aggregate, nearly equal the sum of $7,000,000. 
 The expenditure in Ohio vastly exceeds the expenditure in Indiana, and
 
 26 
 
 is about five times the amount of her two per cent. fund. The sum ex- 
 pended in Indiana vut-tly exceeds the amount, spent in Illinois, and is 
 very largely in excess of her two per cet.r. fund, being two and a half 
 or three times as much, \vhilotlie amount icatud in Illinois does not very 
 greatly exceed the sum due from the sales of the public lands. I can 
 see no reason torso unjust a discrimination against Illinois, and certainly 
 the same reasons that led Colonel Jones to the conclusion that Missouri 
 was entitle 1 to the two percent, fund, support with equal force the claim 
 of the State of Illinois. 
 
 Again, Congress gave the National road, or those portions of it lying 
 within the' States of Maryland, Virginia, .Pennsylvania, Ohio and In- 
 diana, to those States respectively, and each of said Slates, by solemn 
 acts of their respective Legislatures, accepted the donations, and estab- 
 lished toll-gates. JS T o such legislation was had in regard to Illinois, nor 
 did her Legislature accept the work within her limits, thus showing con- 
 clusively that Congress regarded what had been done in that State as 
 valueless, and the State herself has always so considered. Hence her 
 "equity" survives, and her claim is a well founded and subsisting one, 
 and could not have been invalidated even by a donation of the road 
 from Congress. The road was surrendered to Ohio under an act ap- 
 proved March 2d, 1831. By acts of June 21th, 1834, and March 3d, 
 1835, it was surrendered to the States of Maryland, Virginia and Penn- 
 sylvania. I have been unable to lay my hand on the law surrendering 
 to Indiana that portion of the road lying within her limits, and the act 
 of her Legislature accepting it, but they are doubtless familiar to you. 
 
 Colonel Jones is mistaken when he says the United States "ceded all 
 their interest in it, (the road,) whether finished or unfinished, to the re- 
 spective States within which it was laid out." The legislation was con- 
 fined to that part of the work which \vas available. To have gone be- 
 yond this would have been useless and foolish. Col. Jones is also mis- 
 taken when he says that the appropriations for the road, made after 
 1825, were all expended within the states of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. 
 Large sums were expended east of the Ohio river, and expenditures 
 were made in that direction until the work was abandoned, or until 
 within a short time of such abandonment. It is but just to add, that 
 when considering the claim of Missouri apart from the claims of Ohio, 
 Indiana and Illinois', Col. Jones' reasoning is sound and his views are 
 just and discriminating. 
 
 It is proper for me now to show how these facts are rel ted to the 
 case I present. The sixth section of the enabling act for Illinois reserves 
 two per cent, of the proceeds of the public lands to construct roads 
 "leading to said State." Of course such roads were to be jree public 
 highways. Congress had no power to take the Illinois two per cent, 
 fund to build private turnpikes in Indiana, Ohio, or any other state* 
 How could it profit Illinois to have a road leading to her borders, upon 
 which tax-gatherers sit a few miles apart, to collect tribute from her citi- 
 zens? Such a road is f private one, and is the private property of the 
 state or of individuals. Congress, by express legislation, has made the 
 National Road the private property of the states through which it passes, 
 and the states possess and control the respective parts as their own. Is 
 
 I
 
 it then an answer to the claim of the Shite of Illinois, that she is barred 
 by the benefits conferred upon others, in viohirion of a compact, subsist- 
 in^ between the General Government and herself? Is the money of 
 the State to be taken for the use of other states, or wasted within her 
 own boundaries, without consulting her? I do not know what \iews 
 others may hold, but it does not seem to me that such a policy has any 
 foundation in law or equity. Illinois agreed with the United States, as 
 a consideration for the n've per cent, set apart in her enabling act, that 
 she would not tax the public lands for or (luring the term of live years, 
 from and after the day of sale ; that the military lands of the Stale, while 
 they remained in the hands of the patentees, or their heirs, should not 
 be taxed for three years after the date of the patents respectively, and 
 that lands of non-residents should not be taxed higher than the lands of 
 residents. This agreement the State has faithfully kept, and now only 
 asks the same observance of its faith and promise on th-part of the Na- 
 tional Government. If the road was "to be extended to the permanent 
 seat of government of the state of Missouri," it was also to pass through 
 the Capital and State of Illinois. Inasmuch as it did neither, and was 
 only partially constructed, in the manner hereinbefore described, and 
 the w<rk actually done being valueless, for the reason that it was not 
 completed according to agreement by the Government, Illinois has cer- 
 tainly as strong an "' fgUif&kle" ri^ht to the two per cent, fund as that 
 of any state that succeeded in obtaining it. I have heretofore shown 
 that all but three states in which public lands lie have received it. Her 
 legal right to it is equally clear. In my communication to yon, of the 
 2uth nlf., I briefly indicated the points upon which I rely. 1 will now 
 add something to the considerations then presented. In doing so, how- 
 ever, I shall not revert to what the Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office has or has not done undet the law, as it cannot in any way affect 
 the issue now made. I will, nevertheless, express my dissent from the 
 opinion expressed by the Commissioner in his letter to me under date 
 of February 13, 1863, wherein he says, "the acts to which you refer re- 
 late to moneys received by the Government tor lands which had been 
 reserved for certain Indian tribe*." Upon every principle of construc- 
 tion, technical o- just, they are cumulative, and have a wider scope and 
 a deeper significance than the Commissioner is willing to accord to them. 
 The lion. Thomas A. Ilendricks, formerly Commissioner of the Gen- 
 eral Land Office, and now United States Senator from the state of Indi- 
 ana, in a letter to me, held the following language, officially : 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, January 8, 1858. 
 HON. I. N MORRIS, 
 
 House of Representatives: 
 
 SIR I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
 yesterday, in which you inquire whether the government will be pre- 
 pared to pay over to the State of Illinois the two per cent. fund, to 
 which she will be entitled in virtue of the act of April 18, 1818, for her 
 admission into the Union, when the same shall have been ascertained, 
 as required by the act of the 3d of March, 1857, and the said act of 
 admission.
 
 28 
 
 In reply, I have to state that the amount you refer to shall be adjusted 
 as soon as the great pressure of business will admit of it, and I am not 
 aware of any reason for withholding payment of the amount to which 
 the State may be entitled when the same shall have been ascertained. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 THOS. A. HENDKIOKS, Commissioner. 
 
 One of your predecessors, the Hon. Jacob Thompson, in an opinion 
 which is upon record in your department, construed the law of March 
 3, 1857, providing for the settlement of the five per cent, account of 
 Mississippi and other states, as giving to that State and to Alabama the 
 five per cent, on lands located within their limits with Indian scrip. In 
 that opinion he says : " This same principle of adjustment," (meaning, 
 as Col. Jones well remarks, what amount may be due Mississippi and 
 other states for the two per cent, reserved) " the second section of the 
 act under discussion, extends to be applied to the settlement of the five per 
 cent, account of the OTHER STATES." 
 
 Again he says : " Thus as regards justice and right, Alabama and 
 Mississippi are entitled to a liberal construction of the acts of Congress 
 of March 3, 1855 and March 3, 1857, and as a matter of equity between 
 these two states as claimants against the United States, and as between 
 them and the other states of the Union, all are entitled to the same 
 equal and liberal construction in carrying the act of 1857 into effect." 
 
 That Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Thompson were right in their views of 
 the act of 1857, there can be no doubt. I have already verbally 
 explained to you why the claim of Illinois was not paid under Mr. 
 Buchanan's administration. 
 
 For further expression of my own views concerning the legal question 
 involved, I respectfully again refer you to my letter to you bearing date 
 February 20th. In view of the opinion I entertain of your legal ability 
 and experience, I do not deem it necessary to discuss more fully the 
 construction to be put upon the law. 
 
 I beg leave to call your attention to a letter filed with you, dated 
 February 23, 1863, signed by all the members of the late Congress from 
 Illinois, and by Gen. Farnsworth, Judge Norton and Col. Morrison, 
 members elect of the 38th Congress, expressing the opinion that the 
 State is legally and equitably entitled to the two per cent, under existing 
 laws, and urging the payment of the amount. 
 
 The present Commissioner of the General Land Office while differing 
 from me in the construction of the acts of 1855 and 1857, says, in a 
 letter dated General Land Office, February 14, 1863, and addressed to 
 the Hon. John F. Potter, Chairman of the House Committee on Public 
 Lands : " There is no reason known why the State of Illinois should 
 not stand upon the same footing as the State of Missouri, in regard to 
 which latter Congress has given a precedent by the act of February 28, 
 1859." Adopting the view expressed by the commissioner, the Com- 
 mittee on Public Lands in the House unanimously instructed their 
 chairman to report a joint resolution and recommend its passage, fur- 
 nished by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, directing as a 
 matter of justice and right, the payment to Illinois of the two per cent.
 
 29 
 
 The chairman of the committee was firm in the belief that existing laws 
 required the payment of the money, and the resolution could only be 
 valuable, inasmuch as it might overcome the scruples of the commis- 
 sioner and obtain a statement of the account. The committee, however, 
 from the time the resolution was agreed on had no opportunity to report. 
 Indeed, I myself, requested Mr. Potter to withhold it, as upon consulta- 
 tion with Mr. Washburne and others, it was thought unnecessary and 
 unwise to duplicate existing legislation. It may not be out of place to 
 remark that the mere fact that the representatives of one State obtained 
 the passage of a joint resolution by Congress to compel a reluctant 
 officer to do his duty cannot invalidate the rights of other states under 
 existing laws. 
 
 In conclusion, I will say that I think I have shown clearly, 
 
 1. That the State of Illinois is equitably entitled to the payment of 
 her claim. 
 
 2. That she is legally entitled to the payment of it. 
 
 3. That the President of the United States, the late Secretary of the 
 Interior, Mr. Thompson, the late Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office, Mr. Hendricks, the delegation from Illinois in Congress, and the 
 House Committee on Public Lands, and all other persons to whom the 
 question has been officially or unofficially presented, excepting only the 
 present Commissioner of the General Land Office, consider the existing 
 legislation sufficient to secure the rights of the State and the payment 
 of the claim. 
 
 4. That the present Commissioner of the General Land Office 
 unequivocally admits the equitable character of the State's claim. 
 
 "Without adding anything to these considerations, I leave the interest 
 of Illinois to you, in confident expectation of a just and equitable 
 decision. All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 . I. K MORRIS. 
 
 4 
 
 My letter of March 10th, seemed to be demanded by the supposition 
 that I should not be able to wait in Washington until the Interior Sec- 
 retary's return from Indiana, and from the additional consideration that 
 the paper prepared by Col. Jones was given an undue importance 
 against the rights of the State, and made it necessary that 1 should 
 discuss more in detail than I had done, or proposed to do, the question 
 of the National Road. 
 
 Wearied with unnecessary delay at the Interior Department, I deter- 
 mined to take an appeal to the President. After calling several times 
 without seeing him, and being afterwards too much indisposed to leave 
 my room, I prepared and placed in the hands of Hon. P. 13. Fouke the 
 following paper, which he read to the President on the 23d of March, 
 instead of the 20th, as that was the first interview he had with him after 
 a persevering effort of ten days to obtain one : 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT I sincerely regret the necessity of again troubling 
 you with the business pertaining to Illinois, intrusted to me by Gover- 
 nor Yates. Nothing but an imperative sense of public duty could 
 induce me to do it. At our interviews I cheerfully admit you have 
 treated me and the subject with great frankness and justice ; for you
 
 80 
 
 not only heard my presentation of the case with patience, but at once 
 decided that the State was entitled to the benefit which I insisted the 
 laws confer upon her. If you had not so determined, the claim would 
 not have been pressed. You have also, with the most commendable 
 candor and fairness, given to others the same construction to the laws 
 that yon did to me. I am therefore surprised that after weeks of patient 
 waiting, the Interior Department has not decided the appeal, involving 
 the claim of the State now pending before it. To obtain a decision, I 
 have resorted to every respectful and honorable means without success. 
 First one pretext and then another has been interposed for delay, which 
 it is not requisite I should detail to you. I am persuaded the delay has 
 not arisen from want of time, for the Interior Secretary has found leis- 
 ure to quit the post of his official labors here and go to Indiana to attend 
 to private professional business there, leaving the case of Illinois, which 
 it would have taken but a moment to determine, undisposed of. Hence 
 there must be some other motive or reason for his course not now 
 necessary to inquire into. 
 
 On Friday last, the 13th instant, Governor Yates, then being in Wash- 
 ington, telegraphed to the secretary that as he was absent, he would 
 be obliged if he would allow his assistant secretary, Judge Otto, to 
 decide the case. The secretary replied that Judge Otto might do so if 
 his other duties would permit, but the Judge declined to act. 
 
 Despairing of obtaining a decision from the Interior Department, and 
 no sufficient reason being assigned by the secretary for the procrastina- 
 tion, L appeal to you sir, to see that justice is done to Illinois I believe 
 this is the only hope she has of having it awarded to her. I make the 
 appeal with the full confidence and belief that you will direct that the 
 laws shall be executed. Your impartial justice and high sense ot pub- 
 lic duty afford a sufficient guarranty of your action in the premises. 
 
 My health is bad, and if I leave here without the account bein^j made 
 up and reviewed by the First Comptroller of the Treasuiy, which I will 
 have to do unless the matter is disposed of soon, the piobabiliry is the 
 business will remain just whre 1 left it. As it now stands, I shall only 
 be able to report to the Governor, and through him to the Legislature 
 and people of Illinois, that your secretary has crushed under his feet, 
 and refuses to give practical effect to laws which you have, decided 
 require the payment of the State's demand. I know of nothing more 
 I can do. If I have been importunate, it was because I thought the 
 interests of my State required it, and I believed myself unnecessarily 
 delayed. 
 
 On four occasions I have sought opportunities to personally preeent 
 these views, but your other engagements prevented. I have, therefoie, 
 reduced them to writing and placed them in the hands of Hon. P. E. 
 Fouke, to read to yon, as he has an engagement to meet you to-morrow 
 morning. Your answer to him will determine my future action. I do 
 not permit myself, however, to doubt but it will be favorable, and that 
 I shall have the agreeable duty to p< rt'orm of paying to the people ot 
 Illinois they are indebted to your ] r> .mptne^s and justice for the recog- 
 nition and enforcement of their long delayed rights. 
 
 L K MORRIS. 
 
 Washington, March 19, 1863.
 
 31 
 
 The President desired to know of Col. Fouke whether he appeared 
 on behalf of the State. The Colonel replied that he did, at iny instance, 
 which makes it proper to state what occurred at the interview between 
 them pertaining to the public business witli which 1 was entrusted. 
 
 As lie had frequently done before, the President said that the claim 
 of the State was all right that its payment was a mere question of 
 time that the pressure upon the Treasury at the present was so great 
 that it could not be paid now very well, etc. He also said o Colonel 
 Fouke that he had talked with Mr. Usher, his Secretary of the Intc'rior, 
 on the subject, arid that his secretary entertained precisely the same 
 views ff the lavs ujjon which the cldm of the State is based as he himself 
 did that he, the (secretary, had so said to him. It already distinctly 
 appears in this report what is the President's view of the laws. 
 
 Judge Otto, the able assistant secietary, I presume, agrees with the 
 president and secretary in their construction of the law, for the secretary 
 said to me that the Judge "believed the case a very strong one in tavor 
 of the State." It appears, therefore, that the administration of Mr. 
 Lincoln is fully committed in favor of the State's claim, and that what 
 I have accomplished so far is : 
 
 1. A respectful consideration of the State's demand. 
 
 2. A recognition of its legality and equity. 
 
 But one other question remains undisposed of. The administration 
 having admitted the legality and equity of the claim, will they pay it? 
 This they cannot avoid doing, except in one of two ways : 
 
 1. By arbitrarily and willfully disregarding the provisions of a plain 
 law which tiiey have sworn to execute ; or, 
 
 2. By pleading bankruptcy for the government in bar. 
 
 Will they do either? I have not yet seen anything to convince me 
 they design to resort to such disreputable means. The payment of the 
 claim is only postponed for a short time, as 1 understand the matter 
 the law not totally suspended. To attempt the latter would be a flagrant 
 act of injustice and wroiig, which any honorable government would 
 scorn, and I have no belief that the administration intends that injury 
 shall be done to the State. Mr. Lincoln did not, in my interviews with 
 him, manifest any such disposition, nor have I any fear that he will. 
 His Interior Secretary, I have thought and still think, resorted to 
 unnecessary delay, but I do not believe he designs, in the end, to will- 
 fully do the State a wrong, though when I addressed my communication 
 to the president it seemed aa though he did. The amount of the claim, 
 in view of which he has two or three times threatened to decide against 
 the State, if forced to decide at the present, upon the exploded hypothe- 
 sis of expenditures on the National Road, is, I am now convinced, all 
 that prevents his prompt action. Such a consideration, however, cannot 
 long prevail against a well established and subsisting demand, nor do I 
 think the secretary seriously contemplates it should. 
 
 The following letter and my note relating thereto, will show Ihe states 
 which have received the five per cent.; and why should Illinois be 
 turned away with her measure empty when others have been filled? 
 "Why should she be unjustly discriminated against? Instead of the 
 president subjecting himself to censure by having the demand paid, he 
 should delight, and I think will delight, in the opportunity he has of
 
 32 
 
 rendering an act of justice to his State, which has so often and faithfully 
 honored him. At all events, being a citizen of Illinois should not deter 
 him from doing his duty by her, nor do I believe it will. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, February 17, 1863. 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS: 
 
 SIR In reply to your letter of the 14th instant, I have the honor to 
 inform you that the following named states have received from the gen- 
 eral government five per cent, of the net proceeds of the sales of public 
 lands, viz: Louisiana, Arkansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, Iowa 
 and Minnesota.* 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner. 
 
 I have mentioned that the magnitude of the claim was the only cause 
 delaying its payment. I do not know that I can state to your Excel- 
 lency the precise amount of it, but I can very nearly give it. The law 
 of 1857 fixes the value of all public lands at $1 25 per acre, as a basis 
 for the computation of the five per cent. I obtained, when in Wash- 
 ington, a tabular statement, showing the various payments to the State 
 of the three per cent, fund, the aggregate of which is $711,179 54. If 
 the aggregate amount of the sales of the public lands should be equal to 
 $1 25 per acre, which is probably just about the sum realized for 
 them, then the two per cent, fund is precisely equal to two-thirds of 
 $711,179 54, and is. consequently, $474,119 69. If the aggregate 
 amount received for the lands should be more than equivalent to $1 25 
 per acre, in that event the two per cent, would be something less than I 
 Lave stated it. The difference, however, cannot be large, if anything, 
 and the claim of the State may be put down safely, in round numbers, 
 at four hundred and seventy-four thousand dollars, upon which interest 
 ought to be paid from the time I made the demand for the money in 
 behalf of the State, December 12th, 1857. 
 
 When I reached Washington, on the 7th of February last, I found 
 the claim resting just where I had left it when my Congressional term 
 expired in 1861, no one having done anything about it, and I resumed 
 the management of it at that point. I shall continue its prosecution un- 
 til the money is paid, using therein my best endeavors and discretion. 
 Sickness, and what appeared a sincere and earnest desire on the part of 
 the administration for a short delay, were my only reasons for returning 
 home when I did. If the account is not made up within a reasonable 
 time, which I hope will be the case, I shall once more visit Washing- 
 ton, and should I then again fail in obtaining the voluntary payment of 
 the demand from the Executive Department of the government, which 
 is charged with the duty of seeing that the laws are "faithfully execu- 
 ted" a thing I do not permit myself to anticipate I shall adopt anoth- 
 er course for the recovery of the money. But I ought not to contem- 
 
 * To the above Jist must be added Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, California and Oregon, 
 which states have received their full five per cent, and were omitted by the commissioner in 
 his statement. I. X. MORRIS.
 
 33 
 
 plate any adverse result. The possibility that the administration will 
 compel the State to resort to compulsory means to obtain her admitted 
 rights, is too remote to be seriously considered. For it cannot be that 
 the President, who is so clear in his view of the law, will fail to see it 
 executed. To refuse a compliance with its provisions would be a gross 
 wrong, which it would be unjust to anticipate. 
 
 My action in the premises, I trust, meets your Excellency's approba- 
 tion, and, I hope, will redound to the honor of your administration and 
 the interest of the State. 
 
 I acknowledge with satisfaction, your energetic determination in the 
 prosecution of the claim, and thank you for your confidence and valua- 
 ble aid. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 I. N. MOKRIS. 
 
 QUINCY, ILL., April 1863. 
 
 
 i 
 
 5
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 The following correspondence, and the favorable action of the commit- 
 tee on public lands, transpired through my agency ; but, as I have stated 
 elsewhere, it was not thought best, upon more mature reflection, to ask 
 any further legislation from Congress, as that already existing was 
 deemed amply sufficient to secure the payment of the State's demand. 
 
 In this connection, I cannot refrain from saying that our State owes 
 to Mr. Potter, of "Wisconsin, a debt of gratitude for his prompt, just and 
 liberal action in her hehalf, as chairman of the committee on public 
 lands, in the House. I. N. MORRIS. 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 Washington City, Feb. 13*A, 1863. 
 HELoN. J. M. EDMUNDS, 
 
 Commissioner of General Public Land Office : 
 
 SIR Will you favor me with a resolution which, in its terms, will 
 authorize the payment of the two per cent, fund arising from the sales 
 of public lands in Illinois, reserved in the act admitting her into the 
 Union, for road purposes, and which, in similar instances, has been re- 
 linquished to or given to other new States. 
 
 I hope you will also favor me with your views upon the propriety and 
 justice of allowing said two per cent, fund to said State. 
 Yours very respectfully, 
 
 JOHN F. POTTER, 
 Chairman Committee on Public Lands. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Feb. 14, 1863. 
 
 SIR Pursuant to your request of yesterday, I have the honor to in- 
 close herewith, a draft of a joint resolution in reference to the relinquish- 
 naent of the two per cent, fund to the State of Illinois. 
 
 This resolve proposes to relinquish, upon the application of the Gov- 
 ernor, instead of pursuant to an act of the Legislature with that modifi 
 cation to avoid delay. There is no reason known why the State of Illi- 
 nois should not stand upon the same footing in the matter, as the State
 
 35 
 
 of Missouri, in regard to which latter, Congress has given precedent by 
 the act of February 28th, 1859. Stat's, vol. 11, page 388, chap. 65. 
 With great respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. EDMUNDS, 
 
 Commissioner. 
 HON. JOHN F. PO-ITER, 
 
 Chair 1 n Com. on Public Lands, House of Reps. 
 
 Joint resolution in relation to the two per cent, fund due the State of 
 Illinois, unanimously agreed upon by the House committee on public 
 lands, and its passages recommended : 
 
 Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That the principles of the act 
 of Congress approved February 28th, 1859, "giving the assent of Con- 
 gress to a law of the Missouri Legislature, for the application of the re- 
 served two per cent, land fund of said State," shall be applied to the 
 State of Illinois, with this modification, that the relinquishment of the 
 United States to the two per cent, fund contemplated in the third clause 
 of the sixth section of the Illinois Enabling Act, approved April 18th, 
 1818, shall take effect from and after the date of the acceptance of said 
 relinquishment by the Governor of said State of Illinois, and the account- 
 ing officer of the government shall thereupon adjust the claim of said 
 State of Illinois in like manner, as directed by said act of February 28th, 
 1859, in regard to the State of Missouri. 
 
 The following is a copy of the bill referred to in the foregoing report, 
 and which 1 introduced into the House of .Representatives. 
 
 I. K MORRIS. 
 
 A Bill authorizing the payment of the two per centum land fund to 
 
 which the State of Illinois is tmtitled, for road purposes. 
 SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the two per 
 centum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands in the State 
 df Illinois, reserved by existing laws to be expended in said State, un- 
 der the directions of Congress, for road purposes, be and the same is 
 hereby relinquished to said State, and that the proper accounting offi- 
 cers of the United States are hereby authorized and required to audit 
 and pay the accounts in full for the same, as in the case of the three per 
 centum land fund of said State, to the Governor thereof, or his author- 
 ized agent.
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TWO P*ER CENT. FUND, 
 
 SUBMITTED TO HIS EXCELLENCY 
 
 RICHARD YATES, 
 
 GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 SIR I beg leave to submit, most respectfully, a supplements! report 
 in the matter of the two per cent, fund, due from the United States to 
 the State of Illinois, for road purposes. In August last I again repaired 
 to Washington, and engaged in the further active prosecution of the 
 claim of the State to said fund. As in February last, I found it resting 
 precisely where I had left it in 1861, so in August, I found/it resting 
 precisely where I had left it in February. Government functionaries 
 do not seem inclined to disturb its repose unless they are urged forward 
 to their duty with a pressing and ceaseless vigilance. 
 
 I am fully satisfied the Interior Department had determined not to 
 decide the case pending before it, involving the State's demand, and 
 that it never would have been decided in that department but for a per- 
 emptory order from the President to take it up and dispose of it. Even 
 then, as soon as that order was given, in writing and verbally, to the In- 
 terior Secretary, he left his official po&t in Washington, and went to In- 
 diana, as he had done once before, and thus avoided acting upon the 
 question himself, leaving it to be disposed of by his inferior officer. I 
 leave such neglect of official dnty such contempt for the order of the 
 President, and the respect which is due to a sovereign State, to be judged 
 of and estimated as your Excellency may determine. I will only state 
 the facts, and leave others tcv draw couelusiona.
 
 38 
 
 A few days after my arrival in Washington, I was able to obtain an 
 interview with the President, and made to him the following short ad- 
 dress : 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 ME. PRESIDENT : Each house of the General Assembly of Illinois, at 
 their adjourned session in June, unanimously adopted a memorial ad- 
 dressed to you, expressive of their earnest desire that you should see 
 carried into effect the laws requiring the payment to that State of the 
 two per cent, land fund due to her from the General Government for 
 road purposes. Each house, also, unanimously passed a resolution ap- 
 pointing me to lay before you, in person, their respective memorials, and 
 I now perform that duty. 
 
 To attempt, on this occasion, a re-argument in support of the claim I 
 represent would be ^nothing more than a useless multiplication of words, 
 as we have heretofore gone over the premises together, and the conclu- 
 sion has been reached. I cannot, however, refrain from observing that 
 objections have heretofore been raised in the Interior Department to 
 acting on the appeal pending before it, which, to say the least, are re- 
 garded by intelligent and legal minds as singularly strange to come from 
 one of the executive officers of a great government. These objections 
 have all been purely technical, and no one of them has any bearing 
 against the legal or equitable character of the demand. It was said to 
 me in that department that if some victories could be won they would 
 feel more like paying the money. Those victories "have been gloriously 
 achieved by the Union arms, and have rejoiced the heart of every true 
 American, so that that objection no longer applies. Indeed, I insist 
 that no- objection which has been made, properly attaches to the case. 
 It is now pending on an appeal, which a certain law of Congress pro- 
 vides for taking from an inferior to a superior tribunal, and according 
 to the- legal' rule must be determined upon the record sent up. Any 
 point made outside of the record is extra-judicial and improper. But if 
 the objections were just and referred to the merits of the cause, the 
 State would have less reason to complain. As they are not, and only 
 look to delay, I' must, in the discharge of my public duty, protest against 
 them. If I should fail to enter my dissent, my silence might be con- 
 strued as acquiescing in their propriety. 
 
 The memorials, Mr. President, which I have presented, are addressed 
 to you in your executive capacity. Illinois understands too well what 
 is due to her own dignity and honor to 'request any special favor for her- 
 self at your hands. If she did not, your own character is too well un- 
 derstood for her to make such an unwise attempt. She stands upon the 
 law and the justice of her cause. As her agent, with the view of getting 
 the opinions of distinguished jurists upon the legality and equity of her 
 claim, I addressed inquiries upon the subject to Judge Davis, of the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States, Judges Drummond and Treat, of the 
 United States District Courts for Illinois, Judges "Walker and Caton, of 
 the Supreme Bench of that State, to the State officers and others, and 
 now respectfully lay their replies before you, from which you will see 
 their views correspond with your own heretofore expressed, and sustain 
 the construction I have uniformly given to the laws upon which the
 
 39 
 
 State's demand is based. Thus the judges I have named, the Executive 
 of the State, the State officers, both houses of the General Assembly, 
 and all the members of Congress from Illinois, unite in the opinion that 
 existing legislation requires the payment of the sum I am authorized to 
 demand from the General Government. In my interviews heretofore 
 with you touching the matter I have in hand, you have not only treated 
 me with great courtesy, but the State with entire fairness, and I was 
 proud to acknowledge the fact in my report to Governor Yates. 
 
 I know full well I have not brought to the support of the claim, that 
 ability which its importance and merit demand ; but I hope I can say 
 without arrogance, that, if I have fallen short. in this, I have done 
 nothing in the premises to dishonor my State, or prejudice her interest. 
 
 The result, Mr. President, is with you ; for it is to you the State looks 
 for the fulfillment of her too long delayed rights. Let me add, she dftes 
 not expect to look in vain. I have now said, Mr. President, about all I 
 deem it necessary to say, except to add, that the State ought not to be 
 compelled, nor can I believe you will require it of her, to resort to com- 
 pulsory means to obtain her acknowledged, well established and just 
 due. She has furnished, under the volunteer system, in the present 
 fierce and bloody war which traitors have so atrociously precipitated 
 upon the country, an excess of over forty thousand men more than her 
 just proportion, to uphold the Union and vindicate the National Flag 
 and honor, and deserves well of the General Government No other 
 state has furnished so great an excess ; still she asks nothing for her. 
 prompt and generous contributions to patriotism nothing more than to 
 be placed upon an equal footing with other states which have received 
 the full five per cent, of the net proceeds arising from the sales of the 
 public lands within their respective limits. To withhold from her this 
 equality, would discriminate to her wrong and injury. You will not 
 deny her justice from motives of delicacy because you are her honored 
 citizen. If she obtains it she will be entirely indebted to you for it. 
 
 - The following is a copy of the resolution and memorial adopted by 
 both houses of the General Assembly, and duly authenticated tran- 
 scripts of which I laid befor the President : 
 
 Resolved, That the following memorial be sanctioned and confirmed 
 by this Senate, and that each member sign the same, and present it to 
 the Hon. I. N. Morris, requesting him to present the same in person to 
 the President of the United States : 
 
 Memorial of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois to the Presi- 
 dent of the United States, asking for the payment to the State of the 
 two per cent, fund arising from the proceeds of the sales of public 
 lands, and due to said State for road purposes. 
 
 Your memorialists, members of the Senate and House of Represen- 
 tatives of the State of Illinois, earnestly, but firmly and respectfully 
 request your excellency to carry into effect the laws requiring the pay- 
 ment of the two per cent, fund arising from the proceeds of the sales 
 of public lands in the State since January 1st, 1819, and to which the 
 State is legally and equitably entitled for road purposes. The argument 
 in favor of the right of the State has already been made by her agent, 
 I. N. Morris, appointed by Governor Yates to establish and urge the
 
 40 
 
 payment of the demand, so that your memorialists do not deem it requi- 
 site to repeat upon the subject what has already been said, especially 
 as your excellency has admitted the justice and legality of the Stale's 
 claim. 
 
 The simple question remaining undisposed of is, will your adminis- 
 tration pay the amount which you admit is due? We submit that no 
 consideration of locality or amount, no question arising out of the war, 
 no embarrassment of the treasury occasioned by other demands, can 
 justify your subordinates in disregarding the plain provisions of the 
 statutes which confer upon the State the right to the money. If an 
 officer of the government charged with the execution of a law which is 
 mandatory to him, and for the passage of which he is in no wise respon- 
 sible, can refuse to obey its commands, he virtually usurps the authority 
 of the legislative department. 
 
 Your memorialists do not believe, nor do they charge that your admin- 
 istration willfully designs to do our State a wrong, yet the fact is not to 
 be disguised, that, unless the sum claimed, and which you admit to be 
 due, is paid, a great and irreparable injury will be inflicted on Illinois. 
 
 We are fully sensible that justice to her has long been delayed, and 
 now with the utmost confidence appeal to you, not as her citizen, but as 
 President of the United States, to perform a public duty, alike demanded 
 by respect for the legislative department and justice to a sovereign and 
 loyal State, with the fullest confidence and assurance that this appeal 
 will be respectfully considered and the amount paid. 
 
 Illinois has stood nobly by the Union in its present struggle, freely ex- 
 pending her treasure and her blood in its defense, and at least deserves 
 justice from the general government. We ask for her nothing more, 
 and believe you will cheerfully grant her this much. 
 
 JUDGE TREAT'S LETTER. 
 
 SPRINGFIELD, ILLS., May 19, 1863. 
 
 DEAR SIR I have received and read your report to Gov. Yates, rel- 
 ative to the claim of the State against the United States to the two per 
 cent, fund, arising from the sale of the public lands. 
 
 From the examination I have been able to give the subject, it strikes 
 me that your conclusions are right, and that the claim is just. The claim 
 is undoubtedly a valid one against the general government, unless it has 
 disbursed this fund in the mode prescribed in the act admitting Illinois 
 into the Union. It seems clear to my mind, that the act of March 3d, 
 1857, is broad enough to require an adjustment of the claim, without 
 any further legislation by Congress. 
 
 Yery truly yours, 
 
 S. H. TREAT. 
 HON. I. K. MORRIS, Quincy, III. 
 
 JUDGE DAVIS' LETTER. 
 
 SPRINGFIELD, ILL., June 18, 1863. 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS, Quincy, 111. : 
 
 MY DEAR SIR I have examined your report to Governor Yates, and 
 cordially indorse the views of Judge Treat.
 
 41 
 
 The claim against the general government (from the examination I 
 have given it,) is valid. If so, there can be no just reason why the 
 State should not receive it. 
 
 Most truly yours, 
 
 DAYID DAVIS. 
 
 JUDGE DRUMMOND'S LETTER. 
 
 CHICAGO, ILL., August 5, 1863. 
 
 DEAR SIR I have not been able to examine as thoroughly as I could 
 wish the report you sent me and the various laws there referred to, but 
 from the examination I have given them, the conviction naturally arises 
 that the State has a just claim to the fund mentioned. As I understand, 
 the law of 1857 was first introduced with particular reference to the 
 State of Mississippi. Afterward the second section was added by way 
 of amendment, and the title of the bill changed so as to make the law 
 general. It certainly includes within its scope and meaning the State 
 of Illinois, and it was intended to include it, because Illinois was in the 
 same legal condition as Alabama and Mississippi in respect to the sub- 
 ject matter of the bill, and a discrimination against Illinois would have 
 been unjust. Then the language of the law is imperative to the com- 
 missioner, "shall state on account, and sJiall allow and pay * 
 such amount as shall thus be found due." 
 
 In the limited time that I hare had to look into the question, I have 
 considered some of the objections made to the claim, and certainly they 
 do not appear to have much force, and one feels the more confirmed in 
 the impression which, I think, must be made upon every mind on a cur- 
 sory investigation of the subject. 
 
 6f course I do not wish to be understood as expressing a deliberate 
 opinion, but only as saying that the arguments in support of the claim 
 seem to have very great force, and no satisfactory answer has occurred 
 to me with which to meet them. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, &c., 
 
 THOMAS DKUMMOND. 
 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS, Quincy, 111. 
 
 JUDGES WALKER AND CATON's LETTERS. 
 
 RUSHVTLLE, ILL., June 22, 1863. 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS : 
 
 SIR After a careful examination of your report to his excellency, Gc~ 
 verner Yates, in reference to the two per cent, fund arising on the sale 
 of public lands, claimed to be due to the State, I fully concur in your 
 reasoning and conclusion. I regard the claim as just, and have no doubt 
 it should be paid without further legislation. The act of the 3d of 
 March, 1857, it seems to me is ample in its provisions, not only autho- 
 rizing, but requiring its payment. 
 
 1 am, sir, with respect, yours, &c., 
 
 P. H. WALKER. 
 
 I fully concur in the above opinion expressed by MF. Justice Walker. 
 
 J. D. CATON, Chief Justice.
 
 42 
 
 The letter signed by the state officers, to which was added the highly 
 respectable and influential name of Hon. "William Butler, late State 
 Treasurer, was sealed up and directed to the President, so that I was 
 not able to obtain a copy of it, though I saw it after it had been pre- 
 pared in Springfield, and knew its contents. It was signed by Auditor 
 Dubois, Secretary Hatch, Treasurer Starne, and Mr. Butler, and was an 
 appeal to the President to execute the laws and pay to the State the 
 money claimed to be due. 
 
 After submitting the memorials and accompanying documents to the 
 President, I waited a reasonable time and then called upon him to learn 
 his conclusion. Upon sending him my card, he indorsed thereon the 
 following words, and returned it to me : 
 
 " I sent your case to the Secretary of the Interior yesterday, and have v 
 not yet heard of it. 
 
 A. LINCOLN. 
 
 August, 24, 1863." 
 
 The foregoing led to the following brief correspondence. 
 To PRESIDENT LINCOLN: 
 
 I hardly know how I am to understand your note. Must I infer from 
 it that I am referred to the Interior department, or must I wait upon 
 your excellency until you hear from the department ? "When may I ex- 
 pect a definite answer? 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Aug. 25, 1863. I. N. MORRIS. 
 
 EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, Aug. 26, 1863. 
 HON. I. N. MOKRIS : 
 
 DEAR SIR Your note, asking what you were to understand, was re- 
 ceived yesterday. Monday morning, I sent the papers to the Secretary 
 of the Interior, with the endorsement that my impression of the law 
 was not changed, and that I desired him to take up the case and do his 
 duty according to his view of the law. Yesterday I said the same thing 
 to him verbally. 
 
 Now, my understanding is, that the law has not assigned me, specifi- 
 cally, any duty in the case, but has assigned it to the Secretary of the 
 Interior. It may be my general duty to direct him to act which I 
 have performed. "When he shall have acted, if his action is not satis- 
 factory, there may, or may not, be an appeal to ine. It is a point I 
 have not examined, but if it then be shown that the law gives such ap- 
 peal, I shall not hesitate to entertain it when presented. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 A. LINCOLN. 
 
 WASHINGTON, August 26, 1863. 
 To His EXCELLENCY, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 
 
 President of the United States: 
 
 DEAR SIR Your letter of this date has just been placed in my 
 hands by your private secretary. It is all I expected you now to say 
 full, complete and just in its spirit and sentiment. In behalf of Illinois 
 I return you her grateful thanks for it.
 
 43 
 
 With distinguished consideration and respect, I remain your obedient 
 servant, I. N. MORRIS. 
 
 Thus matters stood awaiting the decision of the appeal in the Interior 
 Department. While the case was still pending there, I discovered that 
 our State had a small amount of Indian reserved land within her limits, 
 upon which no part of the live per cent, had been paid, and I commenced 
 the prosecution of a claim for the per cent, on that also. The result of 
 m y labors in that regard will be found in detail in the conclusion of my 
 report. 
 
 At last, after more than six months of constant urging, the Interior 
 Department rendered its opinion in obedience to the mandate of the 
 President, and here it is : 
 
 OPINION OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN THE MATTER OF 
 
 THE CLAIM OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, August 31, 1863. 
 
 SIR I herewith return the papers accompanying your report upon 
 the appeal prosecuted by the Hon. Isaac N. Morris, attorney for the 
 State of Illinois, from your decision, disallowing the claim of that State 
 to two per cent, of the net proceeds of the public lands therein situate, 
 sold since January 1, 1819. 
 
 I approve and affirm your decision. 
 
 I transmit you several communications that have been filed in this 
 department during the pending of the appeal, and a copy of a printed 
 report made by Mr. Morris to the Governor of the State of Illinois. 
 
 The President of the United States has referred to this department a 
 communication, addressed to him by Mr. Morris, inclosing the memorial 
 of both branches of the General Assembly of Illinois, and sundry opin- 
 ions in favor of her claim upon the case stated by Mr. Morris. 
 
 These opinions emanate from several distinguished jurists of that 
 State, embracing some of the most honored judicial names in the Union. 
 
 The signal ability evinced by Mr. Morris in the prosecution of the 
 claim, the large amount which it involves, the high respect due to the 
 eminently loyal State which prefers it, and the imposing array of 
 authority enlisted in its support, render it peculiarly proper that I should 
 state fully the reasons which have led me to a conclusion adverse to its 
 validity. 
 
 The asserted right of Illinois to the fund in question, is derived from 
 certain acts of Congress, which, it is alleged, authorize the payment to 
 her of the two per cent, reserved, to be disbursed under the direction 
 of Congress, as provided in the 3d clause of the 6th section of the act 
 of Congress of April 18, 1818, entitled "An act to enable the people of 
 Illinois Territory to form a constitution and State government," etc. 
 (Statutes at large, volume 3, page 428.) The clause is in the following 
 words : 
 
 "Third. That five per cent, of the net proceeds of the lands ly r ng- 
 within such State, and which shall be sold by Congress, from and after 
 the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, after 
 deducting all expenses incident to the same, shall be reserved for the
 
 44 
 
 purposes following, viz : two-fifths to be disbursed, under the direction 
 of Congress, in making roads leading to the State, the residue to be 
 appropriated by the Legislature of the State, for the encouragement of 
 learning, of which one-sixth part shall be exclusively bestowed on a 
 college or university." 
 
 This proposition was, with others offered to the convention ot the 
 Territory of Illinois for their free acceptance or rejection, and, if accep- 
 ted by the convention, was to be obligatory upon the United States and 
 said State. 
 
 The proposition was accepted, and the State of Illinois was, by reso- 
 lution, approved December 3, 1818, declared to be one of the United 
 States of America, etc., etc. (Statutes at large, volume 3d, page 536.) 
 
 By an act approved December 12, 1820, (Statutes at large, volume 3d, 
 page 610,) Congress provided for the payment, by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, to the authorized agent of the State of Illinois, three per cent, 
 of the net proceeds of the lands of the United States lying within that 
 State, which, since the first day of January, 1819, had been or should 
 thereafter be sold by the United States, to be applied to the encourage- 
 ment of learning in conformity with the preceding clause. 
 
 The provision of the act requiring an annual account of the applica- 
 tion of the money to be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 and directing the payment of the sums then due, to be withheld, in 
 default of such return being made, was repealed by the act approved 
 January 13, 1831. (Statutes at large, volume 4, page 430.) 
 
 The fidelity with which the general government has performed the 
 stipulation in regard to the payment of the three per cent., has not been 
 drawn in question. The State of Illinois has received on that account 
 $711,1T9 54. 
 
 The phraseology of the clause is too clear to allow much room for 
 construction. In terms as apt and imperative as those providing for the 
 appropriation, by the State, of the three-fifths of the five per cent, of 
 the net proceeds, Congress reserved the direction of the disbursement 
 of the remaining two-fifths, in making roads leading to- the State. 
 
 By an act approved May 15, 1820, Congress provided for the appoint- 
 ment, by the President, of the commissioners to lay out a road between 
 Wheeling, in the State of Virginia, and a point on the left bank of the 
 Mississippi river, to be chosen by the commissioners between St. Louis 
 and the mouth of the Illinois river, and appropriated ten thousand 
 dollars to defray the incidental expenses. By a proviso, annexed to the 
 second section, it was declared that nothing in the act, or that should be 
 done in pursuance thereof, should be deemed or construed to imply 
 any obligation on the part of the United States to make or defray the 
 expenses of making' the road thereby authorized to be laid out, or any 
 part thereof. (Statutes at large, volume 3, page 604.) 
 
 The preceding legislation of Congress, making appropriations for the 
 construction of a road from Cumberland to Wheeling, expressly provi- 
 ded that they should be chargeable upon and reimbursable at the treas- 
 ury, out of the fund reserved in the enabling act, under which Ohio 
 was admitted into the Union. 
 
 By the act of March 3, 1825, (Statutes at large, volume 4, page 128,) 
 the sum of $150,000 was appropriated for constructing a portion of this
 
 45 
 
 road, "which said sum (it is therein stipulated) shall be replaced out of 
 the fund reserved for laying out and making roads, under the direction 
 of Congress, by the several acts passed for the admission of the states 
 of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri into the Union, on an equal 
 footing with the original states." 
 
 Additional appropriations, amounting to one million, one hundred 
 and thirty thousand dollars, (1,130,000,) chargeable upon the same fund, 
 were made by subsequent acts of the following dates : 
 
 March 3, 1825, March 25, 1826; March 2, 1827; March 2, 1829; 
 May 31, 1830 ; July 2, 1836 ; U. S. Statutes, volume 4, pages 128, 151, 
 215, 352, 427, volume 5, page 71.) 
 
 Other acts of Congress, bearing dates respectively, March 2, 1831 ; 
 June, 24, 1834 ; March 3, 1835 ; March 3, 1837 ; May 25, 1838 ; (U. S. 
 Statute, volume 4, pages 469, 680, 772, volume 5, pages 195, 228,) 
 appropriate the further sum of one million, eight hundred and thirty- 
 four thousand, nine hundred and fifteen dollars and eighty-five cents, 
 ($1,834,915 85,) and make it chargeable to the two per cent, fund of 
 Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, and specify the amount that shall be expen- 
 ded in each of those states. 
 
 The aggi egate amount thereby appropriated for the road within the 
 State of Illinois, appears to be $606,000, and it is a conceded fact that 
 the total expenditure within the three states of Ohio, Indiana and Illi- 
 nois, largely exceed the reserved two per cent, fund of those states and 
 Missouri. 
 
 Mr. Morris remarks that the claim of Illinois " may be put down 
 safely in round numbers at four hundred and seventy-four thousand 
 dollars, ($474,000.) A larger sum has been appropriated for the con- 
 struction of the National Eoad within her limits, and her fund is 
 chargeable with her just proportion of the one million, two hundred 
 and eighty thousand dollars, ($1,280,000,) appropriated by the acts first 
 above referred to. 
 
 It thus appears that the general government has discharged its obli- 
 gations in regard to the expenditure of the fund. No part of it remains 
 in the treasury, nor has one dollar of it been diverted from the object 
 for which it was reserved. 
 
 After the fund, specifically applicable to the construction of the 
 National Road, had been exhausted, and no further appropriations were 
 made for that purpose, Congress, on the ninth of May, 1856, (Statutes at 
 large, volume 11, page 7,) provided that: 
 
 " So much of the Cumberland Road as lies within the State of Illi- 
 nois, and all the interest of the United States, in the same, together 
 with all the etone, timber and other materials belonging to the United 
 States, and procured for the purpose of being used in the construction 
 of the same, and all the rights and privileges of every kind belonging 
 to the United States as connected with said road in said State, be and 
 the same are hereby transferred, and surrendered to the said State of 
 Illinois." 
 
 No act is cited by Mr. Morris, whereby Congress has in express terms 
 relinquished its control over the fund or authorized its payment to the 
 State of Illinois. He states that the laws, upon whien he bases the 
 claim of the State, are as follows :
 
 46 
 
 "An act to settle certain accounts between the United States and the 
 State of Mississippi, and other states." 
 
 "Be it enacted, etc., etc., That the Commissioner ol the General Land 
 Office, be and he is hereby required to state an account between the 
 United States and the State of Mississippi, for the purpose of ascertain- 
 ing what sum or sums of money are due to said State, heretofore unset- 
 tled, on account of the public lands in said State, and upon the same 
 principles of allowance and settlements prescribed in the "Act to settle 
 certain accounts between the United States and the State of Alabama," 
 approved the second of March, eighteen hundred and fifty-five; and 
 that he is required to include in said account the said reservations under 
 the various treaties with the Chickasaw and Chocktaw Indians within 
 the limits of Mississippi, and allow and pay to the said Slate five per 
 centum thereon, as in case of other sales, estimating the lands at the 
 value of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. 
 
 " SEC. 2. And he it further enacted, That the said commissioner 
 shall also state an account between the United States and each of the 
 other states upon the same principles, and shall allow and pay to each 
 State such amount as shall thus be found due, estimating all lands and 
 permanent reservations at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre." 
 
 APPROVED March 3', 1857. 
 
 "An act to settle certain accounts between the United States and the 
 
 State of Alabama." 
 
 "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America, in Congress Assembled, That the Commis- 
 sioner of the General Land Office be, and he is hereby required to state 
 an account between the United States and the State of Alabama for the 
 purpose of ascertaining what sum or sums of money are due to said 
 State, heretofore unsettled, under the sixth section of the act of March 
 second, eighteen hundred and nineteen, for the admission of Alabama 
 into the Union ; and that he be required to include in said account the 
 several reservations under the various treaties with the Chickasaw, 
 Chocktaw, and Creek Indians within the limits of Alabama, and allow 
 and pay to the said State five per centum thereon, as in case of other 
 sales." 
 
 APPROVED March 2, 1855. 
 
 The provision touching the two per cent, fund is the same in the 
 enabling acts of Illinois, Alabama and Mississippi. 
 
 Mr. Morris contends that Alabama and Mississippi received t^e two 
 per cent, fund by virtue of the above acts, and that the second section 
 of the act of 1857, makes the provisions of the preceding section general, 
 and consequently being applicable to the State of Illinois, justifies the 
 claim in question. 
 
 The argument therefore is grounded upon an assumed fact, and I 
 may concede that a casual examination of those acts, without regard to 
 pre-existing legislation, and the peculiar circumstances which led to 
 their passage would apparently sanction Mr. Morris' conclusion. The 
 assumption of the fact is, however, gratuitous and untenable.
 
 47 
 
 Congress relinquished the two per cent, to the states of Alabama and 
 Mississippi by the 16th and 17th sections of the act, approved Septem- 
 ber 4, 1841. (Satutes at large, volume 5, page 453.) 
 
 The effective granting words of both sections are identical. Section 
 16 is as follows: 
 
 " And lie it further enacted. That the two per cent, of the net proceeds 
 of the lands sold, or that may hereafter be sold by the United States !n 
 the State of Mississippi, since the first of December, 1817, * * * 
 reserved for the making of a road or roads leading to said State, be and 
 the same is hereby relinquished to the State of Mississippi, payable in 
 two equal installments," etc. 
 
 The two per cent, which has accrued from the proceeds of the lands 
 sold in those states, was paid to them respectively in two installments, 
 and the fund thereafter accruing has been paid quarterly in conformity 
 to the requirements of that act. No additional legislation was therefore 
 necessary to secure effectually to those states the five per cent, arising 
 from the sales of lands within their limits. Their title to it since the 
 act of 1841 has never been questioned. 
 
 After the payment of the three per cent., under act of May 3, 1822, 
 (Statutes at large, volume 3, page 674,) and of the two per cent, under 
 the act ol 1841, those states made a claim upon the general government 
 for the payment of five per cent, upon the estimated value of certain 
 tracts of land lying within their respective limits, which, by virtue of 
 treaties with the Chickasaws, Chocktaws and Creeks, had been appro- 
 > priated as Indian reservations. 
 
 It is well known that at the time of the passage of the enabling acts 
 of 1817 and 1819, several millions of acres within those states were in 
 the occupancy of Indian tribes, and when the possessory rights of those 
 tribes were extinguished by treaty, reservations, embracing large quan- 
 tities of land, were set apart for the benefit of members of the tribe, 
 and as their individual property.. 
 
 It was insisted that the grant or confirmation of these reservations 
 should in the account between the general government and those states 
 be considered as a sale, but the then secretary, Mr. Stewart, rejected 
 the claim by a decison bearing date February 17, 1852. It appeared 
 that the acts authorized only payment to be made of five per cent, on 
 the net proceeds of sales, and furthermore, there was no act of Congress 
 determining the value of the lands reserved. Mr. Stewart held that 
 the department has no power to state an account or make an allowance. 
 Congress granted relief by the acts ot 1855 and 1857. 
 
 By the act of 1855 the Commissioner of the General Land Office was 
 directed to include in the account of Alabama, "the several reservations 
 under the various treaties with the Chickasaw, Chocktaw and Creek 
 Indians within the limits of Alabama, and allow and pay to the said 
 State five per centum thereon, as in case of other sales. 
 
 Mississippi was largely interested and equally entitled to legislative 
 relief, and the act of the 3d of March, 1857, granted to her the same 
 benefits which Alabama had received by the act of 1855. 
 
 A material omission in the act of 1855 was also supplied and the 
 commissioner was required to estimate the lands included in the reser- 
 vation "at the value of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre."
 
 48 
 
 Now, in view of the inducements that led to the passage of these 
 laws and the objects they were intended to accomplish, I submit that 
 but one construction can be given them. They plainly require that in 
 ascertaining the amount of five per cent, due to those states by virtue 
 of existing laws, the reservation under treaties should be included in 
 the account, and that the land covered by them should be estimated at 
 $1 25 per acre. 
 
 The second section requires that the commissioner should state an 
 account between the United States and each of the other states upon 
 the same principle. 
 
 Upon what principle ? The obvious answer is the principle that the 
 land, reserved under Indian treaties, should be regarded as so much land 
 sold by the United States, and should be estimated at $1 25 per acre. 
 
 I am unable to perceive that the claim, which Mr. Morris represents, 
 has any foundation in the letter of these acts, or in their spirit, meaning 
 or intention. Mr. Morris is of opinion that the decision of a former 
 Secretary of the Interior favors his construction of the act of March 
 3, 1857. 
 
 The point involved in the appeal from your office and submitted to 
 the determination of secretary Thompson was whether lands located 
 within the State of Mississippi, to satisfy certain Chocktaw scrip issued 
 under the acts of Congress of August 23, 1842, and August 3, 1846, 
 were within the beneficial provisions of the act of 1857. 
 
 He decided that such lands, in adjusting the accounts of that State, 
 " are to be regarded as constituting a portion of the several reservations 
 under the various treaties with the Chocktaw and Chickasaw Indians." 
 
 The same principle of adjustment, the second section of the act now 
 under discussion extends, to be applied in the settlement of the five per 
 cent, account of other states. 
 
 The meaning of this, taken in connection with the case there pre- 
 sented, evidently is, that the same relief should be extended to other 
 states, as by the first section, had been extended to Mississippi. And 
 what was that? That lands disposed of to satisfy treaty stipulations 
 with certain Indian tribes, should be considered, in adjusting the account 
 of the State within which the lands are situated, as if such lands had 
 been sold by the United States at their minimum value. 
 
 It is truly said in argument by Mr. Morris, that the two per cent, has 
 been paid to Missouri, and he expresses the opinion that the reasons 
 which lead to the conclusion that Missouri was entitled to it, support 
 with equal force the claim of the State of Illinois. There is this essen- 
 tial difference between the two cases. The payment to Missouri was 
 made in obedience to the requirements of an act approved February 28, 
 1859. (Statutes at large, volume 11, page 388.) 
 
 That act is as follows : 
 
 " Be it enacted, etc., etc., That the assent of Congress be, and the same 
 is hereby given to the act of the Legislature of the State of Missouri, 
 entitled " An act supplemental to an act to amend an act to secure the 
 completion of certain railroads in this State, and for other purposes," 
 approved on the nineteenth day of November, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty seven, appropriating the two per centum of the net proceeds of 
 sale of public lands in said State, reserved by existing laws to be
 
 expended under the direction of Congress, but hereby relinquished to 
 that State; and that the proper accounting officers of the government 
 are hereby authorized ahd required to audit and pay the accounts for 1 
 the same, as in the case of the three per centum land fund of said 
 State." 
 
 This act is subsequent in date to those relied upon by Illinois in the 
 assertion of her claim, and which are equally applicable, according to 
 the interpretation of them insisted upon, lo Ohio, Indiana and Mis- 
 souri. 
 
 The fact that the latter State found it necessary to recur to a special 
 law implied that equivalent legislation is requisite in favor of Illinois 
 to .sanction a like payment to her. 
 
 The statement is made that Alabama, Arkansas, California, Iowa, 
 Kansas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, Michigan 
 and Minnesota have received five per cent, and it is asked why should 
 Illinois " be unjustly discriminated against." 
 
 I have already cited the acts of Congress authorising and requiring 
 the payment to Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri, and similar legisla- 
 tive provisions have been made for a like pa_yment to the above named 
 States, with the exception of California, which Mr. Morris has inadver- 
 tently included in the list. 
 
 For convenience, I subjoin a reference to the acts : 
 
 Arkansas, by act 23d June, 1836, vol. 5, page 58 ; to Iowa, by act 3d 
 March, 1845, vol. 5, page 7S9; to Kansas, by act of May 4th, 1858, vol. 
 11, page 269 ; Louisiana to the act 20th Feb. 1811, vol. 2, page 641 ; to 
 Michigan, 23d June, 1836, vol. 5, page 60; to Minnesota, by act 26th 
 Feb., 1857, vol. 11, page 167; to Wisconsin, by act 3d March, 1847, 
 vol. 9, page 178 ; Oregon, by act Feb. 14th, 1859, vol. page 384. 
 
 Some general views ace presented by Mr. Morris in favor of the claim 
 of Illinois? As they do not relate to the authority of the executive 
 branch of the government to make the payment under existing legisla- 
 tion, I shall refrain from discussing them. They may, with great pro- 
 priety, be submitted for consideration by Congress. That body will, 
 undoubtedly, adopt such measure of relief as. in its opinion, justice and' 
 sound policy may require. 
 
 You will be pleased to furnish a copy of this opinion ta Mr. Morris, 
 and to His Excellency, the Governor of the State of Illinois. 
 I ana, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. T. OTTO, 
 
 Acting Secretary. 
 f Hon. J. M. EDMUNDS, Corner Gen. Land Office. 
 
 As soon as I was apprised of the opinion given in the Interior De- 
 partment, adverse to the State, I tiled therein the following letter of ap- 
 peal to the President : 
 
 WASHINGTON, August 31s/, 1863. 
 HON. JOHN P. USHER, 
 
 Secretary of the Interior: 
 
 SIR I learned to-day, unofficially, but I presume correctly, th.it the 
 claim of Illinois to the two per cent, fund, due her for road purposea, 
 -6
 
 50 
 
 from the general government, and which has been pending on an appeal 
 in your office, has been decided adversely to that State. I, therefore, 
 pray an appeal from your decision to the President of the United States, 
 and ask that all the papers properly pertaining to the cause, be trans- 
 mitted to that officer, with the least possible delay. 
 
 Yery respectfully, 
 
 I. N. MOKPJS. 
 Agent of the State of Illinois. 
 
 A copy of the Secretary's opinion was not given to me for several 
 days after I heard of its rendition, and was followed up by the subjoined 
 extraordinary communication : 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
 
 Washington., Sept. 5th, 1863. 
 
 SIR I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 
 3ibt ult, wherein you pray an appeal to the President of the United 
 States, from the decision of this department, adverse to the claim of the 
 State of Illinois to the two percent, fund, alleged to be due her, for road 
 purposes, from the general government. 
 
 You ask "that all the papers properly pertaining to the cause be trans- 
 mitted to that officer with the least possible delay." 
 
 Not discovering, from the attention I have been able to bestow upon 
 the subject, that an appeal lies in such a case from the decision of the 
 department, I shall await the order of the President in the premises. 
 I am, sir, very respecfully, &c., 
 
 W.T. OTTO, 
 
 Acting Secretary. 
 Hon. ISAAC N. MORRIS, Washinyton, D. 0. 
 
 I had supposed that the expression of an opinion against the validity 
 of the State's claim would terminate the opposition in the Interior t)e- 
 partment, but the receipt of the foregoing letter removed the delusion. 
 Reflecting upon my duty in the matter, I prepared the following reply 
 which I did not transmit, as I thought it might prejudice the State's 
 daim to five per cent, on Indian reservations. I, however, now em- 
 brace it in my report as an answer to the Secretary's communication, 
 arid hope it may not be considered rude or harsh. It was enough to 
 arouse some feeling, to have a subordinate officer to attempt to thrust 
 himself between the President and the State, and prevent him from 
 taking any cognizance of her rights : 
 
 WASHINGTON, September 12, 1863. 
 Hon. W. T. OTTO, 
 
 Acting Secretary of the Interior : 
 
 SIR On the afternoon of the 10th inst., I received, through the city 
 post-office, your letter of the 5th, notifying me that you have been una- 
 ble to discover that an appeal lies from your opinion to the President of 
 t&Q United States, in the matter of the claim of Illinois to the two per
 
 51 
 
 cent, on the public lands sold in that State, and expressing a disinclina- 
 tion U> send up the papers. 
 
 I was more surprised at this, as a copy of all the papers had already 
 been furnished me, except a copy of the letter of appeal, which you 
 acknowledge to be on file in your office. I do not, however, regard the 
 refusal at all material, as in legal contemplation, the papers are before 
 the President already. Being in and constituting a part of the archives 
 of one of the executive departments, the mere formal act of placing them 
 in the President's hands, is wholly unimportant. 
 
 I had supposed that the President was to determine for himself wheth- 
 he had a right to review the case, and that you would cot attempt to 
 deny him this right, and make your will the governing rule of his 
 action. 
 
 The power of the President to correct the mistakes and errors of his 
 subordinates, and execute the laws, is undoubted. That power is an 
 attribute of executive authority which no inferior executive officer can 
 abridge or wrest from him. But I will not discuss this question with 
 you, as its discussion more properly comes before the President. The 
 fact that you 'await his orders' for the papers, would seem to concede 
 the point, that you recognize his power to control the case. 
 
 Was it not enough for you to give an opinion adverse to my State, 
 , without throwing additional embarrassments in the way of her obtaining 
 justice? Why should you manifest such a desire to defeat her claim t 
 You have given your opinion you have expended your power you 
 have struck your blow, and why try to do more ? Why raise additional 
 obstacles ? What has Illinois done that she should be resisted on every 
 inch of ground, and have every possible technical objection thrown in 
 her face? Why should there, in fact, be a new case made up against 
 her in your office, \vhich, I insist, you had no right to make, instead of 
 disposing of her claim upon the record sent up? She has only respect- 
 fully but earnestly pressed her demand. She has only asked to be 
 placed on an equal footing with other States, and why all this opposi- 
 tion ? I hope, sir, you are not afraid to trust your opinion to the search- 
 ing scrutiny of the President's legal mind ? 1 hope this is not the reason 
 you decline to send up the papers. 
 
 Illinois, I admit, is placed in a position where she is compelled to sue 
 to power for the purpose of obtaining rights which should be freely 
 granted, but in doing this she stands upon the conscious rectitude of her 
 cause and the dignity of her character. She asks nothing that is not 
 right, and will resist the infliction of wrong. I have not presented her 
 at the Interior Department as a beggar, and a refusal of that department 
 to "send up the papers" to the President will not relax her eiforts. She 
 may even in the end, however, be overthrown, but it will only be when 
 she has exhausted all her energies in pursuit of the right, and then she 
 will have left a keen and abiding recollection of the wrong done her by 
 the general government. Although turned away from the Interior De- 
 partment she is not humbled or intimidated, and kas hope still left that 
 justice will be meted out to her. 
 
 I should have sent you this reply on the day I received your letter, 
 but I thought it best to wait until the claim of my State for five per cent, 
 on Indian reservations was disposed of in your department.
 
 52 
 
 Assuring you I have no other feeling in this matter other than that 
 which springs from a desire to faithfully serve my State, which has 
 intrusted me with her confidence, and which, I think, has been harshly 
 dealt by, I remain, 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 I. N. MOKRIS. 
 
 On the same day I prepared my response to the Secretary, I addressed 
 the President a note, and am happy to say that His Excellency never 
 gave me at any time an intimation that the act of the Secretary in "de- 
 clining to send up the papers" would embarrass his action or make the 
 slightest difference therein. He entertained and heard the appeal fully 
 and respectfully, and promised a decision thereon, notwithstanding the 
 papers were not "sent up." 
 
 ^ 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, Sept. IZth, 1863. 
 His Excellency, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States : 
 
 SIR In your letter to me under date of the 26th ult, you say, in 
 referring to the business of Illinois, then pending before the Secretary 
 of the Interior, "When he shall have acted, if his action is not satisfac- 
 tory, there may or may not, be an appeal to rne. It is a point I have 
 not considered ; but if then it be shown that the law gives such an 
 appeal, I shall not hesitate to entertain it when presented." 1 could not 
 ask, as the agent of the State, any fairer proposition. 
 
 The action of the Interior Secretary not being satisfactory, I am now 
 ready to make the showing you refer to. I havey/also, some general 
 views to present, which, I am sure you will not be averse to hearing, as 
 you cannot but feel an interest in all that pertains to Illinois. I desire 
 an audience in her behalf; and, if after I shall have presented the facts, 
 you should think she has no rights, which you have power to enforce, so 
 let it be. Your obliged and humble servant, 
 
 I. N. MORRIS. 
 
 PRESIDENT'S ANSWER. 
 
 EXECUTIVE MANSION, 
 
 Washington, Sept, 18, 1863. 
 Hon. I. N. Morris : 
 
 SIR Please carefully put the argument in writing, with reference to 
 authorities, in the matter intended to show that the law gives an appeal 
 to me in the matter referred to. When that is ready to be presented, 
 I will try to give you the personal interview about Illinois matters gen- 
 erally. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 
 
 KEPLY. 
 
 WASHINGTON, Sept. 21stf, 1863. 
 
 To His Excellency, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States : 
 SIR Your note bearing date the 18th inst, was received. The argu- 
 ment you desire, with reference to authorities, is ready to be submitted,
 
 53 
 
 and as you promised me, when it -was ready, an interview ia regard to 
 Illinois matters generally, Mr. Johnson and myself propose to meet you 
 on Wednesday next at twelve o'clock. Will that time suit your con- 
 venience ? I wish to consult that. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 I. N. MORRIS. 
 
 At twelve o'clock on Wednesday, the President received Mr. Johnson 
 and myself, when I made before him the following argument, and Mr. 
 Johnson submitted his opinion. Upon that argument and opinion the 
 case is still held under advisement by His Excellency : 
 
 ARGUMENT OF MR. MORRIS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATED CLAIM, AND IN 
 REVIEW OF THE OPINION RENDERED AGAINST ITS VALIDITY IN THK INTK- 
 RIOR DEPARTMENT. 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT : The case involving the right of Illinois to the two 
 per cent., arising from the net proceeds of the sales of public lande made 
 within her limits since 1819, has been decided adversely to the State by 
 the Interior Department. The decision was not unexpected by me, nor 
 will it be by the people of the State. I would have been, indeed, but a 
 poor interpreter of surrounding circumstances, indications and events, 
 to have expected anything else. I do not, however, despair of the ulti- 
 mate result. The interests and considerations which intervene between 
 my State and justice, and which it is not necessary for me to discuss 
 now, (for there will be a more favorable time and occasion for that,) will 
 not always prevail against her. She will finally obtain her rights. I 
 have neither a fear nor a doubt of this ; and believing it, I would be an 
 unfaithful agent if I failed to prosecute them to the extent of every hon- 
 orable means. 
 
 In the short address I made your Excellency in presenting the memo- 
 rials of the State Legislature, I distinctly stated that "the result was with 
 you, for it was to you the State looked for the fulfillment of her too long 
 delayed rights," and added, "she does not expect to look in vain." 1, 
 also, said in that address, "you will not deny the State justice, from mo- 
 tives of delicacy, because you are her honored citizen if she obtains it, 
 she will be entirely indebted to yon for it." You asked for a copy of 
 that address, which I furnished, and accompanied it with a note, in 
 which 1 stated that nothing short of a positive direction from you tor the 
 settlement of the account would effect anything. These words I had 
 duly considered, and used them designedly, so there could be no misap- 
 prehension of my views. I knew very well before and I knew then, 
 as well as I do now, that the State had no hope, except through your 
 direct agency, and the sequel has verified my conviction. 
 
 The Legislature of the State, also, knew very well what they were 
 doing when they addressed their memorials directly to you, asking that 
 you should see the laws carried into effect, providing for the payment of 
 the money to the State, which I claim for her. The appeal was to you. 
 I did not call at the Interior Department until after you had transmitted, 
 the papers there with your indorsement, for I knew it would be of no 
 avail, and then only to urge that it would act in the premises. It required
 
 no gift of prophesy to determine what an officer would do, wlio would 
 arbitrarily hold on to an appeal for six months, when, if he had a doubt 
 about the law conferring upon the State the benefits which I claimed for 
 her, he could have expressed it in a single moment, and would have done 
 it when repeatedly and urgently pressed as he was. 
 
 It shows, conclusively, that when he cannot defeat a case by excuses 
 and delays when he cannot weary out the patience of the suitor, and 
 thus avoid direct responsibility when prevarication will no longer 
 avail, it will finally fall, when he is forced to act under the iron heel of 
 power. This is almost invariably the result. Whenever there is a want 
 of frankness there is danger. There are some things it does not take 
 direct words to make us understand. It only required your Excellency 
 long enough to carefully read over the laws to enable you to express 
 your opinion. 
 
 A petitioner, whether for himself or for his State, has a veiy unequal 
 contest, with an officer who will shut himself up in his room, and neither 
 read written arguments, nor allow personal interviews, unless they are 
 literally forced upon him, and then will scarcely answer in a few brief 
 words, and most of those evasive. I had supposed that our government, 
 in its republican simplicity, was accessible to all, or at least so designed, 
 and that the humblest citizen, as well as a sovereign State, was to be 
 respectfully heard when asking to be. Power, I know, can turn with 
 disdain from the supplications of justice which it was formed to adminis- 
 ter, but that justice will eventually triumph in the full consciousness of 
 its own dignity. 
 
 I have not, nor shall I, present Illinois at the National Treasury as 
 an eleemosynary beggar. I have not, nor shall I, place her in ( a posi- 
 tion where she can be reproached with having done/anything disreputa- 
 ble. Her honor shall be preserved if her wrongs remain unredressed 
 and her rights unrecognized. 
 
 There is one other matter, Mr. President, which I might as well men- 
 tion here. I am aware that you have an impression that it is not very 
 gracious in Illinois to press her claim at this moment of our national 
 troubles. You must, I am fully satisfied, be convinced the State has 
 n&t acted from any design to embarrass your administration or the gov- 
 ernment. The claim has been pending before a department since 1857, 
 has never at any time been withdrawn, and I have already explained 
 why it was not paid under the administration of Mr. Buchanan. It is 
 certainly as proper for your administration to adjust it, as to wait for 
 any other one to do it. I know, and so do the people of Illinois, that 
 die State having had a prominent candidate for the presidency for fif- 
 teen years, that it operated greatly to the detriment of her interest in 
 common with other States, and now that she has the President, it would 
 be hard, indeed, to turn her away for that reason. In all that pertains 
 to the advancement and glory of our federal organization, siie has as 
 deep an interest as any member of the government, and would be the 
 last to do anything to destroy or embarrass the common cause. Her 
 faith she has proved by her works, which will remain an enduring mon- 
 ument to her patriotism and self-sacrificing devotion. It ought to be no 
 reproach upon her that she asks from the United States the payment of 
 a just demand. Her leading men believe that now is as propitious a
 
 55 
 
 moment for its payment as any other. The amount would go into the 
 general national indebtedness, and scarcely be felt. But it is not the 
 money she particularly desires or cares for at present. Her right to it 
 she wants established, and the claim placed in snch a situation that it 
 will be ultimately discharged. It is as little as the government can do 
 to acknowledge the debt, if it is not in a condition to conveniently pay it. 
 Is this asking too much ? Is it even immodest? 
 
 I will only add on this branch of the subject, that the distinguished, 
 watchful and patriotic Governor of my State, believed he would not be 
 justified in longer delaying a demand for the sum due. Indeed, further 
 delay might be construed as criminal negli:ance, and would have been, 
 He had not, properly, any discretion in the matter, but a plain and im- 
 perative duty to perform, which he has discharged. 
 
 In again calling your excellency's attention to the claim of Illinois to 
 the two per cent, of the net proceeds of the sales of public lands made 
 within her limits, I do not wish as being construed as taking an appeal 
 from the opinion which the honorable Interior Secretary has been pleased 
 to express adverse to the State, although I filed a letter praying such ap- 
 pea 1 , to save the point. I cannot regard that opinion as having any 
 binding authority, or as a decision of the case. The questions of law 
 and tact involved were fully and candidly submitted to you, and after a 
 careful examination you reached the conclusion that the law, in your 
 opinion, is with the State. That conclusion having been expiessed by 
 you in a written communication to me under date of August 26th, of 
 the present year, wherein you say, "I sent the papers to the Secretary of 
 the Interior, with an indorsement that my impression of the law was not 
 changed, and in another (the indorsement you refer to) in which you 
 said you believed the law was with the State, I hold to be such an ex- 
 pression of your opinion as ought to have been respected and acted on 
 in the Interior Department. I do not claim that in a legal sense yon 
 expressly passed upon or decided the case, but only that you gave an 
 expression of your view of the law. At the time you did this 1 admit 
 the case was not before you for determination. But if it could be assumed 
 that you had passed upon it definitely and finally, the following argu- 
 ments pertaining to a determination, would seem to be just and conclu- 
 sive, and may, perhaps, apply with some force to the obligation of an 
 inferior officer to carr}' out the will or judgment of his superior; espe- 
 cially when it is made the duty of that superior to "take care that the 
 laws are faithfully executed," imposing upon HIM both the legal and 
 moral obligation to do it. 
 
 All the executive power of the United States is vested by the Consti- 
 tution, in the President. It is his duty to see that the laws are faith- 
 fully executed. Plis power of delegating his authority goes no further 
 than to direct how, in general or in particular, his determinations shall 
 be executed. He has no power to give to a subordinate executive offi- 
 cer authority to make a different decision, for that would be an evasion 
 of his own oath of office, and defeat the guaranty of his own responsi- 
 bility. Therefore, when the President has decided the law, and reached 
 a concluion in any matter of executive responsibility in his own proper 
 person, nothing remains for any interior officer to do, but to carry that
 
 56 
 
 decision into effect. That inferior cannot determine because there has 
 already been a determination by the executive himself. 
 
 Every determination of the President requires some sort of action to 
 carry it into effect. It must be authenticated in the departments accord- 
 ing to the usual methods of public business. Bat all such methods and 
 all such authentications are something more and something subsequent 
 to the determination. 
 
 Taa dstarminition, decision, judg.nsnt or will of the Executive on a 
 subject matter properly before him, disposes of that matter, and nothing 
 is left for auy department, officer or agent to do but to carry into effect 
 the decision and preserve its history. It is wholly immaterial what the 
 question is which is so disposed of, so that it arose in the line of execu- 
 tive duty and was determined. When the determination is made, no 
 other determination can be made by any subordinate will. 
 
 But should your Excellency consider the opinion rendered by the In- 
 terior Secretary a decision, I still desire to urge that it is entirely cooi- 
 petent and proper for you to review the action of the Secretary, aud to 
 make his action conform to your opinion. 
 
 The Government is divided into three co-ordinate branches legislative, 
 executive aud judicial each independent of the other, and neither re- 
 sponsible to the other co-ordinate branches for the manner in which it 
 discharges its constitutional functions. I repeat, the constitution pro- 
 vides that the executive department shall be vested in the President, 
 whose most important duty is "to see that the laws are faithfully execu- 
 ted," and of course as HE understands them. Neither of the oilier de- 
 partments can abridge or annul his power. He derives it directly from 
 the national organic act, and the executive~"power is vested in him as an 
 entirety. He cannot constitutionally divide or share it with another if 
 lie would. As a matter of convenience he may and does allow others to 
 act for him, but their acts are, in legal contemplation, h'S own. What 
 they do is impliedly done by him unless he reverses their action. This 
 is the legal conclusion. They are his conveniences not his equals 
 agents to execute his will not his co-executives his auxiliaries not 
 the original source of power. They are made and unmade by his 
 breath, and it may truthfully be said that, offieiallj 7 , " in him they live, 
 and move, aud hare their being." Hence there can be no question but 
 that the Bupei4tic etn overrule the inferior authority, which constitutes 
 but a branch f ielf, created by law, only to assist the superior power 
 in the details of business without destroying or abridging its attributes. 
 All the refinements of false logic on common sense cannot change this 
 truth. 
 
 Besides, the right of appeal has been sanctioned by usage, and is sup- 
 poit^d by the opinions of the law officers of the Government. I have 
 Lunted up the authorities upon this point, but will leave its particular 
 discussion to the able and distinguished gentleman who appears with 
 mo in behalf of the State, and wlio is far more able to do it justice than 
 I am, contenting myself with a general view of the subject, yet I hope 
 ft correct legal one. 
 
 When the language of the Legislature is so peremptory in directing 
 a subordinate executive officer to do a certain act, as it is in the laws I 
 have cited, certainly the constitution requires that the President, in
 
 57 
 
 whom is located all the executive power, shall see that " the laws are 
 faithfully executed," and it is not in the power of any departmental 
 functionary to intervene, and thurst himself as a barrier between the ob- 
 ligation to perform the act, and the President's obligation to see that the 
 act enjoined is performed. 
 
 The President delegates his power in the manner I have stated, 
 merely that his convenience and that of the public may be thereby sub- 
 surved. To say that an officer, who is the creature of executive con- 
 venience, may refuse to obey a positive legislative enactment, and that 
 the President has no power to control the refusal of such officer, is to 
 relieve the President from his constitutional obligations, and to substi- 
 tute for the executive authority the caprice of an irresponsible subor- 
 dinate. 
 
 Certainly the fraraers of the constitution never intended to place such 
 vast and important power in irresponsible hands never intended to 
 exalt the subalterns above the superior. You are responsible to the 
 people for the manner in which you discharge your duty. They are 
 only responsible to you. and their refusal or omission to execute a law 
 imposes upon you the imperative duty of doing it. If this was not so, 
 the whole executive power of the Government would be parcelled out 
 among those without accountability, arid would become a weak and 
 wicked instrument in the hands of men whom the people could not 
 reach, either for misfeasance or malfeasance in office. A direction to a 
 subordinate to execute a law is a direction to the President. The law 
 may speak directly to the inferior, but it is the duty of the Executive to 
 see that he performs the act. 
 
 When Mr. Whittlesy was first Comptroller of the Treasury, under an 
 appointment from President Taylor, he recognized the binding authority 
 or direction of his superior officer when passing the Galphin claim for 
 interest, by appending to his name or signiture of approval, the word? : 
 " The signing of this certificate is an administrative act," referring to 
 the order or direction of the Secretary of the Treasury for him to sign 
 it. lie was himself opposed to it. If the Treasurer could control the 
 Comptroller, the President can certainly control the head of an execu- 
 tive department, and more especially the Laud Commissioner. 
 
 When Mr. Tyler was President, he directly ordered a claim for to- 
 bacco, destroyed in Maryland, in the war of 1812, which a subordinate 
 officer had refused to allow; and many similar cases to the above onea 
 exist in the executive records, but I leave them for the honorable gen- 
 tleman, with whom I am associated, to use if he thinks proper to do so. 
 
 But, Mr. President, it does not make substantially any diflerence, in 
 my judgment, whether, technically, an appeal lies to you or not. I 
 have never had any great admiration for technicalities or quibbles, nor 
 do I believe you have. The real questions to look at are: Has justice 
 been done? Has the law been executed? or has it been disregarded or 
 violated ? You know, Mr. President, that justice has not been done, 
 and that the law has not been executed, and that it should be. In this 
 state of facts it is my belief you have no discretion, but a plain and im- 
 perative duty to perform, which is " to see that it is executed." No 
 higher constitutional obligation rests upon you. The remedy is in your 
 own hands, and can be easily applied. There are numerous instaiicea
 
 58 
 
 upon the record of the Executive Department, showing that when minis- 
 terial officers refused to execute the laws, Presidents found and adopted 
 ready means to have them executed, and especially when that ministe- 
 rial officer acted in direct violation of the known views of the President, 
 and in total disregard of them. Presidents cannot afford to pursue the 
 shadow; they must follow the substance. They cannot afford to " keep 
 the word of promise to the ear, and break it to the hope ; " and your 
 own high character for integrity furnishes a safe guaranty you will not 
 seek to evade but establish justice. The simple truth is, (and I must say 
 it at the risk of its being regarded unprofessional,) they have underta- 
 ken to turn my State out of court upon false issues, and she does not 
 intend to go out in that way. If she can be beaten fairly on the merits 
 of her cause, that is all well, but she deserves better treatment than to 
 be thrust aside on mere technicalities and assumptions, or crushed by 
 mere power. 
 
 Having now, Mr. President, conclusively shown, as 1 think, by a 
 brief statement of legal propositions and deductions, that you can hear 
 and determine this appeal, if it is to be treated and considered in that 
 light that/a failure to do so will make the opinion of a subordinate 
 your opinion, when it is not in fact and reality yours, I might, with pro- 
 priety rest my case. But if I should do so, I would not, perhaps, be 
 treating you with entire fairness, or my State with justice. 
 
 The Interior Department, as I have already said, having given an 
 opinion adverse to the State's claim, it maybe my duty to briefly review 
 it. From its great length and the evident labor bestowed on that opin- 
 ion, it may be safely assumed, that nothing which could be done has 
 been left undone, to invalidate the rights of Illinois. Not a trace of 
 generous liberality has been applied in the construction of the laws, but 
 the State has been held to the most rigid rule. 
 
 What appears strange, the Interior Department did not act upon the 
 record sent to it from the General Land Office, but assumed independent, 
 original jurisdiction of the case, which it certainly had no right to 
 do, and determined to de nova. The Land Commissioner is direc- 
 ted by the law to state the account, and when he has made out and 
 sent up his record, the interior department has no authority to assume 
 that certain facts exist outside of it to make up a new case; yet this 
 has been done, and the issues changed, without giving me, as the agent 
 of the State, the privilege of being heard. Of this I have just reason 
 to complain. The law provides that an appeal may ba taken in cases 
 coming before the General Land Office, to the Secretary of the Interior. 
 An appeal of what? Evidently of the case before the land office, and 
 as it existed there, and that is the case the Interior Secretary is only 
 legally authorized to act upon, and not upon one made up by himself, 
 and he has not acted on such a case. 
 
 To suffer any other practice to grow up in governmental departments, 
 would not only be legally wrong, but lead to interminable embarrass- 
 ments and difficulties to the Government itself, and work incalculable 
 injury to parties. 
 
 The Land Commissioner refused to make up the account of Illinois, 
 under the act of March 3d, 1857, for the settlement of the five per cent, 
 account of Mississippi and other states, upon the ground that the law
 
 59 
 
 only applied to Indian reservations. The Interior Secretary decides 
 against Illinois upon the additional ground that she has already, as he 
 alleges, received the amount in the construction of the national road. 
 
 The foregoing facts constitute very strong reasons in favor of a direct 
 interference on your part, Mr. President, to the end that justice may bo 
 done, and, of themselves, make this no ordinary case. 
 
 How could the Secretary assume what right had he to assume, that 
 the claim of Illinois had already been liquidated, when no account had 
 been stated by the Land Commissioner ? It is true, the law says " he 
 shall state an account," but the Commissioner says he will not state it, 
 and the Interior Secretary says he need not state it. The law is one 
 way and their dicta another. The law does not say the account "may 
 be stated," but that he is " REQUIRED" to state it. The law leaves to the 
 Commissioner no discretionary power, but is mandatory, direct and 
 positive in its terms, free from doubt or ambiguity. But the Land Com- 
 missioner assumes the right to exercise a discretion to set up his will 
 in lieu of the law in short, refuses to execute it. Whether the law, or 
 his will, supported by the Interior Secretary, is to prevail, remains to be 
 determined. Illinois stands upon the law, and asks that you shall di- 
 rect your ministerial officer to execute it. 
 
 The application made by me, as agent for the State, was to have the 
 account stated under the law to show: 
 
 1st. What was the amount of the two per cent. fund. 
 
 2d. That the amount thus ascertained should be allowed and paid. 
 
 Tlie Commissioner of the General Land Officj refused to state such 
 account on the ground that the law upon which I rely applies only to 
 Indian reservations. From his decision I appealed, and the Interior 
 Secretary sustains the decision of the Commissioner, and gives as his 
 reason, that the amount I claim for the State has already been ex- 
 pended by indirect appropriations for other purposes ! The language of 
 tl^e act is, as I have said, mandatory, and the statement of the account 
 isthej/'6^ thing directed to be dowe. And I affirm that this must be 
 done before it is possible to raise any question as to the account of the 
 State, having been liquidated and balanced by expenditures for diiferent 
 objects. 
 
 I made application to the Land Commissioner to direct an account to 
 be made up, showing what would be two-tilths of the five per cent, of 
 the net pioceeds, arising from the sale of the public lands, sold in the 
 State of Illinois since January 1st, 1816, and based the application upon 
 the act of 1857, which will be found embraced in my report to Governor 
 Yates, and in the Honorable Secretary's opinion, and with which you 
 are familiar. The control of this iund was reserved in the enabling act 
 of the State by Congress, to be expended, under its own direction, " in 
 making roads leading to the State." It was given to the State, but the 
 General Government reserved to herself the right, as trustee, to direct 
 its expenditure in the manner I ha-e already stated, but will make still 
 more evident before I conclude. The inquiry I made for the State, was, 
 what is the amount of the fund thus reserved, and whether the General 
 Government has it now in its possession, and by what authority she re- 
 tains it and if not now, by what authority it has been expended and 
 how.
 
 60 
 
 The State lias a right to know, from the proper accounting officer, 
 definitely, in dollars and cents, what the amount of the fund is, and she 
 has also the right to know definitely, in dollars and cents, what sums have 
 been charged against that fund, and for what purpose, if any, it has been 
 used. The existence of the fund is acknowledged by the Honorable Sec- 
 retary, but the inquiry of the State as to its amount, is now met by the 
 vague negation that "no part of it now remains in the treasury, nor has 
 one dollar of it been diverted from the object for which it was re- 
 served." 
 
 It is certainly but proper that the State should have some tran- 
 script from the Treasury Department, or some statement from some 
 officer, made by law, the medium through which the contents of the 
 treasury are made known, rather than the assertion of a secretary, 
 whose duties are quite other than those relating to the affairs of the 
 treasury. 
 
 By proper inquiry I have ascertained that the books of the Treasury 
 Department do nut show any such fund as that referred to by the Hon- 
 orable Secretary, or that it has been exhausted by the expenditures that 
 he enumerates. The account has never been stated, and no man knows 
 to-day what it is. I approximated it in my report to Governor Yates, on 
 the basis of the three per cent, fund, and the Secretary appears to have 
 acted on that approximation. I supposed he would require from the 
 Treasury Department an authentic statement of the account before he 
 arrived at a conclusion on the point, and the fact that he did not obtain 
 it, is a convincing reason why the case should be reviewed. 
 
 In confirmation of what 1 have said, I beg leave to respectfully read 
 the following statements, furnished me from the Treasury Department. 
 It appears from the certificate of the Acting Register that no account has 
 ever been kept in that department of the two per cent, fund of Illinois. 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, Sept. 3, 1863. 
 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS, WASHINGTON CITY : 
 
 SIR Your communication, of yesterday's date, has been received, 
 and in reply thereto you are informed that no account has ever been 
 kept or stated in this office for the two-fifths of five per cent* oi' the net 
 proceeds of public lands lying within, the State of Illinois. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 R. W. TAYLER, 
 
 Comptroller. 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, REGISTER'S OFFICE, Sept. 3, 1863. 
 
 I hereby certify that the records of this office show that no account 
 has been kept with the State of Illinois on account of the two per cent, 
 fund. R. SOLGER, 
 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS. Acting Register. 
 
 But, Mr. President, permit me to refer more particularly to the law 
 of 1857, and the construction given to it. The Land Commissioner says 
 "it relates to money received by the Government for lands which have 
 been reserved for certain Indian tribes," and there he leaves it. The 
 duty was left to the Honorable Secretary of supplying the argument,
 
 61 
 
 and he has adopted the novel mode of arriving at a conclusion entirely 
 from extraneous circumstances, and not by putting upon, or even at- 
 tempting to give an interpretation to the words and context of the law 
 itself. Reduced to the form of a sylogism, his argument is this: There 
 is a law of 1841 ; that law provides for paying the two per cent, to Mis- 
 sissippi; therefore Congress has not passed any other law embracing 
 the same object. Again, there were certain Indian reservations in Mis- 
 sissippi ; Congress passed an act providing for paying to Mississippi five 
 per cent, on those reservations ; therefore Congress did not embrace 
 any other object or purpose in t|ie law of 1857. 
 
 The Honorable Secretary, in his opinion, says : " Mr. Morris contends 
 that Alabama and Mississippi received the two per cent, fund by virtue 
 of the above acts, and that the second section of the act of 1857 makes 
 the provisions of the preceding section general, and consequently being 
 applicable to the State of Illinois, justifies the claim in qoefttioa. 
 
 "The argument, therefore, is grounded upon an assumed fac*", and I 
 may concede that a casual examination of those acts, without regard to 
 pre-existing legislation, and the peculiar circumstances which" led to 
 their passage, would apparently sanction Mr. Morris' conclusion. The 
 assumption of the fact is, however, gratuitous and untenable. Congress 
 relinquished the two per cent, to the States of Alabama and Mississippi 
 by the 16th and 17th sections of the act approved September 4th, 
 1841." 
 
 When the Honorable Secretary made the foregoing statement, my re- 
 port to Gov. Yates was before him, and he was making frequent refer- 
 ences to it. It, therefore, seems almost inexcusable that he should so 
 materially misapprehend my position. What I say in that report is 
 this: 
 
 " What, as he (the Land Commissioner) seems to suppose, two sections 
 incorporated into the pre-emption act of 1841, relating to the two per 
 cent, fund due Alabama and Mississippi, can have to do with the con- 
 struction of the act of 1855 and 1857, making no reference to the special 
 legislation referred to, is more than I can discern. The Commis- 
 sioner seems to forget that the laws of 1855 and 1857 were passed 
 long subsequent to the special legislation of 1841, and that the act of 
 1857 is a general act, intended for the benefit of all the states, and re- 
 quires the live per cent, to be paid to each state. Is each state to be 
 deprived of its rights under that act because some sixteen years before, 
 Congress passed a special law for Alabama and Mississippi? The Com- 
 missioner certainly cannot doubt but that Mississippi, if she had not 
 previously received her five per cent., could receive all or any part of it 
 under the act of 1857; and, if Mississippi, why not ' each of the other 
 states?' The law so provides, and covers the original sura and all 
 arrears due Mississippi and other states." 
 
 After misstating my premises ; after asserting that my argument is 
 founded upon an assumed fact ; after asservating that the assumption of 
 that fact was gratuitous and untenable, the Secretary gravely comes to 
 the conclusion that the argument is ungrounded! I submit, from the 
 showing I have made, that, having ascribed to me wrong premises, his 
 conclusions are necessarily false. " The mote is in his own eye," and I
 
 62 
 
 respect fully return upon him the compliment, that his "assumption of 
 the fact is gratuitous and untenable." 
 
 Tiie law of 1841 does, as the Honorable Secretary has stated, relin- 
 quish to Mississippi the two per cent, fund arising from the fifth section 
 of her enabling act, to be paid in two equal installments, and quarterly 
 after the payment of the last installment; but I am unable to perceive 
 any good reason in this why Congress should not subsequently pass aw. 
 act requiring ike whole Jive per cent, account to be stated "for the pur- 
 pose" as the language of the law is, "of ascertaining what sum or sums, 
 of 'money are due to said State \ (Mis&issfopiJ) heretofore unsettled, on ac- 
 count of the public lands in said State" under the provisions of the sec- 
 tion of her enabling act I have just referred to, and require any balance 
 to be paid. 
 
 The same is true of Alabama, for the law of 1857, passed for the 
 relief of Mississippi, and other states, is founded on the Alabama act of 
 1855, with which your Excellency is familiar. 
 
 The Honorable Secretary, on the basis of the foregoing premises, ar- 
 rives at the strange conclusion that the act of 184:1 interposes, as an 
 insuperable barrier, to the rigVts of Illinois under the law of 1857 ! I 
 am not able to see the matter in that light, and it would certainly re- 
 quire a legal microscope of extraordinary power to discover the legiti- 
 macy of his conclusion. 
 
 Having planted the act of 1841 as an outpost, to guard his further 
 progress, and as furnishing a proper interpretation of -the law of 1857, 
 the Honorable Secretary advances upon the Indian reservations in Ala- 
 bama and Mississippi, the history of which, and the claims growing out 
 of them, he details at some length, which features it is wholly immate- 
 rial I should examine, as they are extra-judicial matters injected into his 
 opinion, and properly have nothing to do with the case. I suppose, 
 however, his object in using the statement he has, pertaining thereto, is 
 to sho'w there was no necessity for the law of 1857, except to give to 
 Mississippi five per cent, on Indian reservations, which alone, in his 
 judgment, superinduced its passage. 
 
 In conclusion he says : 
 
 "Now in view of the inducements that led to the passage of these 
 laws and the objects they were intended to accomplish, I submit that 
 but one construction can be given them. 
 
 " They plainly require that in ascertaining the amount of five per 
 cent, due to those states by virtue of existing laws, the reservations under 
 treaties should be included in the account, and that the land covered by 
 them should be estimated at $1,25 per acre. 
 
 " The section section requires that the Commissioner should state an 
 account between the United States and each of the other states upon the 
 same principle. 
 
 " Upon what principle ? The obvious answer is the principle that the , 
 land reserved under Indian treaties should be regarded as so much land 
 sold by the United States, and should be estimated at $1,25 per acre. 
 
 " I am unable to perceive that the claim which Mr. Morris repre- 
 sents, has any foundation in the letter of these acts, or in their spirit, 
 meaning or intention."
 
 63 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I propose to briefly analyze the law of 1855, 
 passed for the benefit of Alabama, and the law of 1857, passed for the 
 benefit of Mississippi and other states, and see whether their sole abject 
 was to give to the states five per cent, on Indian reservations, and 
 whether they require nothing more, as the Honorable Secretary asserts, 
 than to include in the five per cent, account authorized to be paid by 
 previous acts of Congress, the five per cent, on the value of Indian reser- 
 vations. For that object, why was it necessary to state a new account? 
 
 The Honorable Secretary says he is unable to perceive that the claim 
 which I represent has any foundation in the "spirit, meaning or inten- 
 tion" of the acts of 1855 and 1857. If they have no such foundation I 
 ask no benefit from them for Illinois if they have, the Honorable Sec- 
 retary's long experience in the law, and great acumen, ought to enable 
 him to discover it, and grant to my State the rights she is entitled to 
 under them. It will not avail to make a simple declaration, and leave 
 it unsupported by argument. I desire nothing more than that the laws 
 should be tested by all the legal rules of construction, their words, con- 
 tents, subject matter, effect and consequence, spirit and reason, but at 
 the same time, I protest against their being set aside by outside issues, 
 and deductions drawn from those issues. 
 
 How can "other states" have their five per cent, account on public 
 lands stated, if they had no Indian reservations, if, as the Honorable 
 Secretary asserts, the five per cent, on those reservations was to attach to 
 said accounts or be included in them ? According to the assumption of 
 the Honorable Secretary, there must exist another law, authorizing the 
 payment of the five per cent, on the public lauds sold within a state be- 
 fore an account can be stated and paid. Where there is no such law 
 and I admit no special act has been passed for the benefit of Illinois 
 there can be no statement, according to his logic, of the five per cent, ac- 
 count, so that the second section of the act of 1857, relating to " other 
 states," is rendered entirely nugatory. In other words, the legislative 
 power of the Government was guilty of the consummate folly, according 
 to the Honorable Secretary's reasoning, of passing an act without an 
 object, and without a meaning. I leave the Honorable Secretary to re- 
 concile, as best he can with Congress, the difference between them. 
 
 Let the argument be stated in another form. According to the Hon- 
 orable Secretary's logic, another law must exist, as a basis for the com- 
 putation of the five per cent. It was so with Alabama and Mississippi, 
 aiid he thinks it must necessarily be so with other states, and therefore, 
 where there is no such law, there can be no such computation, according 
 to his opinion. And yet the land commissioner, confining himself 
 within the scope and meaning of the Honorable Secretary's opinion, de- 
 cides that under the law of 1857 Illinois is entitled to the five per cent, 
 on her Indian reservations, which amount to 41,754 59-100 acres in the 
 aggregate, and that he will state that account with a view to its pay- 
 ment. I beg leave to read the correspondence which passed between 
 us on the subject. 
 
 [NOTE. This correspondence will be found in a subsequent part of 
 the report, relating to the per cent, on Indian reservations.] 
 
 How can the commissioner state the account, when, by the very terms 
 of the law, it is not to be regarded as a separate, distinct, substantive
 
 64 i 
 
 account, but an account to be "included" in another account, to wit: 
 the five per cent, land account. The absurdity into which the Honora- 
 ble Secretary and the Honorable Land Commissioner have fallen, is so 
 apparent that the proposition need only be stated to be understood. 
 Why did the law of 1857 provide for or say anything about stating an 
 account, under the fifth section of the enabling act of Mississippi, it" that 
 was not to be done? It could simply have provided for the payment 
 to that state, and would have so provided if that had been its sole ob- 
 ject of the five per cent, on Indian reservations. There is nothing in ' 
 the fifth section of the enabling act of Mississippi which in anywise re- 
 fers to Indian reservations, or which relates to five per cent, thereon, 
 but it relates exclusively to the five per cent, on public lands within the 
 state, upon which five per cent, was to be computed, and then the five 
 per cent, on Indian reservations was to be added, or " included" that 
 is the word the law uses. 
 
 What is true of Mississippi is equally true of Illinois, one of the "other 
 states." The five per cent, on the public lands valued at $1,25 per 
 acre, was first to be stated, in the form of an account, and then the five 
 per cent, on Indian reservations was to be "included," that is, put in 
 the account, and the whole amount "allowed and paid." This conclu- 
 sion is as inevitable as that two and two make four. No reasoning or 
 sophistry can overthrow it, and it is but trifling with legitimate deduc- 
 tions to attempt it. So clear is it that we might as well cavil with the 
 decree of the Almighty, when He spoke the sublime words, " Let there 
 be light, aisd there was light." 
 
 But the Honorable Secretary says, after reaching the conclusion on 
 the basis of his method of reasoning, and this is all he says about it: 
 
 "The second section" (referring to the law of 1857,) "requires that 
 the commissioner should state an account between the United States and 
 each of the other states, upon the same principle." 
 
 "Upon what principle? The obvious answer is, the principle that 
 the land, reserved under Indian treaties, should be regarded as so much 
 land sold by the United States, and should be estimated at $1,25 per 
 acre." This is all true enough. It is all true that Indian reservations 
 were to be treated as land sold, and this is the s r le conclusion the Hon- 
 orable Secretary draws from the second section of the act. Is there 
 anything in the simple fact that Indian reservations should be regarded 
 and treated as lands "sold" to exclude the deduction that an account 
 should be stated on the net proceeds of the public lands? Certainly no 
 such deduction can properly be drawn from the law itself, for the very 
 groundwork of that law is that the account shall be stated on the lands 
 sold, and then provides that Indian reservations shall be treated in the 
 computation as such lands. The Honorable Secretary has sought for, 
 without finding, a secure refuge under a conclusion, right enough in it- 
 self, but essentially Avrong when tested by the entire provisions of the 
 law. And yet, in language covering ten lines, upon such reasoning as 
 I have stated, he seeks to set aside the important interest of my State. 
 The tact alone that Indian reservations were to be treated as lands 
 *' sold," shows of itself that both were to be included in the account to 
 be stated. I protest, in the name of my State, against his reasoning,
 
 65 
 
 and his deductions. Both are unfounded, except upon violent presump- 
 tions and false conclusions. 
 
 The very title of the act of 1857, which is its best interpreter, sustains 
 the construction 1 have given to the law. It is "An act to settle certain 
 accounts," using the plural term, "between the United States and the 
 state of Mississippi," not to settle an account, but '"certain accounts" 
 thus showing conclusively that the live per cent, land account, and the 
 five per cent, account on Indian reservations, were both to be included. 
 As with Mississippi, so with the "other states." Their accounts not 
 account were both to be stated ; that is, the five per cent, account on 
 the public lands sold, and the five per cent, on Indian reservations, 
 which, when ascertained, was to be included in the first or land account; 
 and, when thus stated, the law declares they shall be "allowed and 
 paid." Notwithstanding this is so plain, the land commissioner only 
 proposes to state the account of the five per cent, on Indian reservations. 
 I submit that his action is wrong, and in palpable disregard of the very 
 letter of the law. 
 
 The account to be stated for Alabama and Mississippi was not an ac- 
 count alone of the two per cent, which the law of 1841 provided for 
 paying, but the whole five per cent, account on public lands, including, 
 ot course, the three per cent, which they had received under and by vir- 
 tue of their enabling acts, and any balance fuund due was to be allowed 
 and paid, the law covering both the two and the three per cent, fund, so 
 that the llonorable Secretary could have applied, with the same propri- 
 ety and correctness, and traced to an equally original origin, the law of 
 1857, if he had applied it to and grounded it on the special anterior acts 
 of 1817 and 1811), enabling the people of Alabama and Mississippi terri- 
 tories to form state governments, as he did in tracing it to and Bounding 
 it on the law of 1841, providing for the payment of the two per cent, 
 fund to those states ; and to the three per cent., placed by the first acts 
 directly under the control of the legislatures of those states, as he did to 
 the two per cent, provided to be paid over under the last named act. He 
 could also have found an interpretation equally intelligent and reasona- 
 ble for the necessity of passing the act of 18ii, in the enabling acts for 
 Alabama and Mississippi, as he did in finding a necessity for the act of 
 1857, in the law of 1841. The act of 1857 relates to the laws of 1817 
 and 1810, precisely as it does to the law of 1841. Then why allow the 
 latter, as he does, to furnish the only solution for the necessity of its 
 passage? The reason may be found in something else, perhaps in an 
 anxiety for a refuge, but certainly not in his interpretation of the reason 
 why the law of 1857 was passed, to wit : to cover Indian reservations, 
 as the act of 1841 covered the two per cent. Did not the laws of 1817 
 and 1819 cover the three per cent. ? And why should not the necessity 
 for its passage be found in the latter laws as well as the former ones? If 
 all or any part of either fund remains unpaid to Illinois upon the accoun f 
 being stated, that is. upon ascertaining if any, and if so, how much, has 
 been paid, the remainder shall be allowed and paid, deducting the pay- 
 ments from the sum total. In short, the law of 1857 provides for closing 
 up the whole five per cent, accounts of the states, by declaring that the 
 amounts found due should be paid to them upon being stated. This is 
 just what it means nothing more, and nothing less and just what it 
 7
 
 (56 
 
 was intended to mean. No legal mind can make, legitimately or logi- 
 cally, anything else out of it. It' it does not mean that it means nothing, 
 and is a legislative abortion. Suppose Alabama and Mississippi had 
 demanded, under the law of 1857, a statement of their whole five per 
 cent, account, and they may have done it for aught I know, for it was 
 not a material inquiry with me, and the payment of any balance due, 
 would they not have had a right to make the demand, and would it not 
 have been clearly the duty of the land commissioner to have complied 
 with such demand ? If Alabama and Mississippi had such a right, why 
 not Illinois? Why refuse to deal out to her equal and exact justice? 
 "Why deny her an equal privilege under the law ? Why this favoritism ? 
 Why turn one state away, when you would not and could not another ? 
 Their rights are equal under the law, and Illinois only asks to be placed 
 where Alabama and Mississippi now stand. If it was not the intention 
 of Congress to place the "other states" on an equal footing with Ala- 
 bama and Mississippi, in respect to the five per cent., why did they say 
 anything about it in that connection ? and why did they so provide ? 
 
 "Ai? act to settle certain accounts between the United States and the 
 state of Alabama," approved March 2d, 1855, requires "an account to 
 be stated." What account ? The account relating to Indian reserva- 
 tions? No. What account then? The law is specific in defining it. 
 It says " that the Commissioner of the General Land Office shall state 
 an account between the United States and the state of Alabama, for the 
 purpose of ascertaining what sum or sums of money are due to said 
 state, heretofore unsettled, under the sixth section of the act of March 
 second, eighteen hundred and nineteen, for the admission of Alabama 
 into the Union." What language could be plainer ? The land com- 
 missioner is "required" that is the word used in the law to state an 
 account. Between whom? "The United States and the state of Ala- 
 bama." For what object ? For the purpose of ascertaining what sum 
 or sums of money are due to said state, heretofore unsettled. Under 
 what? The sixth section of the act of 1819, allowing the people of the 
 territory of Alabama to form a constitution and state government, pre- 
 paratory to their admission into the Union. What is the provision of 
 that section? I will read it: 
 
 " That five per cent, of the net proceeds of the lands lying within 
 the said territory, and which shall be sold by Congress, irom and after 
 the first day of September, in the year one thousand eight hundred and 
 nineteen, after deducting all expenses incident to the same, shall be re- 
 served for making public roads, canals, and improving the navigation 
 of rivers, of which three-fifths shall be applied to those objects within 
 the said state, under the direction of the legislature thereof, and two- 
 fifths to the making of a road or roads leading to said state, under the 
 direction of Congress." 
 
 If the law stopped as far as I have quoted it, there would be found 
 in it nothing about Indian reservations, but it goes on to say " and that 
 he" referring to the land commissioner " be required to include in the 
 said account the several reservations under the various treaties with the 
 Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek Indians, and allow and pay to the said 
 state five per cent, thereon, as in the case of other sales," so that the In- 
 dian reservations are only cumulative, and not, as the Honorable Secre-
 
 67 
 
 tary supposes, the original substantive object of the legislation. If any 
 arrears were found due to Alabama, under the sixth section of the act 
 admitting her into the Union, they were to be stated and paid by the 
 act of 1857, whether they were parts of the two or three per cent, fund, 
 eo that it became necessary that the law should be wide enough and 
 broad enough to cover the whole subject. But aside from this I submit 
 whether there was any necessity for the law or not. Congress was the 
 proper judge, and not the Honorable Secretary, who argues upon the 
 assumption there was no necessity for it. That is not the question not 
 the proper subject of inquiry the real question is, does the law exist ? 
 If your excellency will turn to the Honorable Secretary's opinion, you 
 will find it there. 
 
 The "Act to settle certain accounts between the United States and 
 the'state of Mississippi, and other states," is based upon the Alabama 
 act, and is similar in its provisions, except that it is made general in its 
 terms, and fixes the value of all public lands, as well as Indian reserva- 
 tions, upon which the five per cent, is to be stated and paid, at $1,25 per 
 acre, which the Alabama act omitted. Illinois is one of the " other 
 states," included in the law, and I only ask in her behalf the benefit of 
 its provisions only ask that she shall be placed on an equal footing, 
 vrhere the law places her, with Alabama and Mississppi. 
 
 What does the second section mean when it fixes the value of "all 
 lands" as well as ' permanent reservations," using both terms, at $1,25 
 per acre, but that the computation of the five per cent, should be made 
 upon both ? What does the law mean when it says the amount thus 
 found due " shall be allowed and paid ?" it means precisely what it 
 says or it means nothing. It is either a plain statute, which any one 
 can understand, or it is a piece of useless legislative folly. Confine the 
 construction to the strictest letter of the act, and allow no spirit of gen- 
 erous liberality towards a state let the harshest, most rigid and parsi- 
 "monious course be adopted by your ministerial officers, and still the law 
 is with Illinois. Every effort to baffle, distort or overthrow it, leaves it 
 the same plain, unmistakable statute. Its provisions may not be com- 
 plied with, but they cannot bo misunderstood ; they may be disregarded, 
 but they cannot be construed away. They are too plain to cavil over. 
 - Some may, and probably will, derive the impression from the tenor 
 of a portion of the Honorable Secretary's opinion, that Illinois was 
 only entitled to three per cent, on her public lands, which she received, 
 while Alabama and Mississippi were entitled to five. The fact is, each 
 was equally entitled to the five per cent, the provisions in their enabling 
 acts being similar, except that Illinois took three parts of her five per 
 cent, for educational purposes, while the other states took theirs for pur- 
 poses of improving the navigation of rivers, and constructing roads and 
 canals. Each state had and held an absolute right in the fund set apart 
 to them, but Congress reserved to itself the right, as trustee, to expend 
 two parts of each, to construct a road or roads, leading to each state 
 respectively. The money, when it accumulated in the treasury, did not 
 belong to the General Government, but to the states. They had ren- 
 dered a full equivalent therefor, by a stipulation between them and tho 
 United States, that they would not tax the public lands for five years 
 after their entry, nor the lands of non-residents higher than those of
 
 08 
 
 residents, and, in addition, Illinois exempted patented lands from taxa- 
 tion-tor a certain period. That what I have said in regard to the live 
 per cent, belonging to the states may be more clearly understood, I will 
 read the provisions relating thereto, applicable to Mississippi and Illi- 
 nois. i I have already read the one applying to Alabama. 
 
 The tilth section of an act to enable the people of the western part of 
 the Mississippi territory to form a constitution and state government, 
 etc., approved March 1st, 1817, is as follows: 
 
 " That five per cent, of the net proceeds of the lands lying within said 
 territory, and which shall be sold by Congress from and after the first 
 day of December next, after deducting all expenses incident to the same, 
 shall be reserved for making public roads and canals, of which three- 
 fifths shall be applied to those objects within the said state, under the 
 direction of the legislature thereof, and two-fifths to the making of a 
 road or roads leading to the said state, under the direction of Con- 
 gress." 
 
 The act admitting Illinois into the Union, entitled " An act to enalle 
 the people of the Illinois territory to form a constitution and state gov- 
 ernment, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal 
 footing with the original states," approved April 18, 1818, says in sec- 
 tion sixth, condition third : 
 
 " That five per cent, of the net proceeds of the lands lying within such 
 state, and which shall be sold by Congress, from and after the first day 
 of January, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, after deducting 
 all expenses incident to the same, shall be reserved for the purposes fol- 
 lowing, viz: two-firths to be disbursed, under the direction of Congress, 
 in making roads leading to the state, the residne to be appropriated by 
 the legislature of the state, for the encouragement of learning, of which 
 one sixth part shall be exclusively bestowed on a college or university." 
 
 The sum claimed by Illinois has already been appropriated to that 
 State. The sixth section of her enabling act reserved it to her. Simi- 
 lar provisions in the enabling acts of other states, or in the nets providing 
 for their admission into the Union, reserved a like sum to them respec- 
 tively. There has been a uniform construction given by the General 
 Government to the provisions reserving the five per cent, to (he states, 
 and no one has ever doubted that those of them in which public lands 
 were located are legally entitled to it. In cases where it has not been 
 paid over, it remains a reserved fund in the United States Treasury, as 
 the property of the state, and the law of 1857, which attaches itself to 
 the provisions setting aside and reserving it, declares "it shall be allowed 
 and paid." What further legislation is necessary? Illinois has so 
 much money in the National Treasury, and the law says to the propei 
 accounting officer "state her account" under the sixth section of her 
 enabling act, and when you have ascertained the amount of the five per 
 cent, on her public lands and Indian reservations, if only three parts of 
 it has been paid to her, pay the balance. Is it possible for any legisla- 
 tion to be plainer? The laws speak for themselves and plead my cause 
 for me, not with dumb and silent mouths, but living voices Congress 
 has done its duty. If public officers refuse to do theirs, hold them to a 
 proper accountability for it. Illinois cannot do more with them than to 
 send up into their ears her voice, which she will do, in vindication of
 
 69 
 
 her rights and honor, and expects to be heard and understood when she 
 does speak. Her great interests have been sported with, and must she 
 remain quiet ? Must she neglect to speak for her rights, and speak 
 p ainly ami openly ? Candor is the soul of honesty and truth. Without 
 it they are the priceless treasures of Heaven hidden under the garb of 
 duplicity. Illinois always talks plain. 
 
 We have seen that the Hon. Secretary claims, in his opinion, that not 
 a dollar of the two per cent, of Illinois has been diverted from the 
 original object for which it was appropriated by Congress. Was it a 
 legal and proper use of it to build a road with it, leading to the State, 
 and then give that road to Indiana, his own State, as was done? Was 
 it a legal and proper nse of it to squander the amount on detached por- 
 tions o|; work on the National road in my own State, and then abandon 
 the enterprise, leaving all that had been accomplished in a useless and 
 worthless condition ? If such is the lion. Secretary's legal conclusion, 
 and it seems to be, I must differ from his construction of the 6th section 
 of the act admitting Illinois into the Union, which sets apart and 
 reserves to the State five per cent, on her public lands, and provides 
 that two parts of it shall be expended under the direction of Congress 
 in "making roads leading to the State," not in making a road and 
 giving it to Indiana, not in making an attempt to build a road, and then 
 abandoning it, but to " make roads" Where is the road "made" for 
 the benefit of Illinois? I will be greatly obliged to the lion. Secretary 
 if he will point it out, and so will my State. I again ask where is it? 
 Where is her road? Has Indiana got it? Is there the trouble? The 
 Hon. Secretary entirely overlooks or ignores the fact that after the road 
 was constructed through Indiana to the border of Illinois it was dona- 
 ted by Congress to his own State, and this, in his view, is complying 
 with the law! 
 
 But suppose we admit, for the sake of argument, all that the Hon. 
 Secretary has said, still he seems to have forgotten the important facts 
 that the law of 1857 was passed long subsequent to all acts making 
 appropriations for the National road, and that that law is the last mind 
 of the Legislature, and is consequently to govern. The mistake he has 
 made is that he has been traveling through old and gloomy sepulchres, 
 looking for living forms where none exist. He speaks through the 
 dead, and not the living. The law of 1857 is the monumental shaft 
 which rises over the spot where lies entombed the acts reserving the 
 t\vo per cent, fund of Illinois for the purpose of constructing the 
 National road, and upon which is inscribed the epitaph, "that road 
 belongs to Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Indiana Illi- 
 nois has no beneficial part or lot in it." 
 
 'In short the whole case is in a nnt shell, if I am allowed to use a 
 western phrase. Mississippi applied to Congress for an act, as Alabama 
 had previously done, to have her five per cent, account stated under her 
 enabling act, and proposed that her Indian reservations should be inclu- 
 ded in it. Congress did not see the justice or propriety of those states 
 receiving the five per cent, without applying the same principle to other 
 states, and hence amended the bill of Mr. Brown so as to have their live 
 per cent accounts stated, allowed and paid upon the basis that "all 
 lands and permanent reservations should be estimated at $1 25 per acre." 
 
 It is noticeable that the Hon. Secretary does not, in h;s lengthy opin-
 
 70 
 
 ion, attempt to discuss the law, but to defeat its provisions, and debar 
 my State of her rights under it, by thrusting before her matters which 
 have as little to do with the law itself as they have with the moral code. 
 It is also a singular fact, that of all the legal minds, (and some of them 
 of the very highest order,) to whom the question has been officially or/ 
 unofficially submitted, not one has been found outside of the Interior 
 Department, that has not arrived at the conclusion that Illinois is enti- 
 tled legally to the benefits I claim for her. 
 
 The history of the act is brief, and I might as well give it, as it will 
 assist in the elucidation of the law. The thirty-fourth Congress organ- 
 ized on Monday, the 4-th of March, 1856, after a long contest in the 
 House of Representatives for the election of Speaker, which resulted in 
 the choice of Mr. Banks. On that day, Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, 
 introduced into the Senate a bill to settle certain accounts of Mississippi 
 with the United States. (See Senate Journal, first .session, 34th Con- 
 gress, page 84:.) The bill was referred to the committee on public lands, 
 (the appropriate committee,) and on the 29th of April they reported it 
 back with an amendment. (See Senate Journal of same Congress, page 
 290.) It passed the Senate on the following 5th of May. (See Senate 
 Journal, page 304:.) Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, was the member of the 
 committee who reported it back, its passage having been unanimously 
 recommended. Mr. Brown was the only Senator who discussed it, and 
 he did so briefly. I will read all that was said and done at the time of 
 its passage : 
 
 "Mr. BROWN The committee on public lands on Thursday last 
 reported back the bill introduced by me (S. No. 4:) to settle certain 
 accounts between the United States and the State of Mississippi. The 
 principle on which it is based has already been settled by the action of 
 Congress. It applies to my State, and the amendment of the commit- 
 tee embraces like interests in other states. I ask the indulgence of the 
 Senate to take up and pass it now, so that it may have a fair opportunity 
 of getting through the House of Representatives at the present session 
 of Congress. If it embraced any new principle I should not ask to 
 have it taken up now." 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the Senate proceeded, as a committee 
 of the whole, to consider the bill which proposes to direct the Commis- 
 sioner of the General Land Office to state an account between the Uni- 
 ted States and the State of Mississippi, for the purpose of ascertaining 
 what sum or sums of money are due to that State, heretofore unsettled, 
 on account of public lands, and upon the same principles of allowance 
 and settlement as are prescribed in the " Act to settle certain account^ 
 between the United States and the State of Alabama," approved March 
 2, 1855. He is to include in the account the several reservations under 
 the various treaties with the Chickasaw and Chocktaw Indians within 
 the limits of Mississippi, and allow to the State five per centum thereon, 
 as in case of other sales, estimating the lands at the value of $1 25 per acre. 
 
 The committee on public lands reported the following amendment: 
 
 And le it further enacted, That the said commissioner shall also state 
 an account between the United States and each of the other states, 
 upon the same principles, and shall allow and pay to each State such 
 amount as shall thus be found due, estimating all lands and permanent 
 reservations at $1 25 per acre.
 
 71 
 
 The amendment was agreed to ; the bill was reported to the Senate 
 as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was 
 ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time and 
 passed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Stuart, the title was amended so as to read, " A 
 bill to settle certain accounts between the United States and the State 
 of Mississippi and other states." ", 
 
 It will be perceived that Mr. Brown says the bill embraced no new 
 principle. The payment of the live per cent, to the states had long 
 been acquiesced in and was no new principle. Hence there can be no 
 misapprehension of the legislative mind and what was intended to be 
 and was provided for. It was the payment of the five per cent. 
 
 It will also be noted that he definitely states that the bill provided for 
 the settlement of certain accounts not for the settlement of an account 
 between the United States and the State of Mississippi, and that the 
 amendment of the committee " embraces like interests " not interests 
 in other states. This explanation of the bill clearly shows the under- 
 standing the introducer of it had the understanding the committee on 
 public lands and the Senate had of it. Its terms were so just to Mis- 
 sissippi and "other states," and its provisions so unmistakable that no 
 one doubted them, or attempted to give any other interpretation to the 
 act. All understood it as relating to the five per cent, to be paid on 
 public lands sold, and on Indian reservations. 
 
 The bill underwent the rigid scrutiny of the Senate committee on 
 public lands, who would not consent to its passage until they had so 
 amended it as to place the "other states" on an equal footing with 
 Alabama and Mississippi in respect to the five per cent. After it reached 
 the House it was referred to the judiciary committee, reported back by 
 them, and its passage unanimonsly recommended. A brief explanation 
 was made of the Indian reservation feature of it by Mr. Lake of Mis- 
 sis^ippi, the rules were suspended, and it passed that body on such sus- 
 pension of the rules. 
 
 The Hon. Interior Secretary refers, in his opinion, to the payment of 
 the five per cent, to Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Min- 
 nesota, Wisconsin and Oregon, and leaves it to be inferred that special 
 laws were passed by Congress, appropriating that fund to the respective 
 states named. Such is not the fact. All had it set directly apart to 
 them, and placed under the control of their respective legislatures by 
 their enabling acts, or the acts providing for their admission into the 
 Union. Louisiana was the first State thus dealt with. Subsequently 
 Congress changed its policy and reserved two-fifths of the five per cent, 
 to be expended under its own direction, and applied this restrictipn to 
 Mississippi, Alabama, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, etc., as it had before 
 applied it to Ohio. In 1836, the restriction was not imposed on Arkan- 
 sas or Michigan, when they came into the Union, nor has it been upon 
 any new State since that period, thus showing the tact that the general 
 government became more and more liberal in her dealings with the 
 younger members of the confederacy, as was entirely proper. 
 
 A portion of the states receiving directly the whole Jive per cent, to be 
 expended under the direction of their own legislatures, it led first to 
 special legislation, to give its control to other states which fad not received 
 all of it, and finally culminated in the general law of 1857.
 
 72 
 
 The lion. Secretary Fays: "It is truly said in argument by Mr. Mor- 
 rie, that the two per cent, has been paid to Missouri, and he expresses 
 the opinion that the reasons which led to the conclusion that Missouri 
 was entitled to it, support with equal force the claim of the State of 
 Illinois. There is this essential difference between the two cases: the 
 payment to Missouri was made in obedience to the requirements of an 
 act approved February 28, 1859." 
 
 I did make the statement attributed to me, when discussing the ques- 
 tion of the National road, as a matter of contemporaneous history, show- 
 ing that Illinois has derived no more benefit from it than Missouri not 
 in the sense in which the Hon. Secretary interprets it. JJut I also 
 stated in my report, that because a State was driven to the necessity of 
 procuring the passage of a special act, to obtain rights she was denied 
 by reluctant officers, that did not deprive Illinois of her rights under 
 the act of 1857. Will the Hon. Secretary say he thinks it does? Let 
 us reduce the argument to the form of a syllogism. Missouri was enti- 
 tled to two per cent for road purposes on her public lands; Missouri 
 got her two per cent, under a law passed in 1859, therefore Illinois has 
 no right to her two per cent, under the act of 1857. It is by such 
 arguments as these that my State is denied justice by the Interior 
 Department. 
 
 There is one other point touching the act of 1857, which I will notice 
 and then dismiss that branch of the subject. The Hon. Secretary says: 
 
 "Mr. Mori-is is of opinion that the decision of a former Secretary of 
 the Interior favors his construction of the act of March 3, 1857. The 
 point involved in tiio appeal from your office, and submitted to the 
 determination of Secretary Thompson, was, whether lands located 
 within the State of Mississippi to satisfy certain Chocktaw scrip issued 
 under the acts of Congress of August 23, 182, and August 3, 18-16, 
 were within the beneficial provisions of the act of 1857. 
 
 He decided that such lands, in adjusting the accounts of that State, 
 "arc to be regarded as constituting a portion of the several reservations 
 under the various treaties with the Chocktaw and Chickasaw Indians." 
 
 The same principle of adjustment, the second section of the act now 
 under discussion, extends to be applied in the settlement of the five per 
 cent, accounts of the "other states." 
 
 The Hon. Secretary's quotation from the opinion of his predecessor, 
 or rather a partial synopsis of and abstract from it, evidently furnished 
 by one of his clerks, proves altogether too much to sustain his position. 
 After disposing of the case before him under the iirst section of the act, 
 Mr. Thompson says: "This same principle of adjustment, the second 
 section of the act now under consideration extends to be applied in the 
 settlement of the live per cent, accounts of oilier states." Yes, "the 
 settlement of the five per cent, accounts of other states!" But Mr. 
 Thompson says more in his opinion which the Hon. Secretary does not 
 think proper to quote, lie adds immediately after the foregoing words 
 "thus as regards justice and right, Alabama and Mississippi are entitled 
 to a liberal construction of the acts of Congress of March 3, 1855. and 
 March 3, 1857, and as a matter of equity between these two states as 
 claimants against the United States and as between them and the other 
 states of the Union, all are entitled to the same equal and liberal con-
 
 73 
 
 struction in carrying the act of 1857" into effect." I submit then I was 
 right in saying that Mr. Thompson's opinion sustains my construction 
 of the law. Had the Hon. Secretary turned to the records of the Gen- 
 eral Land Office, he would have found another opinion there recorded, 
 that of the Hon. Thomas A. Hendricks, of his own State, formerly 
 commissioner of that office and now a United States Senator, a gentle- 
 man of the highest legal ability, which also sustains my construction. 
 
 The Hon. Secretary adopts the opinion of his predecessor, that lands 
 located with Indian scrip are to be treated as lands sold, but there he 
 stops, and does not give the same liberal and proper construction to the 
 act of 1857, which Mr. Thompson said applied to the settlement of the 
 five per cent, accounts not account of the other states. The one is in 
 favor of placing the " other states " on an equality with Alabama and 
 Mississippi by giving to them the five per cent, on their public lands, 
 and on their Indian reservations the same as Alabama and Mississippi 
 received, but the other says Illinois has no- such claim to equality of 
 rights. Ala's for poor Illinois ; true and loyal as she is, she finds the 
 Interior Department slamming the door of public justice in her face. 
 Although she has spoken through her press, her governor, her judges, 
 her State officers, her Legislature and her Congressmen, their united 
 voices are treated as only the distant inurmurings of fraudulent demands, 
 engendered in wrong motives and a clouded intellect. Must she rest 
 under the implied imputation that she can neither present an honest 
 claim or understand her rights? It is her privilege and duty to insist 
 that because the act of 1857 includes Indian reservations, it does not 
 necessarily, as the Honorable Secretary seems to suppose and assume, 
 exclude every other object, purpose and thing. This will be the more 
 apparent when we remember that Mr. Thompson, a former secretary, 
 determined that the law of 1857 extended to be applied to the five per 
 cent, account* of the other states, whereas the acting secretary, who 
 relies upon his opinion misquotes it, and makes him use the word 
 " account," which he did not use a word essentially different from 
 accounts used in the law. To state "an account" is quite a different 
 thing to stating "accounts" as the law requires. 
 
 Mr. President, the Honorable Secretary does not rest his case upon 
 his construction of the act of 1857. He evidently distrusts that ground 
 himself, or else why has he labored to show that Illinois has already 
 received her two per cent, in expenditures on the National road, thus 
 by inference, casting upon her the imputation that she is trying to palm 
 off a fraud on the general government, which I repel as unfounded. 
 
 One of two things is certain. She is either entitled to the payment 
 of her demand under the act of 1 8,57, without regard to the expenditures 
 i eferred to, or she is not entitled fo receive it without further legislation. 
 This I freely admit. Perhaps the same reason, (or it may have been 
 some other one, and if so, it makes no difference) which led to the pas- 
 sage of, .the act of 1859, for the benefit of Missouri, may have led 
 ' (indeed I am' told 'it di3) to the passa'ge of the acts of 1855 and 1857, 
 namely, that government officers refusing to do their duty under previ- 
 ous laws it is often more expeditious and pleasant to procure the passage 
 of another law, to avoid their objections, than it is to contend with 
 them. 
 
 8
 
 74 
 
 It is often said that the United States is the most unjust government 
 in the world towards her honest creditors that her officers labor to 
 evade, and not to execute a law appropriating money to discharge exist- 
 ing obligations. However this may be, the act of 1857 is so full and 
 complete in its terms, that Illinois rests her claim upon it with the con- 
 fident expectation of having it allowed and paid. It may safely be 
 asserted that if the general government never quibbled, caviled or 
 sported with the interest of a State, but always dealt frankly and fairly 
 with her it would be far more likely to secure her enduring and affec- 
 tionate confidence. It ought always to be liberal and magnanimous, 
 but more especially equally just in its dealings with all the statet. 
 
 The Honorable Secretary states that the case of Illinois differs from 
 that of Alabama and Mississippi in that the 16th and 17th sections of 
 the act of 1841 "relinquished" to those states the two per cent. fund. 
 The act of 1857 did precisely for Illinois what the act of 1841 did for 
 Alabama and Mississippi, namely : granted to her the right to possess 
 and control the two per cent, fund, but the whole interests of all the states 
 was covered by the mare comprehensive act of 1857. It is insisted that 
 that fund was retained in the treasury to replace appropriations out of 
 it for the National road. How could this be until the account was 
 stated, for until then there was no fund in the treasury out of which to 
 replace it. The fact is, that at the very time of the appropriations 
 referred to by the Honorable Secretary, no such fund, in any amount, 
 existed anywhere, for but few of the public lands in Illinois had then 
 been sold. When it did accumulate in the treasury, it remained a 
 reserved fund until the act of 1857 vested it in the State, for up to that 
 time, nor since, has there been an account stated by which to determine 
 the sum due the state, or with which she was to be charged, if anything. 
 
 But granting that the fund that existed has been exhausted, let us 
 examine the modes by which it is said to have been absorbed, and see 
 whether Illinois has been fairly and equitably dealt by. 
 
 I will not again travel over the whole question of expenditures on 
 account of the National road. That point I pretty fully discussed in a 
 report to Governor Yates, submitted in April last, copies of which I 
 sent to your Excellency. The opinion of the Honorable Secretary pre- 
 sents no new feature in the aspect of the question, nor has he ventured 
 upon an assault, in direct terms, on Illinois' equitable rights, though his 
 data, unexplained, will leave the impression she has not much equity. 
 For instance, he states her two per cent, fund amounts to $474,000 00 
 that $606,000 00 was appropriated to be expended on the National roW 
 in that State that the work done upon it in Illinois, Congress has 
 relinquished to that State, and therefore he thinks the conclusion must 
 follow that she has no just claim. 
 
 The unfairness of arriving at results in this way is very transparent. 
 
 Let us look at the facts. Some of them have been stated by the 
 Honorable Secretary, if not entirely accurately, at least enough so for 
 all useful purposes. Some he has altogether omitted, which it is neces- 
 sary to know, before there can be a full and proper understanding of 
 the subject. He states that the act 'of May 15, 1820, provides that 
 three commissioners shall be appointed by the President to lay out a 
 road between Wheeling, in Virginia, and the Mississippi river, termina-
 
 75 
 
 ting at a point between St. Louis and the mouth of the Illinois river 
 that it was declared in the act that nothing contained therein should be 
 so construed as obligating the United States to make the road. This is 
 all so, but what of it ? It is quite clear that the Honorable Secretary 
 leaves the inference to be drawn that the United States never placed 
 itself under any obligation to construct the road through Illinois that 
 she was only bound to enter the State and expend the two per cent, 
 fund. This, to say the least, Mr. President, is rather unfair towards 
 your State and mine, for subsequently Congress, from time to time, 
 gave additional assurance that the road was to pass throrgh Illinois to 
 the capital of Missouri, and made appropriations for that object. If 
 she never gave such assurance she never fulfilled, even on the basis of 
 the I^onorable Secretary's reasoning, any part of her obligation. The 
 general government kept its faith with Indiana and Ohio, as stated in 
 my report, but it never kept its faith with Illinois and Missouri. A 
 sum which the Honorable Secretary states to be $606,000, was wasted 
 in Illinois, on detached parcels of work, but the road was never finished, 
 indeed hardly commenced, nor did the State ever derive any benefit 
 from it. The reservation of the two per cent. Jund was based upon the 
 ground that the road would be constructed. la the enabling act it 
 was "reserved" to construct roads leading to the State. Illinois has 
 never received the benefit of any road, constructed or to be constructed, 
 as contemplated by law. There can be no pretence that she has. 
 Hence Illinois has as strong an equitable claim to-day to that fund as 
 she ever had. I think it would have been nothing more than right for 
 the Honorable Secretary to have stated these facts and made this 
 acknowledgment. I admitted in my report to Governor Yates that 
 something more had been expended in Illinois on the National road 
 than the two per cent., but insisted that as the State had got no road 
 "leading to it," or within her limits, nothing but the valueless remains 
 ot an abortive effort to build one, the whole ground for retaining the 
 money had failed. Was I not right? 
 
 There was expended upon the road in Ohio about two and a quarter 
 million dollars, five times, at least the amount of her two per cent, fund, 
 and in Indiana about one and a quarter million, nearly three times as 
 much as her two per cent, fund, while the sum of $606,000 00, men- 
 tioned, by the Honorale Secretary, only exceeds the two per cent, of 
 Illinois in the comparatively pitiful amount of $132,000 00. Besides, 
 Ohio and Indiana got those parts of the road within their limits, they 
 being given to them by special acts of Congress, and for many years 
 have bad toll-gatherers upon them, and at the bridges, thus deriving a 
 revenue from them, while Illinois obtained nothing oj' any value. In 
 this state of fact it is hardly juit to leave the impression,, as the opinion 
 of the Honorable Secretary will be understood, that Illinois stands upon 
 the same ground in respect to the National road that Ohio and Indiana 
 do. Let me repeat, is it just for a report to find its way into the news- 
 papers from the Interior Department, to furnish evidence of its rigid 
 justice, impartiality and watchful economy ! that Illinois stands upon 
 the same footing, in respect to the National road, with Ohio and 
 Indiana ? Is it just for Ohio or Indiana to now say to Illinois " you 
 have no equity no legal rights.'' "get ye behind me, I know ye not?"
 
 76 
 
 The truth is, that the provisions reserving the two per cent, road fund 
 of the states in the laws appropriating money for the National road a 
 road that was advocated and supported on the ground it was to be a 
 military road, over which was to be transported men and munitions of 
 war, and was to increase the value of the public lands are mere baga- 
 telles inserted in the acts to catch the votes of members who did not 
 believe that Congress had the constitutional power to appropriate money 
 out of the National Treasury tor any such object. The fallacy of the 
 whole thing is clearly apparent when we remember that nearly seven 
 million of dollars was expended upon that road, and the entire sum was 
 to be replaced out of the two per cent, fund of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois 
 and Missouri, when that fund is less than two million! 
 
 There was expended upon the road in Ohio and Indiana alone about 
 two and three-quarter million of dollars more than the entire amount 
 of their two per cent, fund, and very nearly two million more than the 
 entire aggregate of the two per cent, fund of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and 
 Missouri combined. The two per cent, of Illinois having thus been 
 absorbed by the expenditures in Ohio and Indiana, those states are 
 enjoying the benefit of it, Congress having, as I have already said, 
 given them the portions of the road lying within their respective limits. 
 This is truly a consoling reflection to Illinois! She ought to be grateful 
 that her citizens are taxed by Indiana for traveling over a road which 
 her own money has assisted to construct ! 
 
 But the Honorable Secretary says Illinois, too, had the work done 
 within her boundaries granted to her by Congress in 1856 a period 
 twenty years after all labor upon it had ceased, and of course up to that 
 period Congress claimed its ownership and control, as is evidenced by 
 the very grant itself. It would have been more proper for him to have 
 said that Congress, by a law of that date, voluntarily proposed to 
 appoint Illinois administrator de bonis non upon a few wasted and 
 crumbling embankments, ruined culverts and rotten bridges. The State 
 respectfully declines the office. 
 
 In the matter of the two per cent, fund of Missouri, Mr. Tappan, 
 from the Judiciary Committee of the House submitted on the 29th of 
 May, 1858, a printed report. After giving the provision of the enabling 
 act of that State, setting apart the five per cent., and which is similar 
 to the one for Illinois, except that three parts of it were taken by Illi- 
 nois for educational purposes while Missouri took her three parts for 1|he 
 purpose of improving her internal communications, says : 
 
 "That part of the fund which it is contemplated by this article shall 
 be applied by the State to improving its internal communications has 
 been duly paid over by the government of the United States. But the 
 two per cent, received by the United States in trust, to be applied to 
 communications leading to the State have not been so applied. The 
 trust has not, therefore, been duly discharged, and the money which 
 the article recognizes as the property of the State, and to be applied for 
 its benefit, should be accounted for to the State by the government of 
 the United States. The two per cent, fund in question belonged to the 
 State, and the interest of the Federal government w r as but that of a 
 trustee, and the sole reason for the arrangement was, that as the govern- 
 ment of the United States had authority outside of the limits of the
 
 77 
 
 State, which the State did not possess, it could apply that portion of the 
 fund intended to facilitate communication to and from the -State and 
 promote its external commerce better than the State itself could do. If 
 the terms of the article itself admitted of any question that this was 
 the nature of the interest of the State in this fund, the original of this 
 provision, which is found in the corresponding article of the 7th section 
 of the act of 30th of April, 1802, 2d Statutes, page 175, entitled "An 
 act to enable the people of the eastern division of the territory north 
 west of the river Ohio, to form a constitution and State government," 
 etc., in which it is expressly admitted that the five per cent, was given 
 to the State as the consideration for the exemption of the lands of the 
 United States within its limits from taxation, would be conclusive on 
 the point. This was certainly a small consideration for the release by 
 the State of a right to tax forty million acres of government lands 
 within its limits, and there is, therefore, the more reason why it should 
 be certainly and fully paid according to the agreement between the 
 parties, or accounted for to the State, if the purpose to which it was to 
 be devoted under the agreement between the parties has been aban- 
 doned. That purpose was the construction of a road (the Cumberland 
 road was intended) to the boundary of Missouri, a purpose which has 
 long since been abandoned, and the government should therefore deal 
 with Missouri as it has dealt with Mississippi and Alabama under simi- 
 lar circumstances direct the two per cent, fund, which was reserved 
 for the purpose thus abandoned, to be paid to the State." 
 
 The same reasoning which was applied to Missouri applies with equal 
 force to Illinois. She obtained no road to her border such as was con- 
 templated in the sixth section of the act providing for her admission 
 into the Union ! That road was to be a FREE public highway or 
 otherwise it was a mockery for the general government to reserve two 
 per cent, of her money to build it. Congress continued to hold and 
 Control the Cumberland or National road as government property until, 
 by its special grants, the respective parts of it lying within the limits of 
 Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Indiana were given to 
 those states ; since which they have possessed, enjoyed and controlled 
 them as their own private property. A private turnpike in Indiana, 
 upon which citizens of Illinois are compelled to pay toll, is certainly not 
 such a road as the State was entitled to not a free road leading TO her 
 border. But as I have heretofore discussed this point, and my arguments 
 not only remain unanswered, but no attempt having been made to 
 answer them, I deem it unnecessary to elucidate it further. 
 
 Nor, Mr. President, will I discuss the whole question of the National 
 road further. I have never discussed it except as a matter of contem- 
 poraneous history, bearing upon the equitable character of the claim of 
 Illinois. The three per cent, fund granted to the State, in her enabling 
 act, for educational purposes, which has also been discussed by the 
 Honorable Secretary, was in no way involved in the claim I made in 
 behalf of my State for the two per cent., nor have I said anything 
 about or had anything to do with it. 
 
 The following conclusions from the premises which I have laid down 
 are inevitable : 
 
 First. That your Excellency is authorized to review the decision of 
 your subordinate.
 
 78 
 
 Second. That the character of the refusal of the Commissioner of 
 the General Land Office is such as to make it positively obligatory on 
 your Excellency to see that the law, requiring an account to be stated, 
 of the five per cent, on the public lands and Indian reservations, and 
 the balance due thereon paid, that is the two per cent., is executed. 
 
 Third. That the Honorable Secretary has not properly stated his 
 case. 
 
 I freely admit the superior ability of the Honorable Secretary, but it 
 is not in his power or that of any other man to overthrow truth, which 
 " is mighty even to the pulling down of strongholds." 
 
 It is claimed by some that the opinion of the Honorable Secretary is 
 the ablest ever rendered in the Interior Department. However, this 
 may be, the real and only question before him, he dismissed in ten lines, 
 by simply arriving at the conclusion that Indian reservations were to 
 be treated as lands sold and the per cent, on them included in the 
 accounts of Alabama and Mississippi stated under- the law of 1841, and 
 therefore Illinois had no rights under the act of 1857 ! How strange 
 that this intellectual result should be regarded as conclusive against the 
 claim of my State ! All the balance of the opinion is properly extra- 
 neous matter. 
 
 1 have not, I am aware, carried out my premises and arguments to 
 all their logical deductions, for it was wholly unnecessary to do it. All 
 I have aimed at was to place the validity of the claim of my State 
 beyond doubt, and I hope I have accomplished that much. Almost an 
 inexhaustible fountain of reasons, justifying and requiring its payment, 
 I have not explored. Illinois cannot be expected to sit down quietly 
 under an act of injustice. Trouble between the general government 
 and the State, growing out of a refusal of the former to liquidate the 
 amount, which may and I think will spring up between them unless it 
 is settled, ought, by all means, to be avoided. The State has given 
 sufficient evidence of her earnest in the prosecution of her demand, and 
 will exhaust every proper means before she yields her rights. But why 
 put her to additional trouble and expense to get them? I am sure your 
 Excellency will not do so. The claim might as well be settled now as 
 at a future day. 
 
 Mr. President, I am now through. This is the last application I can 
 make to the Executive Department to execute the laws, for I have 
 reached the original source of power. It i& hard, indeed, that a sove- 
 reign and loyal state should be forced to fight her way over every inch 
 of ground, encounter every species of hostility and opposition, and meet 
 every kind of embarrassment which talent, state jealousy and ingenuity 
 can invent, when she is only asking for that which is justly her due, 
 upon every consideration, legal and equitable, and which should be 
 granted freely, willingly, without stint, grudging or quibble. 
 
 The result, Mr, President, is with you. I repeat what I have said 
 before, " it is to you the State looks for the fulfillment of her too long 
 delayed rights." It was to you the Legislature addressed their memo- 
 rials. The law and the argument are certainly on the State's side. The 
 power to disregard them, I admit, rests with your ministerial officer, 
 unless you overrule him. "Will you suffer the State to be repulsed ? 
 Will you turn her away to seek redress from other sources, and forever
 
 79 
 
 shut the doors of Executive justice against her? Will you have no 
 share" in the reward of her gratitude ? If you do not uphold and vindi- 
 cate her rights, to whom can she look ? Whatever may be your deter- 
 mination, I shall bcw, as the agent of the State, respectfully to it. I 
 know it is not in your heart to do Illinois an intentional wrong, and I 
 believe you can and will, with firmness, do her justice that you will 
 take the responsibility of dealing fairly with her. Her people expect it, 
 and will be greatly disappointed if you do not sustain your view of the 
 law, which you admit to be with them, and which the Honorable Inte- 
 rior Secretary has admitted to be with them, and said his assistant 
 thought the case a very strong one for the State. All their hopes are 
 centered in you, and now is the propitious moment to give them their 
 rights if not now they may well ask when? The opportunity lost can- 
 not be* regained. Now is the time, or never. The claim of the State is 
 founded in law and right. No stronger or more just one was ever pre- 
 sented against the National Treasury: Let it be allowed. Let the Ex- 
 ecutive will speak out and prevail over the will of the subordinate. iat 
 jvxtitia mat coslum. 
 
 Finally, in conclusion, Mr. President, I would do injustice to my own 
 feelings if I failed to add that I thank you for the courtesy you have 
 uniformly shown me throughout my protracted and troublesome labors 
 in prosecuting the claim of my State I thank you for your respectful 
 attention to my remarks to day for the frankness and candor with 
 which you have uniformly treated the interest of Illinois confided to my 
 care, and especially for your decided order to the Interior Department 
 to take up the case and act upon it. It seemed hermetically sealed up 
 there until you opened its prison doors and let it out, thus enabling the 
 State to gain one step in advance, however wrong the decision that was 
 made. It certainly affords good cause for congratulation that the block- 
 ade has been removed. 
 
 r 
 
 OPINION OF HON. REVERDY JOHNSON. 
 
 The preliminary question on the appeal to the President, in the mat- 
 ter of the claim of the State of Illinois, on which he desires an argument, 
 is whether such an appeal can be legally had ? The following observa- 
 tions are, therefore, respectfully submitted on the point : 
 
 I. On principle. 
 
 By the constitution, the entire Executive power of the government is 
 vested in the President, except in such cases as are otherwise specially 
 provided for. The language ot the second article is, " The Executive 
 power shall be vested in a President," etc. 
 
 The term "the," as here used, clearly means that all such power, with 
 the exceptions referred to, is in the President, and the term "shall" 
 means that it is not to be vested in any other branch of the government. 
 It necessarily excludes all other branches. 
 
 II. By the third section of the same article, the President is to 
 v " commission all the officers of the United States," and " take care that 
 
 the laws be faithfully executed." The execution of the laws is thus ex- 
 pressly made an executive duty. The President, and no one else, is, in 
 terms, made directly and ultimately responsible for that result an un-
 
 80 
 
 faithful execution of, or a total failure to execute, the laws by any execu- 
 tive officer holding his appointment under the President, is a wrong to 
 be especially redressed by the President. In no other way, in such a 
 case, can he see that the law violated is faithfully executed. If his sub- 
 ordinate is authorized to act, except in subjection to his authority, it will 
 ever be in the power of the subordinate to render nugatory the constitu- 
 tional obligation of the President to "take care that the laws be faith- 
 fully executed." 
 
 In the beginning of the Government it was a question whether the 
 President's power of appointment, with the advice and consent of the 
 Senate, of executive officers, carried with it, as an incident, the power of 
 removal, without the like advice and consent? But because, among 
 other reasons, the constitution made it imperative on the President to 
 have tHe laws executed, and of course made him responsible if it was 
 not done, and because he could only have them executed through the 
 designated executive officers, it was held as early as 1789, by Congress, 
 that he necessarily possessed the power of removal, (Kent's Com., 308- 
 309,) and this construction has been maintained by every President, and, 
 in more than one instance, recognized by the Supreme Court. 
 
 Having, then, the power to remove an executive officer, if such officer 
 refuses, or from any cause neglects, to execute the laws, the President 
 is to remove him and appoint another, since in no other way he can dis- 
 charge his express duty " to take care that" the laws be faithfully exe- 
 cuted." It is impossible for him, personally, to execute the laws. Their 
 execution, therefore, by him, or rather his obligation to see that they are 
 executed, is to be through subordinate officers, created for the purpose 
 by Congress, and who, when created, are subject to his superintendence 
 and control, as the constitutional depository of the whole executive 
 power of the Government. If, therefore, a subordinate executive officer 
 fails to carry out a law, the President cannot shelter himself behind such 
 officer from the responsibility imposed upon him, in terms, by the con- 
 stitution, of seeing that the laws are faithfully executed. If a President 
 were to take that ground, it would seem obvious that he could not main- 
 tain it. His subordinates are subject to his power of removal, and are, 
 consequently, subject to his control. Their acts, in contemplation of 
 law, are his acts their misconduct, if unredressed by him, becomes his 
 misconduct. This principle is alike true of .the acts and misconduct of 
 the subordinate officers of the several departments, as of the heads of 
 the departments. Consequently, if a subordinate officer does not per- 
 form his duty under the law, it is as much the obligation as the pro- 
 vince of the President, to direct him to perform it, and to remove him 
 if he continues to refuse, as it is his duty in such a case, to direct or 
 remove a head oi a department. On principle, therefore, irrespective 
 of other authority, it is submitted as clear, that in all cases when an 
 executive officer will not or does not carry out a law, and the fact is 
 made known to the President, it is not only his right but his duty to 
 see that he does it. 
 
 III. But on authority, the point is thought to be equally free of 
 doubt. At one period it was the opinion in the Attorney General's 
 office that the accounting officers of the treasury, in the discharge of 
 their duties, were not under the control of the Secretary. That view
 
 81 
 
 was taken by Mr. "Wirt, on the 20th October, 1823, (1 Opinions Attor- 
 ney General, p. 624). The opposite view, by Mr. Berrien, on the 4th 
 December, 1829, (2nd Vol., p. 302). Mr. Wirt's doctrine was held by 
 Mr. Taney on the 5th April, 183'2, (Ib. 508,) and Mr. Berrien's by Mr. 
 Crittenden, on the 13th November, 1852, (5th Vol., 630,) and this last 
 has ever since been considered by the office as the true doctrine. Mr- 
 Gushing maintained it, with his usual research and ability, on the 31st 
 August, 1855, (7th Vol., pp. 453-464,) and by a report to the President 
 on the 8th March, 1854, (Senate Ex. Doc., 1st Session, 33d Congress, 
 No. 55). That document is herewith submitted, and the President's 
 attention is particularly called to the following extract from pages 12 
 and 13. After referring to the several opinions of his predecessors, 
 relating to the question, he says : " On a question raised by the refusal 
 of the Commissioner of Customs to take the direction of the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, Mr. Crittenden elaborately reviewed the whole subject, 
 and determined, by unanswerable argument, the right of the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, in the given case, and, by analogy, that of other heads 
 of departments, in correspondent cases, (Opinion, Nov. 13, 1852.") 
 
 "Meanwhile, if an opinipn delivered many years ago, by Mr. Wirt, 
 is now to be received as law, then, although an Auditor, as even he ad- 
 mits, is subject to the direction of the Secretary of War, or the Secretary 
 of the Interior, or some other Secretary, as the case may be, yet such 
 Auditor is wholly above the authority of the President, who, neverthe- 
 less, directs the Secretary. Had the idea presented itself as a mere 
 question of the order of business, to the effect that the President should 
 act upon the subordinate officers through the heads of departments, it 
 might have answered as a matter of convenience, but not one of legal 
 necessity. But the idea utterly excludes the authority of the President, 
 and so, while recognizing the authority of the head of department, in 
 effect makes the latter also superior to the President, which is in con- 
 flict with universally admitted principles. Such an assumed anomaly 
 of relation, therefore, as this idea supposes, resting upon mere opinion, 
 or exposition, must, of course, yield to better reflection, whenever it 
 comes to be a practical question, demanding the reconsideration of an 
 Attorney General." 
 
 " Upon the whole, then, heads of departments have a three-fold rela- 
 tion, namely : 
 
 " 1st. To the President, whose political or confidential ministers they 
 are, to execute his will, or rather to act in his name and by his consti- 
 tutional authority, in cases in which the President possesses a constitu- 
 tional or legal discretion." 
 
 " 2nd. To the law ; for the law has directed them to perform certain 
 acts, and when the rights of individuals are dependent on those acts, 
 then, in such cases, a head of department is an officer of the law, and 
 answerable to the laws for his conduct, (Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch, 
 49-61,) and," 
 
 " 3d. To Congress, in the conditions contemplated by the Constitu- 
 tion" 
 
 IV. Finally, on the right of appeal. 
 
 Mr. Taney, in an opinion given to the Secretary of War, on the 10th 
 
 of September, 1831, (2d Vol., p. 463,) expressly holds that in the case 
 9
 
 82 
 
 of an erroneous decision by an accounting officer, although it is binding 
 upon his own subordinate, the party wronged may carry the matter by 
 appeal to the Secretary, and, if his decision is not satisfactory, that he 
 may also carry it by appeal to the President. His language is, the 
 party may " appeal to the Secretary," and if his decision is not satisfac- 
 tory, " he may carry his appeal from the Secretary, dec., before the Presi- 
 dent" This opinion remains, it is believed, the established doctrine of 
 the office, and will be seen to be maintained by Mr. Gushing, on con- 
 clusive grounds, in his report just referred to. 
 
 Upon the whole, then, upon the meaning of the constitution, consid- 
 ering the question as now for the first time presented, it is submitted as 
 clear, 
 
 First, That the President not only may, but is bound to, interfere in 
 every case when a subaltern executive officer does not fulfill his duty 
 under a law ; and, 
 
 Second, That upon the now recognized rule of the Attorney Gene- 
 ral's office, the President, in such a case, may be called upon to give the 
 necessary redress by an appeal from the decision of a head of a depart- 
 ment, where such decision confirms an erroneous one, or fails fully to 
 correct it of one of his own subordinates. 
 
 REVERDY JOHNSON, 
 
 For the President. 
 
 Washington, Sept. 22, 1863. 
 
 INDIAN RESERVATIONS IN ILLINOIS, AND THE PER CENT. THEREON. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, D. 0., Aug. 22, 1863. 
 Hon. JAMES M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner of the General Land Office : * 
 
 SIR Will you please answer the following questions: 
 First, Are there any Indian reservations in the State of Illinois upon 
 which five per cent, has not been paid by the General Government, and 
 if so, how many acres do they embrace in the aggregate ? . 
 
 Second, Will you state an account of said five per cent, on said reser- 
 vations, upon application being made therefor in behalf of Illinois, under 
 and by virtue ot "An act to settle certain accounts between the United 
 States and the state of Mississippi, and other states, approved March 3d, 
 1857." Very respectfully, 
 
 I. N. MORRIS, 
 
 Agent for Illinois. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Sept. 7, 1863. 
 
 SIR In answer to the inquiries in your letter of the 22d ult, this 
 morning received, I have the honor to state : 
 
 First, That there are " Indian reservations in the State of Illinois, 
 upon which five per cent, has not been paid," embracing in the aggre- 
 gate, by estimate, seventy-sevenjsections. 
 
 Second, That we are prepared to state an account for the quantity 
 covered by such reservations when application therefor is made. 
 
 The quantity first above mentioned is the result of a hurried cursory 
 examination, 80 as to meet your call at once, and will be, of course, lia-
 
 83 
 
 ' ble to such modification as a more thorough scrutiny of the records may 
 indicate. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner. 
 Hon. I. N. MORRIS, Agent for Illinois^ Present. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., Sept. 8, 1863. 
 Hon. J. M. EDMUNDS, Com? r Gen. Land Office. 
 
 SIR In your letter to me, of yesterday's date, you express your entire 
 readiness to state an account of the five per cent, on Indian reserva- 
 tions in Illinois, upon application being made to that effect. As the 
 Agent pf that State, 1 now respectfully make that application, not 
 waiving, of course, my previous application for the two per cent, on the 
 public lands. Yery respectfully, 
 
 I. N. MORRIS. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Sept. 14, 1863. 
 
 SIR Herewith I inclose a copy of my letter of the 12th instant, to 
 the Secretary of the Interior, inclosing schedule for revision, as a basis 
 of the adjustment of the claim of the State of Illinois to per centage on 
 Indian reserves within the limits of the State. 
 
 As the decision in chief was made by the appellate authority, I have 
 deemed it proper that the same authority should enunciate the principle 
 which shall control in the adjustment, and hence have found it necessary 
 to ask the ruling of the department proper in the matter. 
 
 With great respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner. 
 Hon. I. N. MORRIS, Present. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, Sept. 15*A, 1863. 
 - HON. J. P. USHER, Secretary of the Interior : 
 
 SIR ] have this moment received from the Commissioner of the 
 General Land Office a communication, in which he informs me that, on 
 the 12th inst., he referred to you for decision a point involved in my 
 application, in behalf of the State of Illinois, for the payment of five per 
 cent, on the Indian reservations within her limits. Without expressing 
 an opinion on the propriety or impropriety, the legality or illegality of 
 that reference, I have to ask how soon you will act on the matter ? I 
 cannot but hope it will be at once. Please inform me on the subject. 
 It will take but a moment to dispose of the question, and as I am anxious 
 to leave for home, I would be greatly gratified and duly thankful for 
 prompt action. 
 
 Please let me hear from you to-day, in reply. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 I. K. MORRIS. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
 
 Washington, D. C.. Sept. 15th, 1863. 
 
 SIR In reply to your letter of this date, I have the honor to inform 
 \ you that I had, before its receipt, referred to the Commissioner
 
 84 
 
 an affairs, the communication from the Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office, to which you allude, with the papers accompanying the 
 same. 
 
 That officer requested in his communication that the schedule of Indi- 
 an reservations in the State of Illinois, therewith transmitted, should 
 "be critically tested by the records of the Indian office, so that, if any 
 of the reserves have been retroceded to the United States, the same may 
 be excluded; or if any omission exists, it may be supplied, in order that 
 this schedule may thus be perfected from, and verified by the records 
 of the office of Indian affairs, and thereafter returned to this office as the 
 basis of an -account." 
 
 As soon as a report shall have been received from the Indian office, 
 it will be forwarded to the land office, to enable the commissioner to 
 proceed to the adjustment of the account in question ; and should the 
 department deem it advisable to comply with his request lor instructions 
 in regard to the principle applicable to such adjustment, they will then 
 be communicated to him. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, ^our obedient servant, 
 
 WILLIAM T. OTTO, 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 Hon. ISAAC N. MORKIS, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Several other communications passed between myself and the Interior 
 Secretary, Commissioner of the Indian Bureau, General Land Office, 
 &c., in reference to the time of acting on the claim of the State for the 
 per cent, on Indian reservations, and the termination of that action, 
 which I shall not embrace in this report, as they are not material. Un- 
 der the opinion of the Acting Secretary, which follows, and was reviewed 
 by me, I received for the State, $1,565 80-100, which amount I reported 
 to your Excellency and to the State Treasurer: 
 
 DEPARTMENT or THE INTERIOR, 
 
 Washington, /Sept. 25, 1863. 
 
 SIR This Department has received your letter of the 12th instant, 
 inclosing two papers : 
 
 First The application of the 8th instant, of the Hon. 1. N. Morris, 
 for an adjustment of the claim of the State of Illinois, under the act of 
 Congress, approved 3d of March, 1857. (Stat., vol. 11, page 200,) for 
 per centage on the Indian reservations lying in that State. 
 
 Second- A schedule of the Indian reserves, collected from the town- 
 ship plats of Illinois surveys, and from the Indian reservation records 
 of your office. 
 
 You request "that said schedule may be critically tested by the records 
 of the Indian office, so that if any of the reserves have been retroceded 
 to the United States, the same may be excluded, or if any omission ex- 
 ists it may bo supplied, in order that this schedule may thus be perfect- 
 ed from, and verified by the records of the office of Indian affairs, and 
 thereafter returned to your office as the basis of an account." 
 
 You suggest that a question arises whether the stipulation as to the 
 two per cent, in the third proposition of the enabling act of April 18th,
 
 85 
 
 1818, extends also to the Indian reserves, and upon that point, you re- 
 quest instructions to govern your office in the adjustment of the present 
 claim. 
 
 I am directed by the Secretary of the Interior to inform you that on 
 the receipt of your letter and the accompanying papers, they were re- 
 ferred to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for an examination and 
 early report. They were returned on this day, and I now transmit to 
 you the papers and a copy of the letter of that officer to this department, 
 under date of the 24th inst. 
 
 The act of 1857, and one approved March 2d, 1855, entitled, "An act 
 to settle certain accounts between the United States and the State of 
 Alabama," were recently under consideration, and the opinion of the 
 department touching their bearing and effect upon the then pending 
 claim of Illinois, was communicated to you on the 31st ultimo. 
 
 The department, upon a renewed examination of the subject, ren- 
 dered necessary by your letter, adheres to that opinion as furnishing a 
 sound exposition of the acts of Congress relating to the questions which 
 both claims involve. 
 
 It was then held : 
 
 First That two-fifths of five per cent, of the net proceeds of the lands 
 lying within the State of Illinois, and sold since January 1st, 1819, had 
 been disbursed by Congress in strict accordance with the compact be- 
 tween the general government and that State. 
 
 Second That Congress had never relinquished its control over said 
 two fifths, or authorized the payment of the same, or any part thereof, 
 to the State of Illinois. 
 
 Third That Congress, by act approved September 4, 18-11, hadrelin- 
 *quished to the States of Alabama and Mississippi, the two-fifths of the 
 five per cent, of the net proceeds of the lands lying within their respec- 
 tive limits which had been or should be hereafter sold. The effect of 
 this legislation, and the provisions of the enabling acts of those States, in 
 regard to the remaining three-fifths, was to secure to them five per cent, of 
 the net amount of the sales of such lands. 
 
 Fourth The act of 1855 and 1857 did not give to Alabama and Mis- 
 sissippi an additional per centum upon the proceeds of such sales; but 
 requires the commissioner in the account between the United States and 
 those States to include the reservations under treaties with certain Indi- 
 an tribes, and estimating the same at the minimum value, to pay to the 
 said States five per centum thereon, as in case of other sales. 
 
 Fifth By the second section of the act of 1857, the commissioner was 
 required to state an account between the United States and each of the 
 States upon the same principle, that is to say. upon the principle that 
 for the purpose of an account, lands embraced by permanent Indian 
 reservations should be estimated as so much lands sold at one dollar 
 and twenty-five cents per acre, and to allow raid pay to each State such 
 amount as" should thus be found due. 
 
 At the time of the passage of the act of 1841, the general government 
 had adopted no measures to execute the trust she had assumed in regard 
 to the two per cent, fund of Alabama and Mississippi. It remained in 
 the treasury, and by that act was relinquished to them upon condition 
 that the legislature of each State should first pass an act declaring their
 
 86 
 
 acceptance of said reliriquishment in full of said fund, and embracing a 
 provision to be unalterable without the consent of Congress; that the 
 whole of said fund should be faithfully applied to the construction of 
 certain specified work of internal improvement. Mississippi, by an act 
 approved Feb. 6, 1842, (acts of Mississippi for 1842, page 119,) and Ala- 
 bama, by an act approved Dec. 29, 1811, (acts of Alabama for 1841, 
 page 39,) accepted the relinquishment on the terms and conditions re- 
 quired by Congress. The effect of this legislation was to relieve Con- 
 gress from the trust, and to impose upon those States, respectively, the 
 application of the fund. 
 
 There is obviously no substantial difference in principle between the 
 direct payment to a State of the funds, and the expenditure of it for the 
 purpose stipulated in the compact between the general government and 
 such State. In either case, the lawful appropriation of the fund is a full 
 discharge of the obligation of the general government, and a satisfaction 
 of the claim of the State for the payment of the money, or the due exe- 
 cution of the trust. 
 
 The State of Illinois never released the general government from its 
 obligation to appropriate the fund pursuant to the compact which was 
 binding upon them both. 
 
 That obligation was fully discharged, and the former opinion cites the 
 acts of Congress specifically providing for the expenditure of $606,000 
 within her limits in the construction of the National Road, and making 
 it a charge upon her two per cent. fund. The actual amount so expend- 
 ed, appears, by an official statement from the books of the treasury, to 
 be ($739,879 99) seven hundred and thirty-nine thousand, eight hun- 
 dred and seventy-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents. 
 
 Regarding then the Indian reservations as so much land sold, it is 
 very evident that the accruing two per cent, therefrom, added to that 
 arising from actual sales, is not sufficient to reimburse the general gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 It is true that the compact has exclusive reference to moneys derived 
 from sales. Reservations are put upon the same footing as sales by the 
 acts relied upon in the support of the claim, and the department is not 
 aware of any legislation requiring or directing any payment to Illinois 
 on account of that fund. 
 
 .That State is, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, entitled 
 to three per cent, upon the payment of Indian reservations within her 
 limits. 
 
 The Secretary deems it proper to say, that the remarks in this and the 
 preceding opinion, in regard to the settlement of accounts upon the terms 
 prescribed by the act of 1857, are not meant to apply to States thereaf- 
 ter admitted into the Union. It is unnecessary to express any opinion 
 as to the right of such States to the benefits of that act, as the question 
 is not before him. 
 
 You will be pleased to furnish Mr. Morris, and His Excellency, the 
 Governor of Illinois, with a copy of this opinion. 
 
 I am, sir, very respecfully, your obedient servant, 
 (Signed,) W. T. OTTO, 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 HON. J. M. EDMUNDS, 
 
 Commissioner of General Public Land Office :
 
 87 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT OF MK. MORRIS, REVIEWING THE OPINION OF THE 
 ACTING SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT OF 
 ILLINOIS TO FIVE PER CENT. ON HER INDIAN RESERVATIONS. 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT: I mentioned to yon, when I presented a argument 
 on "Wednesday last, in support of the claim of Illinois to two per cent, 
 on the public lands sold in that State, that I was unable, at that mo- 
 ment, to complete my remarks relating to live per cent, on Indian reser- 
 vations, for the reason that the question involving that fund had gone 
 before the (Secretary of the Interior, and was awaiting his action. 
 
 It, was not until Saturday evening, the 26th of September inst, that 
 a copy of his opinion was furnished me. I propose now to briefly review 
 it separately, thinking that preferable to interweaving what I have to 
 say arjoutitin my former argument. 
 
 The simple question submitted to (he honorable Secretary was, wheth- 
 er the State was entitled to three or five per cent, on her Indian reser- 
 vations. It would seem that that question could have been disposed of 
 in very few words, but the honorable Secretary appears to have availed 
 himself of it to re-argue the whole question of Illinois' rights, which I 
 have insisted upon, and to fortify his former views with such additional 
 observations as suggested themselves to his mind. Especially has he 
 given a summary of what he alleges those views, and his conclusions 
 were. 
 
 My application for the. payment of the five per cent, to Illinois on her 
 Indian reservations did not go to the Interior Department on my motion 
 or upon an appeal. After it reached there, it was determined in that 
 department that the State was only entitled to three per cent, on those 
 reservations, the balance being retained to cover alleged expenditures 
 on the National Road. 
 
 I will not now enter into an argument showing that the Interior 
 Department had no jurisdiction of the question, further than to say that 
 the law of 1857 is directory to the Land Commissioner specifically, and 
 not to the Interior Secretary, who has arrested the determination of the 
 former officer, who agreed to state five per cent, as the amount Illinois 
 is entitled to on leer Indian reservations. Thus they come in direct con- 
 flict with each other; for it will be seen by the correspondence between 
 myself and the honorable Land Commissioner embraced in my former 
 argument, that he did not raise the point that the State is to be charged 
 with anything on account of expenditures on the National Road, nor 
 has he ever raised it. but the honorable Secretary has. In this conflict 
 of opinion involving the whole subject which I have presented, I think 
 your Excellency is bound to interfere, and necessarily settle the whole 
 question. The same principle applies to both, and the settlement of one 
 case must be the settlement of the other. 
 
 One point has been distinctly gained by the honorable Secretary's 
 last opinion. He has committed himself to the decision, that Illinois is 
 entitled to three per cent on her Indian reservations, when, according 
 to his assumptions, there is no "land account" to "include" it in as the 
 law requires. He still persists in the idea that the act of 1857 only ap- 
 plies to Indian reservations, and does not embrace anything else. As I 
 have pretty fully discussed that point heretofore, it is not requisite I 
 should enter largely upon it again.
 
 88 
 
 If I could be surprised at any amount of opposition from the Interior 
 Department to the claim of Illinois, I would be astonished at the late 
 opinion of the honorable Secretary. It was evidently gotten up with 
 express reference to throwing additional embarrassment in the way, and 
 influencing your action, Mr. President. You cannot fail, however, to 
 see at a glance that it is more specious than sound, and that the honor- 
 able Secretary still obstinately and resolutely persists in refusing to dis- 
 cuss the law, except the Indian reservation feature of it. I submit it is 
 not a fair and legitimate use to make of the legislation, to entirely sup- 
 press and keep out of mew in his opinion, as he has done, that the Jive 
 per cent, accounts of Alabama, Mississippi, and other States, were to be 
 first stated under the provisions in their enabling acts, and then the five 
 percent, on Indian reservations include^. 
 
 The Alabama act of 1855, upon which the act of 1857 for the benefit 
 of Mississippi and other States is founded, requires the Account of that 
 State to be stated under the sixth section of her enabling act, "for the 
 purpose of ascertaining what sum or sums of 'money are due to said 
 State, heretofore unsettled, under the sixth section of the act of March 
 second, 1819, for the admission of Alabama into the Union." The sim- 
 ple statement of the account was not to be treated as a useless piece of 
 labor, but required the payment of any balance of the five per cent, found 
 due that State. When, however, it was stated, and the five per cent, 
 account on Indian reservations was also stated, it was to be included in 
 the first account and the two accounts became one ; then the law re- 
 quired the payment of the whole amount remaining unpaid thereon. 
 Because Alabama was to receive the five per cent, on her Indian reser- 
 vations "as in case of other sales," which words the honorable Secretary 
 uses and underscores, it does not follow that she was nut to receive "the 
 sum or sums of money heretofore unsettled," arising from the sales of 
 the public lands within her limits under the provision of her enabling 
 act. The title of the Alabama act is, "An act to settle certain accounts" 
 (not to sette an account) "between the United States and the State df 
 Alabama," the title of the Mississippi act following this language, and 
 hence, it is clear that the Congressional legislation was designed to cov- 
 er, as it does, the five per cent, on the public lands, and on the Indian 
 reservations. The same may be said of the first section of the act of 
 1857, which was to settle the accounts of Mississippi on "the same prin- 
 ciples of allowance and settlement," that is, the "principles" of stating 
 both accounts, and then including the latter in the first, and allowing 
 and paying to the said State five per cent, thereon. The act of 1857 
 was not to state the account of Mississippi on the same "principle" upon 
 which the accounts of Alabama were required to be settled, referring 
 only to one class of lands, but to state her accounts on the "same princi- 
 ples" using the plural term thus showing that the word "principles" 
 means, as used in the law, the principle of stating the five per cent, on 
 public lands, and also the principle of including it in the five per cent, 
 on Indian reservations. But the honorable Secretary erroneously con- 
 strues the word "principles" to mean the "principle" of including the 
 Indian reservation five per cent, account in the land account of Ala- 
 bama. How can he make the word "principles" apply with any sense 
 or reason in that connection ? He dashes off at conclusions with remark-
 
 89 
 
 able facility, without regard to his premises, or without reference to the 
 terms or TV ords of the law. 
 
 If Alabama ar.d Mississippi were to receive five per cent, on their 
 Indian reservations, "as in case of other sales," of course it was pro- 
 vided that they were to receive it on "other sales," and on Indian reser- 
 vations the "same ;" and if, by the second section of the act of 1857, 
 other States, as it is provided therein, were to receive it on Indian reser- 
 vations, they were equally entitled to receive it on their "other sales" 
 the "same." If they were to be settled with on the "same principles," 
 they were to receive the five per cent, on both classes of land "the 
 same. ' But Congress put the conclusion beyond all doubt that the five 
 per cent, was to be paid on both public lands and Indian reservation to 
 other Slates, by the emphatic additional words, "shall allow and pay to 
 each State such amount as shall thus be found duef and adding, "esti- 
 mating ALL LANDS and permanent reservations at $1 25 per acre. 
 
 In the first section of the act it is provided that the Indian reserva- 
 tions are to be estimated at $1 25 per acre, and in the second section 
 Congress fixes the same value on "ALL LANDS," as well as permanent 
 reservations as the basis for the computation on both classes. 
 
 What other result can be deduced than that they meant it should be 
 allowed and paid on both ? 
 
 Again, Mississippi was to have her accounts stated on her public 
 lands, and if any sum or sums of money were found due thereon and 
 unsettled, that is unpaid, they were to be allowed and paid. 
 
 This is all Illinois asks. She wants her accounts stated, allowed and 
 paid, as were those of Alabama and Mississippi. They received five 
 per cent, on their public lands and Indian reservations, and she asks the 
 United States to settle with her on the "same principles." What prin- 
 ciples? The "principles," as the Hon. Secretary has the idea, but rather 
 an ungrammatical way of expressing it, of merging the five per cent, 
 accounts on Indian reservations in some other existing law requiring 
 the payment of the five per cent, on public lands. Oh, no ! What 
 principles then ? The law says the "principles" of "stating, allowing and 
 paying the accounts." The "other States" were also to have their ac- 
 counts" stated and have a right to their statement under the law if they 
 have not been stated. The statement of a governmental account implies 
 its payment, but the law removes all doubt on this point in the present 
 case, by declaring "it shall be allowed and paid." The law also requires 
 the whole accounts of each of the States embraced in it to be stated on 
 their public lands, and while Alabama and Mississippi were to receive 
 the amounts unsettled, the other States are entitled, by the second sec- 
 tion of the act, to have theirs "allowed and paid." 
 
 But again, if, as the Hon. Secretary insists, Alabama and Mississippi 
 had their two per cent, provided for by the act of 1841, their five per 
 cent, on Indian reservations was not embraced in that act. He concedes 
 they received that under the acts of 1855 and 1857. If the "other 
 States" are to be settled with on the "same principles," how can he allow 
 and pay to Alabama and Mississippi the Jive per cent, on their Indian 
 reservations, and withhold the same alloicance and payment to Illinois f 
 How can he pay to Mississippi Jive per cent, on her Indian reservations, 
 and only allow and pay to Illinois three per cent, under the same act, on 
 * 10
 
 90 
 
 her Indian reservations, as he has decided shall be done thus discrim- 
 inating against my own State, when the law places her on a full and 
 equal footing with Alabama and Mississippi 'i It is very obvious he 
 cannot legally do it. It is very obvious he has sought to avoid the law 
 to the injuiy of Illinois, and not to expound and enforce it, and in 
 doing so, his anxiety to escape from the obligations it imposes on him, 
 has led him so far, that he has by his last decision, overthrown by his 
 act all his arguments, and stands condemned before the bar of his own 
 reasons. This is ever the result with those who deviate from the plain 
 line of duty and follow a shadow and not a substance. Let me again 
 repeat the proposition upon which my first argument was based and 
 which comprehends all the questions involved in the issue which I make 
 with the Secretary of the Interior. It is this. The act of 1857, in its 
 terms and designs, not only required that the Indian reservations should 
 be given a status similar in character to other public lands, but also that 
 an account should be stated, allowed and paid, embracing all the public 
 lands within the limits of the State, and this was a requirement, positive 
 and peremptory and additional to the new definition given by the statute 
 of the character of the Indian reservations, and to the direction given 
 of the mode of stating them. 
 
 The "principles" upon which the accounts were to be stated were not 
 only the inclusion of the Indian reservations, but also the stating, allow- 
 ing and paying accounts created by pre-existing provisions in the enabling 
 acts of the several States / yet the Hon. Secretary still persists in main- 
 taining his right to travel within the circle of Indian reservations, and 
 refuses to overstep their boundary. 
 
 Hear him. He says : 
 
 "By the second section of the act of 1857, the Commissioner was re- 
 quired to state an account" (mark, he does not say upon what,} "between 
 the United States and each of the other States upon the same principle, 
 that is to say, upon the principle that for the purpose of an account, 
 lands embraced by permanent Indian reservations should be estimated 
 as so much lands sold, at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, and 
 to allow and pay to such State such amount as should thus be found 
 due." 
 
 Not a word is to be found in the language of Hon. Secretary, that the 
 estimation was to be made on ''all lands and permanent reservations" 
 not a word that the accounts of the other States were to be stated under 
 the provisions of their enabling acts, or the acts admitting them into the 
 Union. All this is carefully, and evidently designedly, kept out of 
 view. But more. The Hon. Secretary has misquoted the language of 
 the second section of the act of 1857. He says that by that section the 
 Commissioner was required to state an account between the United 
 States and each of the other States upon the same "principle," whereas, 
 the word used in the law is "principles" a very different word and 
 having a very different signification, as applied in the section to the sub- 
 stantive matter of legislation. 
 
 To state "an account" upon the "principle of including the per cent, 
 on Indian reservations in an account of the five per cent, on public lands, 
 is quite a different thing to stating "certain accounts" of the other States 
 upon the "same principle*" applied to Alabama and Mississippi in allow-
 
 91 
 
 ing and paving to them five per cent, on their public lands and Indian 
 reservations. 
 
 The Hon. Secretary is somehow so unfortunate in writing his opinions 
 as to drop the little letter "s." 
 
 The re-statement of the first opinion of the Hon. Secretarv in his 
 second one, upon the simple question before him, was wholly unneces- 
 sary for the guidance of the Land Commissioner in the premises, and 
 was evidently intended for your eye, Mr. President. 
 
 The Hon. Secretary affirms that the firet position he held was : 
 
 "That two-fifths of the five per cent, of the net proceeds of the lands 
 lying within the State of Illinois, has been disbursed by Congress in 
 strict accordance with the compact between the General Government 
 and that State." 
 
 This I utterly deny, and challenge the Secretary to the proof. It will 
 not be sufficient for him to say that the amount expended in his own 
 State (Indiana) on the National road, which is now the private property 
 of that State, or that the amount wasted upon the National road in Illi- 
 nois is a legal compliance with the sixth section of the act admitting 
 her into the union. I have heretofore discussed this point, and will not 
 elaborate it, especially in view of the fact that the Hon. Secretary has 
 not discussed it, and contented himself with simple naked declarations 
 concerning it. The question, however, of expenditures on the National 
 road, as I have heretofore shown, and desire again to impress, has noth- 
 ing to do with the one I have presented. 
 
 Further on in his second opinion, the Hon. Secretary says : 
 
 "The State of Illinois never released the General Government from 
 its obligation to appropriate the fund pursuant to the compact which was 
 binding upon them both." 
 
 Two inferences are deducible from"this language. 
 
 First, that the State of Illinois has yet a subsisting demand against 
 - the General Government for this fund, which she has never relin- 
 quished, as the Hon. Secretary admits, and I thank him for his full, free 
 and frank acknowledgment of the fact. It puts it and the rights of the 
 State beyond all cavil or doubt, and dispenses with any argument to sus- 
 tain the point. It does more. It overthrows the Hon. Secretary's own 
 reasoning and deductions that the State is not entitled to the money I 
 claim for her. She has never relinquished her right to it, has never ob- 
 tained it, and it cannot be shown that it has ever been expended in com- 
 pliance with the sixth section of the act admitting her into the Union. 
 I again thank the Hon. Secretary for his admission. lie admits that 
 the compact was binding both on the General Government and the 
 State, and that the State has never released the General Government 
 from the obligation imposed upon her by that compact. Thus the Hon. 
 Secretary has virtually acknowledged the validity of the claim I repre- 
 sent, and that Illinois has always regarded it as valid. 
 
 Hence, second, that the General Government is still holden to Illi- 
 nois for the expenditure of the fund in compliance with the sixth section 
 of the enabling act of that State. 
 
 But if we had run the statement back, and connect it with another, 
 with which it has no connection, to-wit : with one that the act of 1841 
 relinquished the two per cent to Alabama and Mississippi on conditions
 
 92 
 
 "declaring their acceptance of said relinquishment in full of said fund, 
 and embracing a provision to be unalterable, without the consent of 
 Congress, that the whole of said fund should be applied in the construc- 
 tion of works of internal improvement," still that does not help the 
 Hon. Secretary out of his trouble. There are no restrictions in the acts 
 of 1855 and 1857, such as are found in the act of 1841, imposed upon 
 the States, and it may be, for aught you or 1 know, Mr. President, that 
 one object Alabama and Mississippi had in procuring the additional 
 legislation of 1855 and 1857, was to get rid of the restrictions imposed 
 upon them by the act of 1841, in regard to the expenditure of their re- 
 spective amounts. However this may be, it is certain the restrictions 
 were removed, and all the States left free to appropriate their several 
 sums as they might determine best. 
 
 I am wearied, Mr. President, with answering such arguments as I 
 have just referred to, and with which the Hon. Secretary's opinions 
 abound, for there is nothing in them, and besides they are inconsistent 
 with themselves. 
 
 Immediately following the last words I have quoted from the Hon. 
 Secretary's opinion, is the following : " that obligation was fully dis- 
 charged" (I have emphatically denied, and I think clearly shown that 
 this is an erroneous conclusion) "and the former opinion cites the acts 
 of Congress specifically providing for the expenditure of $606,000 
 within her limits in the construction of the National road. The actual 
 amount so expended appears from the books of the Treasury Depart- 
 ment to be ($739,879 99) seven hundred and thirty-nine thousand eight 
 hundred and seventy-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents. 
 
 It thus appears from the Hon. Secretary's statement that $33,879 91) 
 were expended more than there was any appropriation to cover! Will 
 he insist that that amount is properly chargeable to the two per cent, 
 fund of Illinois also ? 
 
 The most important part of the Hon. Secretary's statement is, how- 
 ever, that the books in the Treasury Department show the expenditure 
 of $739,879 99, from which the inference will be drawn, in the absence 
 of the facts, that that amount is charged against Illinois' two per cent, 
 fund on those books. Such is not the case, and I cannot make the truth 
 about it more patent than to give the following certificate of the Acting 
 Register of the Treasury : 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, REGISTER'S OFFICE, Sept. 26, 1863. 
 I do hereby certify that there is no account on the books of this office 
 in relation to the two per cent, fund with the State of Illinois. No sum 
 has been credited to said State on account of said fund, nor has there 
 ever been any amount charged against it in this office. 
 
 R. SOLGER, 
 
 Acting Register. 
 
 When the account has not been stated when nothing has been 
 charged against it in the Treasury Department when it is remembered 
 that the Interior Secretary cannot act officially upon any business per- 
 taining to the Treasury, and has nothing to do with, or control over it, 
 it is indeed most extraordinary that he should base his official action 
 upon what does pertain to the Treasury Department, more especially
 
 93 
 
 when the books of that department do not show that one dollar has ever 
 been charged by the United States against the two per cent, fund of 
 Illinois. 
 
 Let me recapitulate. The Hon. Secretary gives in his last opinion 
 his interpretation of the second section of the act of 1857. He says : 
 
 "By -the second section of the act the Land Commissioner is required 
 to state an account between the United States and each of the other 
 States upon the same principle, that is to say, upon the principle that for 
 the purpose of an account lands embraced by permanent Indian reser- 
 vations, should be estimated as so much land sold." 
 
 The language is somewhat obscure and ambiguous, but the Hon. 
 Secretary means by it simply this, I suppose, that the other States 
 shouhl be allowed five per cent, on their Indian reservations, and for 
 that purpose the Land Commissioner should state an account with them, 
 on that principle that is, on the principle of allowing them five per 
 cent, on their Indian reservations. This all the Hon. Secretary makes 
 out of the second section. I have already shown that he has misquoted 
 it, and that "principles," not "principle," is the word used. I have also 
 shown that two accounts were to be stated with Alabama and Missis- 
 sippi, and then merged into one. The other States were to have their 
 accounts stated on the "same principles," that is including the account 
 of the five per cent, on public lands and five per cent, on Indian reser- 
 vations, and, not merely, as the Hon. Secretary has it, stating an account 
 upon the "principle" of allowing five per cent, on Indian reservations. 
 
 It seems to be very generally feared, by those with whom I have 
 talked upon the subject, that the President, being a citizen of the State, 
 will feel too much embarrassed to decide the claim in her favor. As 
 that consideration is unworthy of a great mind, and has no legal bear- 
 ing upon the question, I am unwilling to believe it will be allowed to 
 enter into its determination. 
 
 The truth is, there never should have existed a necessity for taking an 
 appeal to the President, and none ever would have existed, if the case 
 had not unfortunately fallen into the hands of those who control the 
 Interior Department, and from whom Illinois has nothing to expect but 
 bitter and unrelenting hostility. This is true, and I mean to be honest 
 enough to say it. Indeed, a failure to proclaim the fact would be injus- 
 tice to the State. Of course, the appeal was not held in the Interior 
 Department for six months merely to enable the Secretary to make up 
 his opinion on the law ! There was another reason and another motive 
 for the delay, which I intend to speak of at the proper time. 
 
 The Commissioner of the General Land Office, for whose integrity I 
 have the highest respect, and whose promptness and fidelity in the dis- 
 charge of public business is deserving of the greatest commendation, 
 took the right ground in reference to the law of 1857, although I differ 
 with him in the construction of it. His position was that it only applied 
 to Indian reservations, and consequently did not authorize, in his judg- 
 ment, the payment of the two per cent, on public lands. He never 
 quibbled or raised any question ahout the expenditures on the National 
 road ; but properly comprehended the point that if the law of 1857 em- 
 braced the per cent, on public lands, it was folly to interpose the assump- 
 tion that it had already been paid to the State. If it provided for the
 
 94 
 
 payment of the per cent, on both the Indian reservations arid public 
 lauds, it followed as clear that one could not be paid without paying the 
 other ; because if both objects were embraced in the law, both were 
 equally entitled to be respected. Hence the Land Commissioner de- 
 clined to state the account of Illinois on the publ c lands for the reason 
 that, in his judgment, the acts of 1855 and 185Y applied or related ex- 
 clusively to Indian reservations. He did not abandon that ground and 
 attempt to fortify his position by asserting that the money had been 
 expended years ago for other objects ! as was done in the Interior De- 
 partment, where, if any such fact existed, they had no legal right to take 
 cognizance of it. It was the business of another, and not the Interior 
 Secretary's. It was no concern of his what had or had not been paid 
 out in the Treasury Department. The simple point he was called upon 
 to decide was the one decided by the Land Commissioner, to-wit : do 
 the laws of 1655 and 1857 require the statement of the live per cent, 
 account on public lands as well as on Indian reservations? If they do 
 not it is folly to talk about the amount having already been expended 
 if they do, the law of 1857 is imperative that it "shall be allowed and 
 paid." This is the only rational view to take of the subject. The 
 Land Commissioner took it, and confined his action to the construc- 
 tion which he gave to the laws, without entering into an extended 
 and laborious exploration of things past, to see if he could not possibly 
 find some extraneous consideration to defeat their operation. That he 
 was wrong in his construction of the statutes, I think I have clearly 
 shown ; that he was correct in confining his decision within the teroi| of 
 the act of 1857 is beyond all doubt. If the Interior Secretary had 
 taken this course there would be less reason to complain. The law of 
 1857 either does or does not confer upon the State the right to the money 
 I claim for her. If it does confer it that is an end of the matter. If it 
 does not confer that is also an end of it. The State stands by the law 
 and protests against reasons being assigned for disregarding it which 
 rest on no better foundation than the exhumed remains of obsolete enact- 
 ments. 
 
 I repeat, the State's claim must be determined by the law of 1857. 
 If that embraces the per cent, on public lands the United States has no 
 escape from, its payment, except in a determination of its ministerial 
 officers not to execute it. Though temporarily defeated I see no cause 
 for despondency. I have a case which the President understands and 
 respects, and will assuredly decide for the State, as he believes the law 
 to be with her, and certainly there can be no doubt about his power to 
 entertain 'the appeal. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 I. K MORRIS, 
 Agent and Attorney jor the State. 
 
 QUINCY, Ochler, 18G3.
 
 ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TWO PER CENT. FUND, 
 
 SUBMITTED TO HIS EXCELLENCY 
 
 RICHARD YATES, 
 
 GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 To His EXCELLENCY RICHARD YATES, 
 
 Governor of the State of Illinois : 
 
 SIR In October, 1863, I submitted to you a supplemental report on 
 the two per cent, fund, due from the United States to the State of Illi- 
 nois, for road purposes. The interest which you have uniformly mani- 
 fested in the subject, encouraged me to persist in pressing the State's 
 demand. I was still further encouraged by my increased conviction of 
 its justice. That the State will eventually obtain the sum due her, I 
 have not a solitary doubt. The right must prevail in the end. 
 
 It will be remembered that at the time of the submission of my sup- 
 plemental report, the canse of the State was still pending before tne 
 President, on appeal from the Interior Department. In the early part 
 of December following, I again repaired to Washington, and found the 
 appeal still undecided. I called upon the President soon after, in con- 
 junction with Mr. Washburne, Judge Norton, Mr. Arnold, Mr. Rose, 
 Mr. Knapp and Judge Wm. J. Allen, members of Congress from the 
 State, and we jointly urged upon his Excellency the necessity of action. 
 He received us kindly, and the interview terminated by leaving an en- 
 couraging hope. Delay still following, however, the Hon, O. H. Brown- 
 ing and myself, from time to time, urged upon the President to decide 
 the case, and from day to day expected a decision to be rendered. I 
 was therefore somewhat surprised to find it had been referred to the 
 Attorney General, who held it for nearly three months, although the
 
 96 
 
 Hon. O. H. Browning and myself were almost daily importuning him 
 for action, and when he finally delivered his opinion he ante-dated it. 
 
 The following correspondence and subjoined documents will show 
 pretty fully what transpired, in regard to the claim I represented, at 
 Washington during my last visit there, which commenced in the fore 
 part of December and did not terminate until April. I trust it will be 
 found I did all it was possible to be done in the premises, and that my 
 course will meet your approval and the approval of the Legislature and 
 people of the State, whose interest I have labored to promote to the best 
 of my ability, through a protracted controversy. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, Dec. 31, 1863. 
 Hon. J. M. EDMUNDS, Corner Gen. Land Office. 
 
 Sm Will you oblige the State of Illinois by furnishing to me, as her 
 agent, a statement of the gross amount of two per cent, of the net pro- 
 ceeds arising from the sales of the public lands, made within her limits 
 since January 1st, 1819, after deducting all expenses incident to the 
 same ; and in doing so please specify particularly the amount of said 
 per cent, which thus accumulated after Congress had ceased to make 
 further appropriations for the construction of the National or Cumber- 
 land road. 
 
 I remain very sincerely and truly your friend, 
 
 I. N. MORRIS. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Jan. 5, 1864. 
 Hon. I. N. MORRIS, Present. 
 
 SIR I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
 the 31st ult., requesting a statement of the gross amount of two per cent, 
 of the net proceeds arising from the sales of public lands in Illinois, 
 since first January, 1819, after deducting all expenses incident to the 
 same ; also, to specify the amount which had accumulated after Con- 
 gress ceased to make appropriations for the National or- Cumberland 
 road. 
 
 In reply I have to state that the gross amount received for lands sold 
 from that date to May 25th, 1838, was $11,064,504 03 ; from that date 
 to Dec. 31, 1860, the receipts since 1860 not warranting an adjustment, 
 was $13,794,574 20 ; total, $24,859,168 23. To which should be added 
 the sum of $52,193 24, the estimated value of lands reserved under 
 treaties with certain Indian tribes making an aggregate of $24,911,- 
 361 57. The expenses incident to the same can only be obtained from 
 the books in the office of the Register of the Treasury, where the net 
 receipts may be shown, the data in that respect not appearing in our 
 records of adjustment. 
 
 Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J.M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner.
 
 97 
 
 WASHINGTON, Jan. 6, 1864. 
 To His EXCELLENCY, A. LINCOLN, President of the United States : 
 
 Sm I beg leave to submit a few additional considerations, in connec- 
 tion with the claim of Illinois to the two per cent, fund, arising from 
 the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands within her limits. 
 
 The State had, undoubtedly, a right to know, from the Interior De- 
 partment, upon what ground it rejected her demand. If the law, ap- 
 proved March 3d, 1857, for the settlement of certain accounts between 
 the United States and the state of Mississippi, and other states, only 
 applies to Indian reservations, then that Department should have rested 
 its objection upon it. If, however that act is not to be regarded as a 
 bar to the right claimed by my State, and the acts making appropria- 
 tions to the National road are insisted on as such a compliance with 
 the terms of the compact between the United States and Illinois, as to 
 cut Oif the right of that State to the money claimed to be due her, that 
 ought to be assigned as the reason for withholding it. If the Honora- 
 ble Assistant Secretary had assumed, exclusively, one position or the 
 other, as he was bound to do from the character of the legislation, his 
 opinion would have been more consonant with established legal rules, 
 and less disingenuous. Had he fixed upon some definite and positive 
 enactment as a basis for, and in justification of, his opinion, it would 
 have been much wiser and safer than to have relied on vagrant au- 
 thority. 
 
 As to your power to hear and determine the case, I think there can 
 be no doubt. In a constitutional sense, it was pending before you from 
 the moment I made the application for the money on behalf of the 
 State, in the General Land Office, so that the formal appeal was a work 
 of mere supererrogation. 
 
 By the constitution you are made the Executive to execute the laws. 
 By that same instrument you are made Commander-in-Chief of the army 
 and navy. By virtue of your authority as such commander, you can 
 reverse the orders, decrees and proclamations of your inferior military 
 officers, and during the present rebellion have exercised that power. It 
 would seem clear, therefore, from analogy and parity of reasoning, to 
 say nothing further upon the subject, that you have the right, as the 
 Executive, to reverse and annul, or overrule, the opinions and decisions 
 of your ministerial executive officers. The same provision of the con- 
 stitution which confers upon you the powers of a Commander-in-Chief, 
 also declares you " may require the opinion, in writing, of the principle 
 officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating 
 to the duties of their respective offices," but it does not declare, nor does 
 the constitutioH anywhere declare or provide, you shall be bound by 
 such opinion. Its character is purely advisory, and was not intended 
 to interfere with or obstruct your duty to take care that the laws be 
 faithfully executed. That duty and that power the constitution invests 
 complete and entire in yourself. It not only invests it there, but it im- 
 poses a positive injunction on you to perform it. It is an executive and 
 not a judicial duty. 
 
 The question of the President's constitutional power and duty, in 
 cases where his subordinate executive officers refuse or neglect to exe-
 
 98 
 
 cute the laws, or perform their duty under them, was elaborately and 
 ably discussed, by Chief Justice Taney, when Attorney General, in his 
 opinion rendered to the Secretary of State on the 28th of December, 
 1831, on the libel case then pending before the District Court of New 
 York, involving the alleged forfeiture to the United States, under our 
 revenue laws, of the stolen jewels of the Princess of Orange. To this 
 opinion you have not heretofore been referred, and I beg leave to direct 
 your attention to it. See Gilpin's Opinions of the Attorney Generals, 
 pages 853-860. 
 
 The jewels were of very great value were stolen and brought to this 
 country without the consent of the owner were libelled by the District 
 Attorney of the United States, and as soon as they were known to be 
 here they were demanded by the minister of the King of the Nether- 
 lands, acting under the direction of his Government, as the property of 
 the Princess, who was one of the family of the King. The District 
 Attorney declined to discontinue the proceeding against them, and the 
 question arose as tu the power of the President to direct him to do it. 
 For convenience, I will give some extracts from Mr. Taney's opinion, 
 although I have referred you to it as a whole. He says : 
 
 "The main question, and the only one about which there seems to be 
 much difficulty is, whether the President may lawfully direct tfce Dis- 
 trict Attorney to discontinue the libel now pending against these jewels 
 in the district court of New York. The libel is in the name of the Uni- 
 ted States; it was filed by their attorney in their behalf, and claims to 
 have the property condemned as forfeited to the United States for an 
 offense alleged to have been committed against their revenue laws. 
 
 "Assuming that the District Attorney possesses the power to discon- 
 tinue a prosecution, the next inquiry is, can the President lawfully direct 
 him, in such a case, to do so ? And this, I understand, is the chief point 
 of difficulty. 
 
 " I think the President does possess the power. The interestso f the 
 country, and the purposes of justice manifestly require that he should 
 possess it, and its existence is necessarily implied by the duties imposed 
 upon him in that clause of the constitution before referred to, which en- 
 joins him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Cases readily 
 suggest themselves which show the necessity of such a power to enable 
 him to discharge this duty. 
 
 "Suppose a foreign ship with public stores onboard is taken possession 
 of by a mutinous crew and brought to the United States, that the stores 
 are seized by the collector and libelled fora breach of the revenue laws, 
 and pending the libel the foreign Sovereign demands them of the Execu- 
 tive of the United States, and their is no other claimant of the property, 
 may not the President order the prosecution to cease and the stores to 
 be delivered up? Or must the United States prosecute, by its officer, 
 a claim which it knows to be unfounded, against the property of a for- 
 eign and friendly nation. 
 
 " Indeed, a case might readily be imagined in which justice to an indi- 
 vidual would equally require the existence of the power and its exercise 
 by the President. For, suppose a merchant ship bound from one foreign 
 port to another, is piratically seized upon by the crew, and brought into 
 the United States, and the goods of the merchant are seized for a breach
 
 99 
 
 of our revenue lawp, on a libel filed against them, and suppose the offi- 
 cer continue the prosecution after these facts are made known to the 
 government; if the President was satisfied that such a prosecution was 
 not a faithful execution of the laws, but unjust and oppressive to the 
 innocent merchant, would he not have aright to order the prosecution to 
 be discontinued. 
 
 " If it should be said that the District Attorney having the power to 
 discontinue the prosecution, there is no necessity for inferring a right in 
 the President to direct him to exercise it. I answer, that the direction 
 of the President is not required to communicate any new authority to 
 the District Attorney, but to direct him, or aid him in the execution of 
 the power he is admitted to possess. It might, indeed, happen that the 
 District Attorney was prosecuting a suit in the name of the United 
 States against their interest and against justice, and for the purpose of 
 oppressing an individual. Such a prosecution would not be a faithful 
 execution of the law. and upon the President being satisfied that the 
 forms of law were abused for such a purpose, and being bound to take 
 care that the laws were faithfully executed, it would be his duty to take 
 measures to correct the procedure, and the most natural and proper man- 
 ner to accomplish that object would be to order the District Attorney 
 to discontinue the prosecution. The District Attorney might refuse to 
 obey the President's order, arid if he should refuse, the prosecution, while 
 he remained in office, would still goon, because the President could give 
 no order to the court or the clerk to make any particular entry. He 
 would only act through his subordinate officer, the District Attorney, 
 who is responsible to him, and who holds his ofiice at his pleasure. And 
 if that officer still continued a prosecution which the President was sat- 
 isfied ought to be discontinued, the removal of the disobedient officer, 
 and the substitution of one more worthy in his place, would enable the 
 President, through him, faithfully to execute the law. And it is for 
 -this, among other reasons, that the power of removing the District At- 
 torney resides in the President. 
 
 " Upon the whole, I consider the District Attorney as under the control 
 and direction of the President, in the institution and prosecution of suits 
 in the name of the United States ; and that it is within the legitimate 
 power of the President to direct him to institute or discontinue a pend- 
 ing suit, and to point out to him his duty, whenever the interest of the 
 United States is directly or indirectly concerned. And I find, on exami- 
 nation, that the practice of the government has conformed to this opinion, 
 and that, in many instances, when the interposition of the Executive 
 was asked for, the case has been referred to the Attorney General, and, 
 in every case, the right to interfere and direct the District Attorney is 
 as sumed or asserted. 
 
 " It may be said that these cases were not prosecutions for forfeitures 
 incurred by a breach of the revenue laws, and that the authority to remit 
 for a violation of the revenue laws being given to the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, it cannot afterwards be exercised by the President. In reply 
 to this, I answer : First, that the case upon which the President is re- 
 quested now to act, is not one given to the Secretary. He is authorized 
 to act where a forfeiture has been actually incurred where an offense 
 against the laws is admitted or proved. But the case presented to the
 
 100 
 
 President, if successfully made out, is one in which no offense has been 
 committed, and no forfeiture has been incurred. And if it be shown to 
 be one of this character, then it is not given to the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, arid he has no power over it. In the second place, if this case 
 weie clearly embraced in the powers given to the Treasury Department, 
 it would not and could not deprive the President of the powers which 
 belong to him under the constitution. The power conferred on the Sec- 
 retary by the law of Congress, would be merely in aid of the President, 
 and to lighten the labors of his office. It could not restrain the limits of 
 his constitutional power." 
 
 1 suppose no one will doubt but that the President has the same power 
 over the positions and acts of his cabinet officers, and the Commissioner 
 of the General Land Office, that he has over the positions and acts of the 
 district attorneys. They are but his clerks, subject to his direction, and 
 if either of them fail to execute a law, they, being but the creatures of 
 his will, it is his duty to see that they do it. 
 
 I submit, therefore, that the authority I have just quoted, and those 
 equally high, heretofore cited, should be regarded as of more weight than 
 the opinion of the honorable Assistant Secretary, who declined, upon 
 my praying an appeal to you, to "send up the papers," assuming the 
 ground, in doing so, that his opinion was final and conclusive that, 
 although you might differ from him in the construction of the law, still 
 you had no right to direct him to execute it that "Not discovering," 
 (to use the language in his letter to me,) "from the attention that I have 
 been able to bestow upon the subject that an appeal lies in such a case, 
 from the decision of the department, I shall await the order of the Presi- 
 dent in the premises" that you had no power or right, in his opinion 
 for that is the meaning of it to look at the papers ; no right to inquire 
 whether justice had been done to Illinois, whether the law had been ex- 
 ecuted ; no right to give an opinion contrary to his; no right to question 
 his act, thus, in effect, saying "I am greater than thou." This theory 
 and exposition of our political organization seems to have been unknown 
 to our earlier statesmen, and has, for the first time in our history, been 
 seriously urged by a subordinate ministerial officer, in defense of his own 
 act and assumed superiority. 
 
 If this new reading of the constitution should become the settled doc- 
 trine of the executive department, and be regarded as a sound legal in- 
 terpretation of that instrument, I readily admit that my State is without 
 executive remedy, and that she has heretofore totally misapprehended 
 constitutional law. She has relied upon older authorities, but it may be 
 that the honorable Assistant Secretary has successfully overthrown them, 
 and given a direction to the government different from that it has here- 
 tofore pursued. It is, indeed, certain that if you have no authority to 
 look into the act of your subordinates ; no authority to inquire whether, 
 in the case of Illinois, the law has been executed, you have no power 
 over the Interior Department no, not even a supervisory power no 
 right to inquire whether it has executed the laws, although the constitu- 
 tion provides you shall "take care" that they are executed ; and thus the 
 departments are exalted over the Executive, and a vital blow is struck 
 at the supremacy of the constitution. 
 
 I cannot believe that your Excellency will understand the subject as
 
 101 
 
 the honorable Assistant Secretary does, or will so act upon it. In your 
 letter to me, speaking of the case of the State, when, in the Interior De- 
 partment, you say : 
 
 " When he (meaning the Interior Secretary) shall have acted, if his 
 action is not satisfactory, there may, or may not, be an appeal to me. 
 It is a point I have not examined ; but if it then be shown that the law 
 gives such appeal, I shall not hesitate to entertain it when presented." 
 
 I trust it is not too much far me to say it has been shown you have 
 that power ; that unless you possessed it, your dignity and office would 
 subordinate below the dignity and offices of the creatures of your own 
 will or appointments. Such being a constitutional impossibility and un- 
 derstanding that, so far as the case of Illinois is concerned, the real and 
 only question involved therein is, your power to hear and pass upon her 
 rights, I rest under the confident expectation they will be upheld, and 
 your Authority vindicated. 
 
 There are some things in this connection that I ought to say in justice 
 to my State, but which I will omit. I have endeavored to confine my- 
 self, as far as possible, to the great issue presented, and permit outside 
 pressure and influence, which has been brought to bear against the State, 
 from a certain quarter, to pass by, at least fer the present, unnoticed. 
 They are as detrimental to those engaged in producing them, as they are 
 injurious to Illinois, who has so nobly stood by every duty required of 
 her, and promptly responded to every call upon her patriotism. If she 
 is to be denied by the general government her plainest and simplest 
 rights, she must feel her inferiority among the sisterhood of States, and 
 grow more or less indifferent to a government that treats her unjustly. 
 But if the constitutional requirement is disregarded or set aside, and 
 the legislation of Congress is relied on, that would seem to be equally 
 clear in the case of Illinois, pending before you, as it has grown out of 
 and relates to the public lands. The first section of an act (see (J. S. 
 statutes, vol. 5, p. 107-8,) entitled "An act to organize the General Land 
 Office," approved July 4th 1836, is as follows : 
 
 " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after 
 the passage of this act, the executive duties now prescribed, or which 
 may heteafter be prescribed by law, appertaining to the survey and sale 
 of the public lands in the United States, or in anywise respecting such 
 public lands, and also such as relate to private claims of land, and the 
 issuing of patents for all grants of land under authority of the govern- 
 ment of the United States, shall be subject to the supervision and control 
 of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the direction of 
 the President of the United States." 
 
 This statute is merely declaratory of the President's constitutional duty 
 and power. 
 
 Upon one point your Excellency is laboring under a misapprehension. 
 In your letter to me, under date of the 26th of August last, among other 
 things you say : 
 
 " Now, my understanding, is, that the law has not assigned me, spe- 
 cifically, any duty in the case, but has assigned it to the Secretary of the 
 Interior." 
 
 The law, as you will see by again referring to it, has not assigned to
 
 102 
 
 the Interior Secretary any duty, but assigned it to the Commissioner of 
 the General Land Office. All the power the secretary had, was to 
 decide the appeal upon the record sent up, which he did not do. The 
 acts of the Land Commissioner " in anywise respecting public lands," 
 are placed by the law directly under your supervision. But the consti- 
 tutional duty of directing the execution of the laws rises to a higher 
 dignity than the command of a Congressional statute. There is one 
 point under which I have been laboring under some misapprehension, 
 though it has been against and not for the State. I supposed, from, 
 information which I received, that Missouri had applied lor the pay- 
 ment of her two per cent, under the act of 1857, upon which I rely, as 
 supporting the claim of Illinois, and that her representatives in Congress 
 had only resorted to the passage of a special act, providing for its pay- 
 ment, to avoid the objections of reluctant governmental Officers. Such 
 seems not to be the case. "With a view of ascertaining the facts in 
 regard to the matter, and why Missouri did not rely upon the legislation 
 of 1855 and 1857, instead of asking for and obtaining a special act for 
 her relief, I addressed the Hon. James S. Green, formerly a United 
 States Senator from Missouri, a letter, and beg leave respectfully to 
 transmit herewith a copy of his reply, to which I ask your special 
 attention, as it not only states the reasons why the special act for Mis- 
 souri was passed, but contains also a brief, yet exceedingly lucid exposi- 
 tion of the laws upon which rest the claim of Illinois. I have no doubt 
 but that if my State had the benefit of a special act she would be 
 resisted in the departments, as was Missouri, after she obtained her act, 
 since the plainest duty required by the act of 1857 towards her, to state 
 her account that she may know how it stands, even if the payment of 
 the sum due is thereafter denied, has been totally disregarded, and the 
 law set at open defiance. 
 
 As to the per cent, on Indian reservations, it would be hard to con- 
 ceive of or find a reason to justify the assumption that when Congress 
 passed the acts of 1855 and 1857, it contemplated or even dreamed of 
 appropriations made for the construction of the National road, ranging 
 in their date from more than a half to a quarter of a century before, 
 being applied as an offset by the government to that per cent. The 
 same is equally true of the per cent, on the public lands. One class of 
 legislation has no reference to the other, but each is complete and inde- 
 pendent in itself. If Congress had intended the offset, it would have 
 so provided, and failing to make the provision, it cannot be supplied by 
 a ministerial officer. This doctrine would seem to be a settled rule of 
 construction, and has been so held in the Attorney General's Office. 
 See Mr. Wirt's opinion in "Gilpin's Opinions of the Attorney Generals," 
 pages 1385-6-7, wherein he determined, as early as 1818, that Congress 
 having failed to insert, in express terms, in an act making an appropria- 
 tion for the completion of contracts on the National road, a provision 
 that the sum appropriated should be reimbursed to the treasury out of 
 the two per cent, land fund of Ohio, it could not properly or rightfully 
 be charged to that fund. The conclusion would hence seem irresistible 
 that if the government could not charge the appropriation referred to 
 by Mr. Wirt, to the two per cent, fund of Ohio, it has as little right to 
 offset the sum expended on the National road, in Illinois, against the
 
 103 
 
 ^ appropriation of her two per cent, embraced in and covered by the acts 
 of 1855 and 1857", which declare it shall be "stated, allowed and paid," 
 and in which there is no provision for or even intimation of such offset. 
 If any right to make it ever existed, which I affirm is not the case, that 
 right was released or relinquished by the subsequent legislation referred 
 to. Where is the provision which authorizes the expenditures on the 
 National road to be charged against the two per cent, on the Indian 
 reservations in Illinois? Where is the provision which authorizes such 
 a charge to be made against the two per cent, land fund of that State ? 
 There is no such legislation, and no reference to it in the acts of 1855 
 and 1857, nor can they be tortured into any such construction. So 
 plain are their provisions, so direct and mandatory, that the Honorable 
 Assistant 'Secretary did not venture upon such an experiment. In the 
 absence, then, of any such legislation or provision, the opinion of Mr. 
 Wirt is conclusive that the expenditures on the National road cannot be 
 legally or justly charged against the claim of Illinois. By the acts 
 referred to the appropriation is absolute and unconditional, and the 
 rights of the State cannot be defeated, except by a total disregard of 
 them. 
 
 In other words, the opinion expressed by Attorney General Wirt is, 
 in effect, that as the act for the appropriation of money towards the 
 building of the National road did not say that the sum appropriated 
 was to be re-imbursed to the treasury out of the five per cent, land 
 fund, created by the compact between the United States and the State 
 of Ohio, that appropriation must be regarded as an independent gift or 
 grant, and the executive officers of the United States could not make 
 the five per cent, fund liable for such additional and independent appro- 
 priation. So the acts of 1855 and 1857 are to be regarded as independ- 
 ent of, and having no relation to the appropriations to the National 
 road. And as they contain no terms relative to an ofi'set, re-payment, 
 or re-imburseraent out of any such fund, of the sum required to be 
 "stated, allowed and paid," the executive officers have^uo authority to 
 subject such fund to any such liability. Congress, when passing the 
 acts of 1855 and 1857, was legislating upon the five per cent arising 
 from the sales of the public lands, and providing for the inclusion therein 
 of the five per cent, on Indian reservations, and in nowise in regard to 
 the expenditures on the National road. This conclusion is so clear and 
 so inevitable, both from the laws themselves and the history of their 
 passage, that all doubt on the point is effectually and entirely removed. 
 
 Every statute which contains no terms connecting it with another, 
 must necessarily be construed by itself. The only connection the laws 
 of 1855 and 1857 has, is with the provision setting apart the five per 
 cent, fund embraced in the enabling acts of the states to which they 
 refer. They embrace appropriations covering that object, and the five 
 per cent, on Indian reservations and nothing more, and they do this 
 without limitation or conditions. 
 
 There is a partial view of the question which 1 have not separately 
 presented, for the reason I desired to present it as a whole. I will 
 mention it now, however, for your reflection, without discussing it. 
 The Assistant Interior Secretary pleads the law making appropriations 
 to the National road in bar of the claim of Illinois. A large amount
 
 104 
 
 (and I have taken steps to ascertain definitely what it is) of the two per 
 cent road fund belonging to the State, accumulated in the treasury, 
 from lands sold, after all appropriations for the Cumberland Road had 
 ceased. Is not the State at least entitled to the amount which thus 
 came into the treasury ? I do not raise the point with a view of yield- 
 ing any part of the claim, but as suggestive of the legal impossibility of 
 the appropriations referred to being applied as an offset to a subse- 
 quently accumulated fund. 
 
 The first act making an appropriation to the National road was 
 approved March 29, 1806, and the last was approved May 25, 1838. 
 (See abstract of United States Statutes at large, pages 357-8.) The 
 State was not admitted into the Union until April 18, 1818, and if her 
 two per cent, fund is to be charged with expenditures on acteount of the 
 National road, those made before her admission cannot certainly be set 
 down against it, and yet there would seem to be as much propriety in 
 making such a charge as the one before mentioned. 
 
 But I have heretofore shown the want of authority in the officers of 
 the government to make the charge referred to as a whole, against the 
 State, especially in view of the acts of of 1855 and 1857, and it would 
 be out of place to duplicate that argument in this communication. It 
 is, however, proper for me to say, in view of the fund which accumula- 
 ted, after appropriations for the National road had ceased, that Congress 
 was to "disburse" it "in making roads leading to the State." How 
 could such " disbursement " be made when there was no such fund, and 
 the lands had not even been sold. In my judgment, there can be no 
 other legal interpretation of the sixth section of the act admitting Illi- 
 nois into the Union, but that the money was to be " disbursed " as it 
 accumulated, or thereafter. The word " disburse " means to " pay out; 
 to expend, to spend." How could that be paid out, expended, or spent, 
 which had no existence? It was evidently intended, from the language 
 used in the section just mentioned, that Congress should not and could 
 not, without the consent of the State, make a wasteful expenditure of 
 the money, as it did, or it would be more proper to say a wasteful 
 expenditure of the money of the government, and then have its officers 
 to claim, in the face of an act recognizing her right to it, that the treas- 
 ury was to be reimbursed out of it. The language of the sixth section 
 pre-supposes the existence of the fund before its distribution, and any 
 anterior use of it, I insist, was unauthorized by the compact between 
 the United States and the State of Illinois, and in palpable violation of 
 her rights. Her representatives in Congress would be continually 
 increasing, and new interests might arise which would give a different 
 direction to an accumulated fund, to that which it might take when 
 anticipated. The State, too, as she advanced in population and repre- 
 sentation, would be better able to protect her rights. However, I have 
 said I would not discuss this point, nor will I. I have thrown out but 
 a few suggestions upon it, which I think are sound and well taken. 
 
 Having now, as I trust, performed my duty to the Governor, Legisla- 
 ture and people of my State, and said this much in addition to what I 
 before have said, I hope to stand vindicated in their judgment, and 
 have respectfully to inquire how soon it will be convenient for your 
 Excellency to dispose of the cause of the State. I am fully sensible of
 
 105 
 I 
 
 "the great and important duties pressing upon you, and although the 
 interest of Illinois is of vital moment to her, I will not unduly urge 
 it to the detriment of your Excellency's convenience in other more 
 pressing matters. 
 
 The result is, of course, with you. The authorities would seem to be 
 sufficient on the legal points. No one has ever questioned the equity 
 of the claim. I assume that I fully appreciate what some may suppose 
 to be the delicacy of your position, being a citizen of the State, but that 
 consideration constitutes no reason why justice should be withheld from 
 her, nor will it influence a great mind like your own. 
 
 I have the honor, Mr. President, to subscribe myself, your obliged 
 and humble servant, 
 
 I. N. MORRIS. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY. January 21, 1864. 
 HON. EDWARD BATES, Attorney General of the United States : 
 
 Sin : I have been unofficially informed, but I do not question the 
 correctness of the information, that his Excellency, the President of the 
 United States, has referred to you, for legal determination, the question 
 of his power to direct the Commissioner of the General Land Office to 
 execute the law of the third of March, 1857, passed for the benefit of 
 Mississippi and other States, in pursuance of my application on behalf 
 of the State of Illinois, for the recognition and enforcement of her 
 rights under said act. 
 
 As the claim which I presented for my State has been pending since 
 December, 1857, and which, during the past year, I have been prose- 
 cuting under the authority ot % the Governor and Legislature thereof, is 
 one of no ordinary interest and importance to the people of Illinois, 
 -you would confer a great favor upon them if you would, at an early 
 period, render your opinion upon the point referred by his Excellency 
 to you. 
 
 I presume, sir, you have been placed in possession of my original 
 and supplementary report to the Governor of my State, relating to the 
 matter of the claim, and of my communication to the President on the 
 same subject, under date of the 6th instant, which was accompanied by 
 a letter addressed to me, by the Hon. James S. Green, in which the 
 statement of facts therein contained and the legal deductions therein 
 drawn, were indorsed and concurred in by the Hon. Frank P. Blair, in 
 a written communication to me made on yesterday. 
 
 The latter managed the claim of Missouri in the House of Represen- 
 tatives, and the former in the Senate. 
 
 But as the single point of the President's power to act in the case of 
 Illinois, now pending before him, has been referred to you for your 
 opinion thereon, you will find, if you desire to consult them, my argu- 
 ments in support of said power in my reviews of the Hon. Assistant 
 Secretary's opinions, all of which reviews and opinions are contained in 
 ' my supplemental report, and in my letter to the President of the 6th 
 instant. You will also find the arguments of the Hon. Reverdy John- 
 son, in support of said power, in his opinion published in said supple- 
 mental report. 
 11
 
 106 
 
 I am fully sensible I have not the right to appear before you, under 
 the rules of your office, in support of my view of the question you have 
 been called upon to determine, and I have neither a desire or wish to 
 interfere with those rules ; yet I suppose it will not be improper for me 
 to refer you to the case of McFadon vs. the Exchange, (7 Cranch, 116,) 
 in which the President "directed the Attorney General and the district 
 attorney in the discharge of their official duties, and they obeyed his 
 direction. He and they acted on the principle that the President had 
 a right to point out to them the manner in which their diiferent duties 
 were to be performed." 
 
 Again invoking your early action in behalf of my State, which has 
 been long delayed, I remain 
 
 Yours, very sincerely, 
 
 I. N. MORRIS, 
 Agent and Attorney for Illinois. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, January 28, 1864. 
 
 To HIS EXCELLENCY, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 
 
 President of the United States : 
 
 SIR : Some three weeks ago you referred to the Attorney General a 
 single point in the case of Illinois, for his opinion thereon. It was, I 
 understand, as to your jurisdiction. 
 
 A few days ago I saw Judge Bates and had a conversation with him 
 on the subject. In that conversation I spoke of the long delay Illinois 
 had been subjected to, and respectfully desired to know how soon his 
 opinion would be rendered. To this inquiry he made no definite an- 
 swer. I then asked him if he would furnish me a copy of his opinion, 
 when it was ready, saying, that I supposed it would not be improper for 
 me, as agent and attorney of the State, to examine it, especially as it 
 would be a public document. His answer to this was, that he could not 
 furnish copies of his opinions without asking Congress to allow him 
 additional clerks. 1 can, therefore, only anticipate from his remarks, 
 which were frank, what his conclusion will be, and in doing so, I beg 
 to assure your Excellency that I have no intention or desire to intrude 
 upon the established usages of the Executive Department. My only 
 object is to do justice to my State, and that much I think I ought to do. 
 IJshall, however, be very brief in what I have to say. 
 
 The Attorney General, if I rightly comprehend his views, will hold 
 that the account of Illinois must be stated under the law of 1857 that 
 you have the power and it is your duty to order its statement, but that 
 you have no power to direct the mode or manner of its statement. This 
 seems to me to be a curtailment of the executive duty ''to take care that 
 the laws be faithfully executed," unwarranted by the constitution. I 
 admit that you are no judicial officer, no court, no accounting officer, 
 but insist that you are clothed with all the attributes of executive 
 authority, necessary to the enforcement of the laws, directory to your- 
 self, or the creatures of your own appointment, who are but the conve- 
 niences of the Executive Department of the government. 
 
 While you are not an accounting officer, or a secretary, or a land com- 
 missioner, it does not follow that you have no power to look into the
 
 107 
 
 manner in which these functionaries discharge their respestive duties. I 
 admit you cannot perform all the duties yourself, of the various executive 
 departments, and that it was not contemplated, in the organization of 
 the government, you should ; still this does not interfere with the consti- 
 tutional obligation resting upon you to see that the laws are executed, 
 when it is made known to you that they have not been. 
 
 Comparatively but few such cases arise in the course of an adminis- 
 tration, and it is in just such cases that the President is required to in- 
 terfere. The provision of the constitution that "the President shall take 
 care that the laws be executed" is broad, and covers all acts coming 
 within the jurisdiction of the Executive Department ; and evidently 
 contemplates cases were subordinates might refuse to execute the laws. 
 The responsibility, therefore, of their execution was, by the constitution, 
 thrown upon the President, in whom is invested this attribute of execu- 
 tive sovereignty. 
 
 Attorney General Gushing, in his elaborate opinion on the relation of 
 the President to the Executive Department, (see opinions of the Attor- 
 ney General, vol. 7th, pages 464, 469, 470,) says : 
 
 "In speaking of the subordination of the departments to the Presi- 
 dent, we are to understand, of course, that the several executive 1 bureaus 
 are included, for they are themselves subordinate to tHe^portmeiits 
 under the supervision of which they are placed resp'eetivsely^whether 
 by statute or by order of the President." .ii fci jfoiiiv/ w 
 
 Again : /soqrni JneintiacroC 
 
 c5 i t JL 
 
 "Take now the converse form of legislaticrb^tUatoosmmbjl of most ordi- 
 nary style, in which an executive act is, b^itew/ifequwredto'-tte performed 
 by a given head of department. I thi6<k!hre>fcbeL>genei-aliriile to be as 
 
 -already stated, that the head of department is &&?<& fa t&'<Mveetion of 
 the President. I hold that no head of department <xm tawjfwlty perform 
 an official act against the wttZ of itfie* President } 'andthcdAaillis, by the 
 constitution, to govern the p&fdnR&KC6itfmtt$ni&^ntt8; i Jf it were not 
 thus, Congress mightfey iftta^Htdn-soadividtelaTid: trahsfe r * tbe executive 
 power as utterly to r subv!drt7tl]je<gofrieiJnm8iit, swad >to<<5ming& it into a par- 
 liamentary dea^tiem^iifcethatof ;Yeni'ceoj t >G^eafe^rit3ini with a nomi- 
 nal executive chief, ntteriyr powierless, , whetfreraiwder-tiiie tame of Doge, 
 or Kin^, prPresidenlij.woHMitheflibC'KDf^litUeia^buritj soiar as regards 
 the qraeBtiori of ;theirtointenancie' r ot ! tbeiconefcituticaii^ ny;Ir5t*im G y 
 
 r.! >If ^oUfkaXnediapowert'O: 'diredtf the iiand; Comiiiisei^ner'to etate the 
 dccoTinfc ;6f > DMnfoisriinliezvthei act ; of nlfiftfy it'rwaould keens t"be clear that 
 
 ; voii liave an^equal-powento direct himtlfa^ftoifaiate'iti'f? F-or;tbe reason 
 
 'thatif'thejLaBdGif>mf?iisedonerym'talihg it, floeanot etaitfeit in compli- 
 ance with the law, as you may understand! dt^it'i^:a9miBli an effectual 
 
 ;:vio'lation;bf theQ:awl:a8 v if:la^ riet'u64d>!to;JBtatie<it alii c'A wrongful state- 
 ment'^ it would. be ; no legal sfetenient^' but ft- statemeottin opposition to, 
 
 .nd in delegation 6f the law, and-then the-law.wouldmotlbeex^cuted. The 
 'power to direct the; statement ;of -the account i necessarily carries with it 
 the incident to that i^wer. - .UD<eF8ubh:a'State"of fact 'would it not be 
 your duty to see that the slaw !was exiecuted ? r /Hbe doctarine- 1 have laid 
 
 . r >dawBi but do not iaterid to elaborate upooa, was faeldbyiMrL Whittlesey, 
 
 : ona;of ..thosafeat: aiuiaiHestv GomjStEoWersJot'iili^-'Ti'easuTy 4he govern- 
 ment ever had, when passing the Galphin claim for interest. In that
 
 108 
 
 instance he was directed by his superior officer how to execute his duty, 
 and he passed the claim as an "administrative act" and not his own. 
 Numerous other cases, of a similar character, could be cited, but I will 
 not trouble your Excellency with but one more. I refer to that of 
 McFadon vs. the Exchange, (7 Cranch, 116,) in \\rjiich the President 
 "directed the Attorney General and district attorney in the discharge 
 of their official duties, and they obeyed his direction. He and they 
 acted on the principle that the President had a right to point out to them 
 the MA.NJNER in which their different duties were to be performed." 
 
 To direct the performance of an act and refuse or neglect to direct 
 the manner of its performance, is to leave undone the important part of 
 the direction. Almost every day officers in the field are directed by the 
 Commander-in-chief, or his Secretary of "War, acting under his direc- 
 tion, how and in what particular manner to perform their duties. 
 
 If, for instance, an accounting officer of the treasury had refused to 
 pass a part of an account, arising under an act of Congress, say the act 
 for compensating owners in the District of Columbia for manumitted 
 slaves, upon the ground that too much had been paid for particular ones, 
 or upon some other frivolous pretext, that would have been, a mode or 
 manner of discharging his duty which would not have been, and very 
 properly too, long tolerated. 
 
 The doctrine I believe to be too well settled to require discussion, 
 that a law which is mandatory or directory to a member of the Execu- 
 tive Department, imposes upon the President an obligation equally 
 binding "to take care that it be executed," as if it were particularly man- 
 datory or directory to himself. If it were not thus, interior officers, not 
 accountable to the people, could abrogate the legislative will, block the 
 wheels of the executive power, and we would have a thousand Presi- 
 dents instead of one. 
 
 A simple direction to the Land Commissioner to state the account of 
 Illinois would virtually be a direction to him to disallow her claims, if 
 the ruling of the Interior Department should be adopted and followed. 
 
 If every thing is to be done but to pay the State the money she 
 claims, and her hope of receiving that is to turn to ashes on her lips, 
 if she is to be delayed for years, and then the government is to escape 
 from the payment of her demand, because of what I humbly conceive 
 to be a mistaken rule of construction which the Attorney General will 
 put upon the executive powers of the President, subordinating them 
 below the powers of a mere accounting officer, she will have labored to 
 little purpose in establishing her rights. If a mandamus would lie 
 against an officer of the United States there might be less reason to call 
 for Presidential interposition. 
 
 I hope Illinois is not to be turned back to a result which I have, from 
 the first, admitted to exist if the appropriations for the National road 
 are to be charged against her two per cent. fund. She would not have, 
 however, a fear of the result of her application in the hands of any 
 
 fovern mental officer, if she had confidence to believe he would, as she 
 nows your legal mind will lead you to do, apply the principles of con- 
 struction laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States (see 2d 
 Cranch) in the case of the United States vs. Fisher, in which the court 
 say :
 
 109 
 
 "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of 
 statutes that every part is to be considered and the intention of the 
 legislature extracted from the whole." 
 
 A grain : 
 
 "When the intent is plain, nothing is left to construction. Where the 
 mind labors to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes everything 
 from which aid can be derived ; and in such case the title claims a degree 
 of notice and will have its due share of consideration." 
 
 I shall not be able to see the opinion of the Attorney General before 
 you will act upon it, and in all probability not before it shall appear in a 
 printed volume. I beg you to consider that fact as a justification of 
 this communication. 
 
 Although not strictly within the scope or object of this letter, allow 
 me to say, that I have, within a few days, received from the Hon. Frank 
 P. Blair, after mature deliberation and examination on his part, a writ- 
 ten communication, in which he sustains the facts and legal deductions 
 contained in the letter of Hon. James S. Green, a copy of which I sent 
 you. 
 
 I have also received a certificate from the Hon. O. M. Hatch, Secre- 
 tary of State for the State of Illinois, and send it herewith for your in- 
 spection, showing that the Legislature of that State has never passed an 
 act or resolution accepting the work done on the National road within her 
 limits, in lieu of the two per cent, fund, or declared the track of said road 
 a State road. In view of these facts, is it too much to ask that a liberal 
 construction, such as the late Interior Secretary, Mr. Thompson, gave 
 them and said they should receive, should be given to the acts of 1855 
 ahd 1857. But a rigid construction of said acts will give to Illinois the 
 sum she claims. The only way she can be kept out of her rights is to 
 violently drag in other enactments, with which the ones I have just 
 named, have no connection. 
 
 Can any good reason be assigned why the whole five per cent, should 
 be paid to Alabama and Mississippi, and a like allowance and payment 
 bo denied to Illinois? 
 
 I remain, with great respect, 
 
 Your Excellency's obedient servant, 
 
 I. N. MORRIS. 
 
 QUINCY, ILLINOIS, November 30, 1863, 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS: 
 
 DEAR SIR : My attention has recently been directed to your corres- 
 pondence with the officers at Washington City for the purpose of pro- 
 curing payment of two per cent, of the net proceeds of the sales of 
 public lands in this State. And I confess I was not aware of the exist- 
 ence of the law under which you claim payment, until you brought it 
 before the public. 
 
 When in the United States Senate, I, with my colleagues in both 
 Houses of Congress, procured the passage of a special law for a similar 
 payment of two per cent, to Missouri; but if we had noticed the general 
 provision of the second section of the act of March 3, 1857, we would 
 have relied alone upon it, without waiting the tardy and uncertain
 
 110 
 
 action of Congress, and I should have felt confident in obtaining the 
 two per cent, to which the State was justly entitled, without any further 
 legislation. And here, I may remark, is illustrated the impropriety of 
 connecting a general provision, with a special bill, unless the title clearly 
 indicates its character. This provision in the act for Mississippi, in 
 connection with the act for Alabama, on the same subject, and thereby 
 re-enacted, is ample and explicit, and would have been relied upon by 
 us if it had not escaped our observation. But although we obtained a 
 special law for the two per cent, of Missouri, we were met under it by 
 the officers of the United State's Treasury with the same objections and 
 subteriuges that you have to encounter when applying for Illinois. 
 However, I finally obtained a reference of the question to the Attorney 
 General, who promptly decided in favor of Missouri, and the money 
 was accordingly paid. I have no doubt the same thing would have 
 occurred under the laws on which you rely. 
 
 These laws direct, in substance, an account to be stated with Alabama 
 and Mississippi, of the whole Jive per vent, of the net proceeds of sales 
 of public lands, and also to include the Indian reservations ; and then 
 the last section directs a similar account with each of the other states, 
 and t allow and pay the same. Language could not be -plainer. 
 There is an account to be stated, allowed and paid, independent of the 
 Indian reservations, and then, if any of these, they are to be included. 
 This inclusive part necessarily implies something preceding, and it 
 might be entirely stricken out of the law, and the enactment remain, 
 both intelligible and effective, retaining the primary object of the law 
 the inclusive part being nothing but the incident, ifet the pretext of 
 the officers would make this little incident everything, and render the 
 legislation of Congress both absurd and onsensical. I feel obliged to 
 you for having brought this subject to light. 
 
 Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JAMES S. GREEN. 
 
 As well as my recollection serves me, I concur in the statement of 
 facts, and I agree in the conclusions of the above letter of Hon. James 
 S. Green. 
 
 FRANK P. BLAIR, JB. 
 
 "WASHINGTON CITT, January 20, 1864. 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMEKICA, ) 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS. j s ' 
 
 I, O. M. Hatch, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, hereby 
 certify that I have carefully examined the files of my office, and that 1 
 am unable to find that the Legislature of this State ever passed any 
 law or resolution, accepting the work done upon the National road .b>y 
 the United States within this State, in lieu of the two per cent, fund, 
 which said State was to have expended under the direction of Congress, 
 in making roads leading thereto, under and by virtue of the sixth, sjeic- 
 tion of the act providing for her admission into the Union-. J.fwtjier 
 certify that I cannot find any act or resolution passed; ;by;the.,I;eg.islia- 
 ture of said State, declaring all, or any part, o w.hat ;ieLj3fr, piftji ,be
 
 Ill 
 
 claimed to be a part of said National road, lying within the limits of 
 said State, a State road. 
 
 In testimony whereof I hereunto subscribe my name and affix the 
 [ L. s] great seal of State, at the city of Springfield, this 22d 
 4 day of January, A. D. 1864:. 
 
 O. M. HATCH, Secretary of State. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. 0., February 15, 1864. 
 To His EXCELLENCY, A. LINCOLN, 
 
 President of the United States: 
 
 SIR It is now more than one year since I commenced, under your 
 administration, the prosecution of the claim of Illinois against the Uni- 
 ted States for the two per cent, fund, and more lhan half of that time 
 I have spent in Washington. Whatever of energy or zeal I had has 
 been unceasingly bestowed upon the case of the State, and no one 
 moment which I could turn to account, or supposed I could, has been 
 wasted, but all the which I have urged and implored the executive 
 officers for action. The whole business could and should have been 
 disposed of in three weeks. But delay has followed delay, and the 
 State has been baffled at every possible point. Each succeeding subor- 
 dinate functionary into whose hands the case has fallen, except the 
 Land Commissioner, and it has been compelled to run a long and terri- 
 ble gauntlet, has thrown his arm affectionately around its neck and held 
 it to his embrace as long as possible, and while apparently caressing it 
 w.ith kindness, has adroitly endeavored to stop its breath with his hand. 
 If it is to be strangled by those whose duty it is to give it a fair legal 
 hearing and prompt decision, as is now generally believed by the citi- 
 zens of the State who are here, it is due to her and to fairness that it 
 should be done at once. Anything is better than undue suspense. 
 
 The State has another remedy which she cannot avail herself of until 
 that provided in the Executive Department shall have been entirely 
 exhausted, and in her name and on her behalf I protest, as her duly 
 appointed representative, against her sustaining further injury and loss 
 by the non- action of government officials. Already that loss has been 
 great, and justice to her forbids that I should longer delay to remon- 
 strate, respectfully but earnestly, against its further augmentation. A 
 little more delay will carry her case over another year if she is forced 
 to seek for justice outside of executive authority. Shall she be thus 
 treated ? 
 
 I have all along insisted and believed that your Excellency would 
 order the execution of the laws. I believe so still, and shall continue 
 so to believe until it is otherwise made manifest. 
 
 If Congress did not, by the passage of the act of 1857, for the settle- 
 ment of certain accounts between the United States and the State of 
 Mississippi and other states, re-enact the fifth section of the act approved 
 March 1, 1857, to enable the people of the western part of the Missis- 
 sippi Territory to form a constitution and State government, which seta 
 apart and invests the right in that State of the five per cent, arising 
 from the sales of the public lands, and other acts, subsequently passed, 
 connected therewith, for the payment of three and two parts of it, and
 
 112 
 
 direct a similar payment of five per cent, to the other states, of which 
 Illinois is one, it would be impossible to find legislative language which 
 could do it. 
 With respect and consideration, I remain your obedient servant, 
 
 I. K MORRIS. 
 
 Can I be permitted to see the opinion of the Attorney General after 
 its rendition and before final action thereon ? I should like to do so. 
 
 M. 
 
 Finally, after long and anxious delay, the opinion of Attorney Gen- 
 eral Bates was rendered. Through what channel it found its way to 
 the Interior Department I never could learn. Although I had inquired 
 for it at the General Land Office until I had become literally ashamed 
 of asking, the first I knew about it, it was in the hands of thg Interior 
 Secretary, and had been acted on by him, though his action does not 
 appear of record, in the face of the decision itself which declares the 
 secretary had no jurisdiction over the question. The Commissioner of the 
 General Land Office, following the ruling of the Interior Secretary, at 
 once acted in the premises, and if I had reason to complain before of the 
 non-action of government officials, I certainly had no cause to make any 
 such complaint after the case got back from the Attorney General's 
 office into the Interior Department. Instant dispatch was used in dis- 
 posing of it in my absence and without my knowledge, and it looks 
 very much as if there was design in the mode of proceeding. If such 
 was the case it will avail nothing in the end. 
 
 The following correspondence at once transpired, subsequent to which 
 I obtained a copy of the account, as stated, a copy of the opinion of the 
 Attorney General, etc: 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, March 30, 1864. 
 Honorable Commissioner of the General Land Office : 
 
 SIR I understood, for the first time to-day, upon inquiry made of 
 your chief clerk, Hon. Joseph Wilson, that some action had been taken 
 in your office in regard to stating an account with the State of Illinois, 
 of the two per cent, claimed to be due her from the proceeds of the 
 public lands sold within her limits. Will you therefore be kind enough 
 to furnish me, at as early a period as possible 
 
 1. With a copy of the account, stated. 
 
 2. With a copy of the order upon which it was stated. 
 
 3. Information showing to whom the account, when stated, was 
 delivered, and whether his Excellency, the President, made any order 
 in the premises, and if so, what it is. 
 
 I desire this information to enable me to determine what course to 
 adopt in the future. Permit me, however, to say that had I known, 
 when the case of the State was returned to your office, I should have 
 asked, in behalf of myself and associate counsel to be heard upon it, 
 before it was finally disposed of, or the mode or manner of stating the 
 account. This poor privilege was denied^Bot, I am satisfied, through
 
 113 
 
 any design or agency of yours. Was the account stated in accordance 
 with the ruling of your office, or that of the Interior Department? 
 Your friend and obedient servant, 
 
 I. K MORRIS, 
 Agent and Attorney far Illinois. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, April 1, 1864. 
 Hon. I. N. MORRIS, Agent for Illinois, Present. 
 
 SIR In reference to the subject of your note of the 30th ultimo, 
 ^esterday, received, I have to inform you that the statement of the 
 account in regard to the Illinois reserved two per cent, fund has not yet 
 been consummated. When completed and finally acted upon, you 
 shall be furnished with the desired copy of the statement in question, 
 or of any papers on our files in the premises you may deem necessary. 
 Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner. 
 
 The Attorney General's opinion is as follows, and I ask for it a care- 
 ful reading, being satisfied it has not injured but strengthened the claim 
 of the State. 
 
 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 8, 1864. 
 To THE PRESIDENT : 
 
 SIR I beg to be excused for the long delay which has happened in 
 answering upon the matter which you referred to me, some time in Jan- 
 uary last, touching the claim of the State of Illinois against the United 
 States, on account of the two per cent, fund, so called. I lost several 
 weeks by sickness, and then business, both in the office and in the 
 Supreme Court, which would not brook delay, compelled me to postr 
 pone the consideration of this matter until now. 
 
 The memorandum which you sent me does not, specifically, state the, 
 questions or points of law upon which you require my opinion. But, 
 judging from a careful examination of your memorandum, and some of 
 the papers which accompanied it, I suppose the questions intended fof 
 my consideration may be fairly stated in the following form ; 
 
 Under the acts of March 2, 1855, and March 3/1857, " the, State of 
 Illinois has applied to have the Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office state an account between the United States and said State, and to 
 have allowed and paid over to said State such amount as shall thus be 
 found due. The Secretary of the Interior, to whose Department the 
 General Land Office and the Commissioner thereof pertain, takes cog- 
 nizance of the case, and disallows the claim of the State to have either 
 payment or accounting. From this decision of the Secretary of the In- 
 terior, the State appeals to you, as President of the United States," and 
 asks you to do, as President, what the statutes require to be done, by 
 the Commissioner of the General Land Office. And so the question is 
 Has the State of Illinois any legal right to take such appeal, and there- 
 by impose upon the President the legal duty to do what the law plainly 
 requires to be done by the Commissioner, i, e., to state the account, etc. f 
 12
 
 1U 
 
 I am clearly of the opinion that no such appeal lies. The President 
 is not the accountant general of the nation is not an auditor or comp- 
 troller of accounts. 
 
 The act of March 3d, 1857, section 2, II Stat, 200, declares " That 
 the said Commissioner shall also state an account between the United 
 States and each of the other states, upon the same principles, and shall 
 allow and pay," etc. By the terms of this act no powers are granted to, 
 nor duties imposed upon, either the President or the Secretary of the 
 Interior, but only to and upon the Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office. And is it now to be denied that Congress has power to distri-- 
 bute the ministerial functions of government among the functionaries of 
 its own creation ? The practice is coeval with the government, and is 
 in actual exercise every day. In fact the contrary theory is simply im- 
 possible, in practice, for neither the President nor any head of a Depart- 
 ment could, by any degree of laborious industry, revise and correct all 
 the acts of all his subordinates. And if he could, as the law now stands 
 it would be as illegal as unwise. 
 
 Although the President cannot be substituted for all his subordinates, 
 and required to do all their work, in any contingency, yet, doubtless, in 
 one sense, he has a general oversight of all the officers of the govern- 
 ment. For, by the constitution, it is his duty to " take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed." And, in the discharge of that duty, he 
 will of course act according to the subject-matter and the nature of each 
 case before him. If the party who will not execute the law be a Judge, 
 the President cannot perform his judicial duties. All he can do is to 
 give the proper information to the House of Representatives, who may, 
 if it think proper, apply the remedy of impeachment. But if the offen- 
 der be a ministerial officer, civil or military, the remedy is in the Presi- 
 dent's own hand, and of easy application. He has nothing to do but 
 turn him out and fill his place with another man. 
 
 Under the act of 185T, it is the plain duty of the Commissioner of the 
 General Land Office to state the account. I think he ought to be re- 
 quired to do it, for no one else, (not the Secretary of the Interior nor the 
 President,) can do it for him. 
 
 It is no objection to stating the account, that the Commissioner thinks 
 there is no balance in favor of the claimant, for if that be so, the fact 
 will appear all the plainer when the account is stated. I forbear all 
 farther argument and content myself with referring you to numerous 
 opinions of my predecessors, (as collated below,) by which the doctrines 
 I advance are fully settled for this office. 
 
 The question of the President's power to interfere with the action of 
 the accounting officers in the settlement of accounts, repeatedly came 
 before Attorney General "Wirt, and he held that the duty imposed upon 
 the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, placed 
 the officers engaged in the execution of the laws under his general 
 superintendence, and required him to see that they did their duty faith- 
 fully, and, on their failure, to cause them to be displaced, prosecuted or 
 impeached, according to the nature of the case. But it did not mean 
 that he should execute the laws in person, which would be absurd and 
 impossible ; that where the laws require a particular officer by name to 
 perform a duty, not only must he perform it, but no other officer can
 
 115 
 
 lawfully do so, and were the President to perform it, so far from taking 
 care that the laws were faithfully executed, he would be violating them 
 himself ; and he held that the President had no power to interfere with 
 the accounting officers so long as they performed their duties faithfully 
 (1 Op. At. Gen., 624 ; ibid 636 ; ibid 678 ; ibid 706.) 
 
 Although Attorney General Taney, in Thorp's case, (2 Opinions 463,) 
 seemed to think that where a claim had been rejected by the accounting 
 officers, and their decision confirmed by the Secretary of War, an appeal 
 might lie to the President, it is clear that such was not his well consid- 
 ered opinion. For in Grice's case, (2 Op., 481,) where the claim was 
 rejected by the accounting officers, he declared that no appeal would lie 
 from their decision to the President. And, in General Taylor's ease, 
 (2 Op., 507,) where the President was asked to dismiss a suit on the 
 ground that the accounting officers had not allowed certain credits, At- 
 torney General Taney advised him that the law contemplated no appeal 
 to the President, and that he did not possess the power to examine into 
 the correctness of the accounts to repair errors that the accounting offi- 
 cers appointed by law might have committed. Again, in Hogan's case, 
 where the President was asked to order the allowance of certain claims 
 against the United States, which the accounting officers had rejected, 
 Attorney General Taney advised him that such an appeal would not lie 
 to him, and that he could not legally interfere. These three cases un- 
 doubtedly express the authoritative opinion of that distinguished officer 
 on this question. 
 
 To the same effect is the opinion of Attorney General Crittenden, in 
 Pratt's case, (not printed,) and his elaborate opinion in 5 Op., 636, 
 wherein he reviews the precedents, and reaches the conclusion that the 
 President has no authority to interfere in the settlement of accounts on 
 appeal to him. 
 
 In this opinion Mr. Crittenden also maintains, with great ability and 
 learning, the rightful authority of the heads of departments to interfere 
 "a priori or a posteriori" in the settlement of accounts of their respec- 
 tive departments, and this principle has been accepted by nearly all his 
 successors, and may now be regarded as settled. It results, therefore, 
 that a power of interference with the accounting officers exists in the 
 heads of departments, which is not conceded to exist in the President. 
 Although Attorney General Gushing calls this an " anomaly of rela- 
 tion," (6 Op., 343,) it is conceived that good reasons exist for the dis- 
 tinction. The rule which has thus forbidden the President's inter- 
 ference in the settlement of accounts by the accounting officers, has also 
 been applied to other cases. Where an appeal was taken from the de- 
 cision of the Secretary of War, approving the action of the Commis- 
 sioner of Pensions, in disallowing a claim for an increase of pension, 
 Attorney General Mason advised the President against entertaining the 
 appeal, and, after citing the opinions of Messrs. Wirt and Taney, said 
 that the President could not adequately perform his high constitutional 
 duties if he were to undertake to review the decisions of subordinates 
 on tne weight or effect of evidence in cases appropriately belonging to 
 them. 
 
 Where the state of Iowa claimed certain lands, under a grant by Con- 
 gress, and a question arose as to the extent of the grant, and the proper
 
 116 
 
 officers differed on that question, the President was asked to decide the 
 question, but Attorney General Crittenden advised him that the act of 
 Congress did not provide for or appear to intend any interposition by 
 the President, and that his interference with the performance of the par- 
 ticular duties assigned by law to subordinate officers, either to correct 
 errors or supply omissions, would, in the general, be exceedingly inju- 
 dicious, if at all warrantable, and would, moreover, involve him in an 
 endless and invidious task, occupying his whole attention, and leaving 
 no time for higher duties. He gave the same opinion where the Presi- 
 dent was invoked to interfere on behalf of certain parties for the decision 
 and settlement of questions arising out of a contradfand purchase of 
 lands made by them from the Seneca Indians, (5 Op., 275.) 
 
 In conclusion, I adopt the language of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, (1 How., 297,) as an accurate and authoritative statement 
 of the law on the subject. "The President's duty, in general, requires 
 his superintendence of the administration ; yet this duty cannot require 
 of him to become the administrative officer of every department and 
 bureau, or to perform in person the numerous details incident to services 
 which, nevertheless, he is, in a correct sense, .by the constitution and 
 laws required and expected to perform. This cannot be, first, because 
 if it were practicable, it would be to absorb the duties and responsibili- 
 ties of the various departments of the government in the personal action 
 of the one chief executive officer. It cannot be, for the stronger reason 
 that it is impracticable, nay, impossible." 
 
 I am, Sir, very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 EDWARD BATES, 
 
 Attorney General. 
 
 REMARKS ON THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
 
 After quoting what I suppose is the language of the President's 
 memorandum, accompanying the papers transmitted by him to the At- 
 torney General, that officer says : "And so the question is, has the 
 State of Illinois any legal right to take such appeal, and thereby impose 
 upon the President the legal duty to do what the law plainly requires 
 to be done by the Commissioner, i. e ., to state the account, &c. I am 
 clearly of the opinion that no such appeal lies. The President is not the 
 accountant general of the nation is not an auditor or comptroller of 
 accounts." 
 
 The learned Attorney General mistates the case, doubtless uninten- 
 tionally, and then draws a conclusion from the erroneous premises. I 
 never pretended, nor do I know of its ever being pretended, by any 
 one, that the President was "Accountant General" of the nation, or an 
 "Auditor," or a Comptroller, or that he was bound to make up, or per- 
 sonally superintend making up, -the accounts of such officers. Because 
 he is not bound to do this, the learned Attorney General assumes the 
 ground that no appeal lies, in the case of Illinois, to the President. 
 What I have affirmed, and what is the settled ruling of the Attorney 
 General's office is this, that while it is wholly impracticable, nay, irnpos- 
 Bible, for the President to execute, in person, all the laws, it is, never-
 
 117 
 
 theless, his solemn duty, enjoined by his oath of office, "to take care 
 they are executed." In cases where it is made known to him that his 
 subordinates have not executed them, he is to see that they do it, and if 
 they fail upon direction to do it, it is his duty to turn them out, and ap- 
 point others who will execute them. In every case where he has the 
 right to appoint and remove an officer at will, he is responsible for his 
 conduct, and the officer is amenable to him for every dereliction of 
 duty, and what can be a more serious one than failing to execute the 
 laws. In cases where the tenure of the office is fixed by the constitu- 
 tution, such, for instance, as that of a supreme judgeship, the President 
 is not responsible for the manner in which the incumbent performs his 
 duty, for the reason he has no power over him. Such functionary be- 
 longs to a different and co-ordinate department of the government, and 
 his case is not to be confounded with one, where an executive ministe- 
 rial officer, who is but the convenience of the President, fails to discharge 
 his duty. It will hardly be seriously insisted, I apprehend, by the 
 learned Attorney General, that such an officer is above the power of the 
 President to correct his errors and require the performance of his omis- 
 sions of duty. "What I have claimed is, that subordinate executive offi- 
 cers have not executed the laws bearing upon the two per cent, road 
 fund to the State, as the President has interpreted them, and that hence it 
 . is incumbent on him to see that they do it, for the reason that he is bound 
 to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," as HE understands 
 them, and not as they may be interpreted by his inferiors or clerks. Some- 
 how or other there seems to be a strange propensity in some of the de- 
 partments at "Washington, to make up false issues with the State, and 
 then try her cause upon them. I put it to the learned Attorney General 
 to say whether, if the President is satisfied that one of his subordinate 
 officers has not executed (I will state the case direct) the laws requiring 
 the payment to Illinois of the sum she claims, it is not his constitutional 
 duty to direct those laws to be fulfilled. To attempt to relieve him from 
 that duty by a mere dash of the pen, that ho is not "Accountant Gener- 
 al" of the nation, or an "Auditor," or "Comptroller," is hardly worthy 
 of the great reputation of the learned Attorney General. I fear that if 
 his legal fame should rest upon the assumption that, because the Presi- 
 dent is neither of these things, he is not therefore bound "to take care 
 that the laws are executed," it would soon disappear from among the 
 illustrious expounders of constitutional law. 
 
 The very authorities which the learned Attorney General himself 
 cites, are against him. They sustain the real, and are irrelevant to his 
 hypothetical case. Instance the quotation at the conclusion of his opin- 
 ions, from the decision of the supreme court of the United States, (1 
 How., 297,) wherein the court say, "The President's duty, in general, re- 
 quires his superintendence of the administration ; yet this duty cannot 
 require of him to become the administrative officer of every department 
 and bureau, or to perform, in person, the numerous details incident to 
 services, which, nevertheless, he is, in a correct sense, by the constitu- 
 tion and laws required and expected to perform." 
 
 The doctrine here laid down by the court is undoubtedly correct. It 
 is that in a "correct sense" the President is required by the "constitu- 
 tion and laws" to become the administrative officer of every department
 
 118 
 
 and bureau, yet it is impossible for him to perform, in person, the nu- 
 merous details incident to services which are required of him. The em- 
 ployment of others is a matter of convenience, and to facilitate the dis- 
 charge of public business and does not and cannot divest the President 
 of any part of his attribute of executive power and responsibility. I 
 have never asked the President to state in person, the account of Illinois, 
 but I have asked him to see that the laws were executed. I have asked 
 him to direct his subordinates to execute themf If he is made conscious 
 that -an account has been wrongfully stated, it is plain thai: that is no 
 legal statement of it, and consequently no statement. To state an ac- 
 count is to comply with the law. A wrongful statement is no state- 
 ment. 
 
 The supreme court say, in their opinion quoted from by the learned 
 Attorney General, "the President's duty, in. general, requires his super- 
 intendence of the administration." 
 
 What does this mean but that he is required to see that his subordi- 
 nates properly execute the laws. This is all the State lias ever asked of 
 him, and all she desires him to do. 
 
 The learned Attorney General, in his opinion, lays down the true 
 ground. I should have had no cause to complain of his action if he had 
 let the case of the State alone as I presented it, and as it is, and not 
 changed it so as to place it in juxtaposition with his doctrine. He ad- 
 mits, while insisting properly enough, that the President cannot be sub- 
 stituted for all his subordinates and required to do all their work, that 
 he has, "in one sense, a general oversight of all the officers of the gov- 
 ernment, and that it his duty to turn out a ministerial officer who fails 
 to execute the laws, and put one in his place who will execute them." 
 
 If the President believes that the laws relating to the payment of the 
 two per cent, to Illinois have been executed, all he has to do is to say 
 so. But it appears he does not believe it. His opinion of them is 
 so clear that he did not even refer to the learned Attorney General, the 
 question of their exposition only the one of jurisdiction. Had he not 
 been entirely satisfied on the point of construction, he undoubtedly 
 would have called for the opinion of the learned Attorney General upon 
 it. The Interior Department never asked for it, or manifested a will- 
 ingness to risk the case upon it. Occupying the position of a suitor, I 
 had no right to call for it. Only the government could demand or re- 
 quire it, and that appears to have preferred the opinion of subordinates 
 on the merits of the question. 
 
 But I will not, in this report, enlarge the argument in support of the 
 views I have here expressed. They have heretofore been sustained by 
 citations to judicial decisions and the opinions of Attorney General's, 
 too numerous and overwhelming to be overthrown. To evade the real 
 issue is to yield the question of right to the State. 
 
 There is one additional argument, however, used by the learned At- 
 torney General, to show that the State had no right to carry her cause to 
 the President, which it is, perhaps, my duty to notice briefly. He as- 
 sumes that because the act of Congress, approved March 3d, 1857, enti- 
 tled, "An act to settle certain accounts between the United States and 
 the State of Mississippi and other States," '^directory to the Land Com- 
 missioner, that, therefore, it is no concern of the President to see that it
 
 119 
 
 is executed. And yet the learned Attorney General says, in his opinion, 
 "Under the act of 1857, it is the plain duty of the Commissioner of the 
 General Land Office to state the account. I think he ought to be re- 
 quired to state it." 
 
 Required by whom ? Who could require him to state it but the Presi- 
 dent, and if he could require him to state the account, could he not re- 
 quire him to state it correctly ? If he has jurisdiction over the question 
 at all, he has it over all, and not over a part of it. Some laws the Presi- 
 dent is required to execute in person, others are directed to his subordi- 
 nates. The latter class he is required to see executed. The doctrine 
 has long been settled by the very highest authorities, (see Attorney 
 General's opinions,) that a law imposing a duty on a ministerial officer 
 imposes a duty on the President to see that he performs it. The Presi- 
 dent could ot, if he would, escape from the obligation. 
 
 It will be seen by an examination of the learned Attorney General's 
 opinion, that he has decided two important points in favor of the State, 
 and sustained the views I have uniformly expressed upon them, and 
 overruled those expressed by the Interior Secretary and the Land Com- 
 missioner. I refer to his ruling that the act of 1857 embraces the per 
 cent, on the public lands as well as the per cent, on the Indian reserva- 
 tions, and requiring the Commissioner to state the account of Illinois on 
 .both. He also decides that the Interior Secretary has nothing to do 
 with the case. 
 
 But one other question remains undisposed of, and that is how shall 
 that account be stated ? The following is a copy of the statement of it, 
 made out in the General Land Office, under the supervision of the In- 
 terior Secretary, and the question is, is it in compliance with the law f 
 I have, in my previous reports, so fully argued this point that it is be- 
 lieved to be wholly unnecessary to say but a word or so upon it now, 
 especially in view of the fact that I shall soon discuss it fully before the 
 First Comptroller of the Treasury. 
 
 There is no pretense that the acts passed for the benefit of Alabama 
 and Mississippi, which will be found in my original report, pages 6 and 
 7, contemplated that any offset should be used or charged against the 
 accounts required to be stated, other than the actual payments, in 
 money, before that time made. This is not only apparent from the 
 language of the acts themselves, but the conclusion is placed beyond all 
 doubt whan it is recollected there were no other kind of offsets to apply. 
 The acts simply provided that the two and three per cent, accounts of 
 Alabama and Mississippi should be restated, and if any part of either, 
 upon such restatement, remained unpaid, it should be paia, and five per 
 cent, on the Indian reservations included therein. It seems to me that 
 nothing can be plainer. Alabama and Mississippi wanted just that 
 legislation and nothing more. They wanted and asked for the five 
 per cent, on the Indian reservations within their respective limits, and 
 whatever remained unpaid of the five per cent, arising from the sales of 
 the public lands. They were not contemplating, nor was Congress, ex- 
 penditures on the Cumberland road at the time said laws were passed, 
 and there is no man at all acquainted with the history and character of 
 the legislation, silly enough to believe it. The accounts are required to 
 be stated " for the purpose of ascertaining what sum or sums of money
 
 120 
 
 are due to said states, heretofore unsettled," etc., that is, heretofore un- 
 paid, and to include the five per cent, on Indian reservations therein, 
 and pay the sum thus found to be unpaid or "unsettled" 
 
 The second section of the Mississippi act enjoins upon the Commis- 
 sioner of the General Land Office to " also state an account between the 
 United States and each of the other states, upon the same principles," 
 that is, in the same way, mode or manner, " and allow and pay to each 
 state the amount that shall thus be found due, estimating all lands and 
 permanent reservations at $1,25 per acre." If the amount thus " found 
 due" was not to be "allowed and paid," where the necessity of requir- 
 ing the account to be stated, unless the " other states " were to be placed 
 upon an equal footing with Alabama and Mississippi, and the same 
 principle of payment was to be observed towards them that was to be 
 observed towards those states, the said second section of the act of 
 March 3d, 1857, is without object and without meaning, and it is hardly 
 to be presumed that the committee on Public Lauds in the Senate 
 would have added it to the bill, except for a wise and just purpose. 
 
 But the Attorney General having determined that the account of Illi- 
 nois must be stated under the act of 1857, disposes of the whole ques- 
 tion, for there can be no doubt of the " principles " upon which it must 
 be stated. The conclusion therefore is, that the expenditures on the 
 Cumberland road were resorted to as a mere departmental evasion. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, April 2, 1864. 
 Hon. I. N. MORRIS, Agent and Atfy for Illinois^ Present : 
 
 SIR Referring to my letter of the 1st inst, in reply to yours of the 
 30th ult, I now inclose a copy of the statement of the Illinois reserved 
 two per cent. fund. The statement has been sent to the Hon. 1st Comp- 
 troller of the Treasury. Copies of any papers on our files, in regard to 
 this, which you may desire, will be furnished on your application. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. EDMUKDS, 
 
 Commissioner. 
 
 [ Report No. 17,984. ] 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFOE, March 17, 1864. 
 
 SIR I have examined as to the condition of the reserved two per 
 cent, fund on the sales of the public lands within the limits of the State 
 of Illinois, from January 1st, 1819, to December 31st, 1860, in view of 
 the provisions of the act of Congress approved April 18, 1818, of the 
 act approved 3d March, 1857, " to settle certain accounts between the 
 United States and the state of Mississippi and other states," and find as 
 follows, viz :
 
 121 
 
 That two per cent, on the net proceeds, viz : $23,705,984 66 of sales 
 of the public lands within said State, during the period aforesaid, 
 
 amounts to . $474,119 69 
 
 That two per cent, upon the aggregate of 41,754 59-100 
 acres of Indian reserves, amounting to $52,193 24, val- 
 ued at $1,25 per acre, under said act of 1857, amounts to 1,043 86 
 
 $475,163 55 
 
 This sum, $475,163 55, by the express terms of the 3d 
 stipulation in the 5th section of the Illinois Enabling Act 
 of April 18, 1818, being reserved to be disbursed " under 
 the direction of Congress," in "making roads leading to 
 the State." 
 
 I also find that the said two per cent, fund stands 
 chargeable in this connection on account of the construc- 
 tion of the Cumberland road, under the acts of 31st May, 
 1830, 2d March, 1831, 3d July, 1832, 2d March, 1833, 
 24th June, 1834, 2d July, 1836, 2d March, 1837, and 25th 
 May, 1838, (U. S. S., Vol. 4, pages 427, 469, 557, 649, 
 680, Vol. 5, pages 71, 195, and 228,) and according to the 
 official certificate A, herewith, bearing date March 15th, 
 1864, from the acting Register of the Treasury, in the 
 sum of ............................................ $739,879 99 
 
 Showing not only that there is no balance due by the 
 United States, on account of said fund, but that, on the 
 other hand, the sum of .................. . ......... 264,716 44 
 
 has been expended " under the direction of Congress" 
 
 on this account, in excess of the aforesaid reserved two -- 
 
 per cent, fund of ................................. $475,163 55 
 
 [There have been no net proceeds since January 1st, 1861, the inci- 
 dental expenses and repayments having been largely in excess of the 
 receipts from sales.] 
 
 As appears from the foregoing, and the certificate of the acting Regis- 
 ter of the Treasury, which is respectfully submitted to the First Comp- 
 troller of the Treasury for his action and decision thereon. 
 
 J. M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner. 
 Hon. R. W. TAYLOB, First Compt. of the Treasury. 
 
 Statement, showing the payments and repayments on account of the 
 construction of the Cumberland road, in the State of Illinois : 
 
 Payments in 1830 .......................... $12,155 00 
 
 1831 .......................... 33,361 00 
 
 1832 .......................... 87,500 00 
 
 1833 .......................... 40,000 00 
 
 1834 .......................... 51,75203 
 
 1835 .......................... 109,000 00
 
 122 
 
 Payments in 1836 42,231 9T 
 
 " 1837. . 1/k 58,452 66 
 
 " 1838 84,000 00 
 
 " 1839 128,520 00 
 
 " 1840. 99,027 34 
 
 $746,000 00 
 
 Repayments in 1842 $4,700 00 
 
 " 1845 1,420 01 
 
 6,120 01 
 
 $739,879 99 
 
 R. SOLGEK, Acting Register. 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 
 
 REGISTER'S OFFICE, March 15A, 1864. 
 
 The Land Commissioner says, in the foregoing account, " I also find 
 that the said two per cent, stands chargeable in this connection, on ac- 
 count of the construction of the Cumberland road, under the acts of the 
 31st of May, 1830, 2nd of March, 1831, etc., and according to the offi- 
 cial certificate 'A,' herewith, bearing date March 15, 1864, from the 
 acting Register in the Treasury, in the sura of $739,879 99." This 
 finding is not upon any claim or offset existing in his office, the Com- 
 missioner informs us, but is based upon the u official certificate " of the 
 acting Register in the treasury. Denying the right of the Interior De- 
 partment to act officially on any matter in the Treasury Department, 
 and properly under its control and disposal, let me ask, without discuss- 
 ing: the question of jurisdiction, if the statement of the acting Register 
 referred to, bears out and justifies the Commissioner in making the 
 charge he did against the State. The Commissioner informs us that he 
 made that charge " according " (to use his own word) to that certificate. 
 
 Now, what is that certificate ? The caption of it reads as follows : 
 
 " Statement showing the payments and repayments on account of the 
 construction of the Cumberland road, in the State of Illinois." 
 
 There is not a, word in the certificate sJiowing that a single dollar of 
 the amount expended on the Cumberland road, within the limits of Illi- 
 nois, has ever been charged against the two per cent, fund due the State 
 for road purposes; and yet the Interior Department assumes the 
 responsibility, without authority of law, and by encroaching upon the 
 rights of the Treasury Department, to direct the charge to be made ! 
 All there is in the statement of the acting Register is the amount of 
 expenditures on the Cumberland road for a period of ten years, within 
 the limits of Illinois, based upon reports of engineers filed in the Treas- 
 ury Department, or rather, stowed away there. This information I 
 have had in my possession since 1857, when I commenced the prosecu- 
 tion of the claim of the State ; and I am, I believe, familiar with its 
 bearing thereon, as I have had occasion to discuss the matter pretty 
 fully heretofore not for the reason it had any legal connection with the 
 demand, for it has never been so treated in the Treasury Department,
 
 123 
 
 but because the Interior Secretary was indicating a purpose to rely 
 upon it as a dernier resort against the State, when he should be driven, 
 as he was by the opinion of the Attorney General, from his other 
 grounds. 
 
 Understanding the titter fallacy of the pretended offset against the 
 claim of the State, and desiring to bring out the facts fully, I prepared 
 the following resolution, which I handed to the Hon. Wm. R. Morrison, 
 who introduced it into and procured its passage through the House of 
 Representatives : 
 
 "12esolvtd, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, 
 requested to furnish to this House, at as early a day as possible, infor- 
 mation showing 
 
 1. The amount received into the Treasury of the United States of 
 the two per cent, fund arising from the net proceeds of the sales of 
 public lands made in the State of Illinois since January 1st, 1819, and 
 reserved in her enabling act for road purposes giving the dates from 
 time to time when it was so received, and the respective amounts of 
 each payment opposite said dates. 
 
 . Whether anything is charged in the Treasury Department against 
 said fund, or any offsets exist against it there ; and if so, when and how 
 did said charges occur, or were said offsets made, and upon what basis ; 
 stating particularly the amounts and dates of said charges or offsets, 
 and the respective times, mode or manner in which said two per cent, 
 fund was expended, and where, if at all, and the evidence of such ex- 
 penditure, and the authority for it." 
 
 SECRETARY CHASE 5 S REPORT. 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 6, 1864. 
 
 SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a resolution of 
 the House of Representatives, under date of the 2nd instant, requesting 
 me to furnish information showing the amount received into the Treas- 
 ury of the two per cent, fund arising from the net proceeds of the snles 
 of the public lands in Illinois since January 1, 1819, and reserved in 
 her enabling act for road purposes ; and whether anything is charged 
 in this department against said fund, or any offsets exist against it. 
 
 The resolution was referred to the Register of the Treasury, who re- 
 ports that the books of his office do not show any payment made into 
 the Treasury on account of the fund above referred to since January 1, 
 1819. He suggests that the records of the Land Office would probably 
 show all the facts to which the resolution refers. 
 I am. very respectfully, 
 
 S. P. CHASE, 
 
 /Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Hon. SCHUYLER COLFAX, 
 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives.
 
 124 
 
 WASHINGTON, May , 1864. 
 Hon. S. P. CHASE, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury: 
 
 SIR : Your report on the two per cent, fund of Illinois, transmitted 
 to the House of Representatives in response to its resolution of the 2nd 
 inst., is before me. If you will carefully re-examine the subject, I think 
 you will come to the conclusion that you have not fully complied with 
 the request the House made. The books of the Treasury must cer- 
 tainly show the dates when and amounts received from the public lands 
 sold in the State of Illinois since January 1, 1819, and paid into your 
 Department from time to time. Two per cent, upon those amounts will 
 be the amount of the road fund to which said State is entitled. The 
 Register of the Treasury must therefore be mistaken when he states the 
 books of his office do not show any payment made into the Treasury on 
 account of said fund. The second part of the resolution you have made 
 no reply to. It is in these words : " Whether anything is charged in 
 the Treasury Department against said fund, or any offsets exist against 
 it there, and if so, when and how did said offsets or charges occur, and 
 were the same made, and upon what basis stating particularly the 
 amounts and dates of said charges or offsets, and the respective times 
 or manner in which said two per cent, fund was expended, and where, 
 if at all, and the evidence of such expenditure, and the authority for it." 
 
 I hope, sir, you will oblige the State of Illinois, and myself, by fur- 
 nishing to the House, as soon as possible, an additional and fuller report 
 on the subject. I am apprised of the nature and character of the infor- 
 mation which the Land Department can furnish. 
 Yery respectfully, 
 
 WM. R. MORRISON. 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 2, 1864. 
 
 SIR : I have received your letter of the 23rd ult., asking for further 
 information than that contained in my letter of May 6th, in reply to a 
 resolution of the House of Representatives of May 2, inquiring in re- 
 gard to " the amount received into the treasury of the United States of 
 the two per cent, fund arising from the net proceeds of the siles of the 
 public lands made in the State of Illinois, since January 1, 1819." 
 
 The books of the Register of the Treasury do, as you suggest, show 
 the am6unts received into the Treasury from the public lauds sold in 
 the State of Illinois since January 1, 1819. A table is herewith trans- 
 mitted, showing the receipts for each year, up to the present time, since 
 1818. The books of the Department do not, however, show anything 
 in regard to such a fund as that referred to in the resolution, either in 
 the way of receipts, or of charges or offsets against it. 
 1 am, very respectfully, 
 
 S. P. CHASE, 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 Hon. WM. R. MORRISON, 
 
 House of Representatives.
 
 125 
 
 Statement of Moneys received into the Treasury of the United States- 
 from the sale of Public Lands in the State of Illinois. 
 
 Amount 
 
 1 * ( 
 
 - ^ 
 
 ' 
 
 ' 
 . 
 
 Tot 
 
 received dui 
 i 
 
 
 
 M 
 i 
 
 t 
 
 it 
 
 * . : 
 't 
 't 
 ( 
 1 
 t 
 ^ 
 
 n 
 
 1. ; 
 | 
 I 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 A ' 
 i 
 
 < 
 i 
 
 < 
 ii 
 i 
 4 
 
 1 ' ; 
 
 1 
 1 
 i 
 I 
 i 
 W.' 
 4' 
 it 
 
 ii 
 i 
 ii 
 ii 
 
 al 
 
 ing fiscal 
 
 ' 
 
 year 1819 
 
 $299,461 58 
 134,355 15 
 75,595 19 
 61,216 82 
 47,600 34 
 74,669 87 
 50,784 49 
 108,341 14 
 50,717 52 
 88,161 80 
 198,609 72 
 396,204 31 
 375,260 27 
 228,292 69 
 374,138 51 
 402,470 68 
 2,461,125 03 
 3,705,013 98 
 1,075,239 73 
 818,923 62 
 1,457,955 90 
 597,223 61 
 326,722 20 
 550,071 97 
 258,463 49 
 468,651 93 
 530,982 98 
 659,519 12 
 546,929 03 
 491,875 77 
 268,446 49 
 373,340 42 
 368,414 32 
 315,633 21 
 719,722 16 
 1,671,763 28 
 962,065 88 
 859,544 46 
 856,169 26 
 51,615 62 
 7,960 53 
 18,050 36 
 11,432 29 
 1,029 59 
 8,047 28 
 
 1820 
 
 1821 
 
 1822 
 
 1823 
 
 1824 
 
 1825 
 
 1826 
 
 1827 
 
 1828 
 
 1829 
 
 1830 . 
 
 1831 
 
 1832 
 
 1883 
 
 ' 1834 
 
 1835 
 
 1836 
 
 1837 
 
 1838 
 
 1839 
 
 1840 
 
 '" 1841 
 
 1842 
 
 1843 
 
 x 1844 
 
 1845 
 
 1846 
 
 1847 
 
 1848 
 
 i 1849 
 
 1850 
 
 1851 
 
 1852 
 
 * 1853 
 
 1854 
 
 1855 
 
 1856 
 
 1857 
 
 " 1858 
 
 1859 
 
 I860 
 
 1861 
 
 1862 
 
 1863 
 
 i 
 
 12^.897,813 04 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, REGISTER'S OFFICE, 
 
 June 1st, 1864. 
 
 L. E. CHITTENDEN, Register. 
 
 As early as September, 1863, Mr. Solger, the Acting Kegister in the 
 Treasury, furnished me with the following certificate, which will be 
 found published in my supplemental report :
 
 126 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, REGISTER'S OFFICE, 
 
 September 26, 1863. 
 
 I do hereby certify that there is no account on the books of this office 
 in relation to the two per cent, fund with the State of Illinois. No sum 
 has been credited to said State on account of said fund, nor has there 
 ever been any amount charged against it in this office. 
 
 R. SOLGER, 
 
 Acting Register. 
 
 After this superabundant evidence that there is nothing charged in 
 the Treasury Department against the two per cent, fund of the State, it 
 will appear incredible that the Interior Department should direct such a 
 forced construction to be put upon the statement of the Acting Register 
 accompanying the account made out against her. 
 
 That I should feel indignant at so great a wrong upon the rights of 
 my State is not a matter of suprise. With a view of showing the ab- 
 surdity of the Interior Secretary's action, I addressed him, or rather his 
 assistant, a communication, of which the following is a copy. I deemed 
 it my duty to the State to do so. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, April 4, 1864. 
 HON. WM. S. OTTO, Assistant Interior Secretary : 
 
 SIR: I have just been furnished by the Commissioner of the Gene- 
 ral Land Office with a copy of an account, which passed under the 
 supervision of the Interior Department, and was made up in compli- 
 ance with its ruling of the two per cent, fund claimed to be due to the 
 State of Illinois, under the act of the third of March, 1857, providing 
 for the settlement of certain accounts between the United States and the 
 State of Mississippi and other States. That account shows the amount 
 of eaid fund to be $475,163 55, and there is charged against it 
 $731), 879 99, (you say, in your opinion, under date of August 31st, 
 1863, that the amount appropriated for the road in that State (Illinois) 
 is $606,000, and now you put it at $739,879 99, thus largely increasing 
 it,) leaving a balance against the State of $264,716 44, which you have 
 affirmed she will be compelled to pay. 
 
 It is truly unfortunate for me, as well as my State, that after having 
 labored for years to promote her interest I should bring her out in debt ! 
 I suppose I ought to be accountable to her in damages. 
 
 While, however, Illinois, has been thus unfortunate, a very cheering 
 and happy result has accrued to the General Government, at this mo- 
 ment of her financial distress. You have all along insisted, and if you 
 had not the facts would not thereby be changed, that Ohio and Indiana 
 stood in the precise relation to the act of 1857 that Illinois does, and 
 that if she received the two per cent, they were equally entitled to it 
 This being the case, each is, of course, ind'ebted to the General Govern- 
 ment for the sums expended on the National road within their respect- 
 ive limits, over and above the two per cent, fund arising from the public 
 lands. This will show an indebtedness on the part of Ohio to the 
 United States of nearly two million of dollars, and of Indiana of nearly 
 one million, and certainly your high sense of justice, propriety and rigid
 
 127 
 
 impartiality will not allow you to claim the excess from Illinois and not 
 from the other States named. It will be no excuse that those States 
 (Ohio and Indiana) have not asl^ed their accounts to be made out. 
 Your duty, as a faithful and upright public officer, requires you to make 
 them out on the same principle you applied to Illinois in making up her 
 account, and in the event the sums not found due are not paid on pre- 
 sentation, which I presume will be the case with your own State at 
 least, you should institute suits for the recovery of the several amounts. 
 Illinois will meet such a suit in any court you may select, and at any 
 time that will suit your convenience, and I pledge her honor that she 
 will file no technical pleas to your declaration, but meet the question on 
 the broad ground of merit. Can you say that she has been thus dealt 
 with ? 
 
 Information found its way promtly, from your department, over the 
 telegraphic wires, last August, when you decided the case of Illinois 
 against her, that the decision applied equally to Ohio and Indiana, your 
 own State, and this was heralded as conclusive evidence of the aston- 
 ishing economy and watchfulness of the Interior Office over the public 
 coffers, and convincing proof of your moral courage and unbiased judg- 
 ment, for if you had decided otherwise than you did, you would have 
 benefited Indiana as well as Illinois. Now that the case being altered 
 I hope it will not alter the case, but that you will proceed against Indiana, 
 make out her account, and collect it, as you propose to do with Illinois. 
 I feel quite sure you will not allow any feeling of State partiality or 
 delicacy to induce you to pause in the discharge of this high duty as a 
 government functionary. 1 shall anticipate for you the most favorable 
 result. 
 
 Inasmuch, however, as the discovery would never have been made of 
 the indebtedness ot Ohio, Indiana and Illinois to the General Govern- 
 ment of a sum amounting in the aggregate to nearly three millions of 
 dollars, but for my labors, would it be anything but fair for the United 
 States (pardon the suggestion) to pay me a reasonable fee therefor. I 
 see no other way of making myself whole, and will leave the disposition 
 of the matter to the known liberality of your department, not being 
 disposed to present a formal bill. 
 
 I am only astonished that while it is now claimed Illinois owes the 
 United States so large a sum, you should have paid me, for her, $1,565, 
 so late as September last, on her Indian reservations. That, however, 
 was, doubtless, an oversight, and you will, of course, include the amount 
 in your account as paid by mistake. 
 
 Being profoundly grateful that, while I have injured my own State I 
 have at least been fortunate enough to add a claim, covering such a large 
 sum, to the National coffers; and believing also that your promptness in 
 the discharge of your official duties, of which I have had the most abun- 
 dant evidence, will prompt you at oneo to collect the same, I congratu- 
 late the country upon the auspicious event. 
 
 With the view that Congress may be apprised of the fact that such a 
 large amount is thus unexpectedly to come soon into the treasury, thereby 
 lessening the necessity for raising revenue, and likewise with the view 
 of conveying early information to Ohio, Indiana and Illinois of the re- 
 spective sums they will be required to pay over to the United States, I
 
 128 
 
 shall publish a copy of this communication in advance of my report to 
 the Governor of my State. 
 
 With great consideration, I remain, sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 I. N. MORRIS, 
 Agent and Attorney for Illinois. 
 
 P. S. You certainly will not insist that Indiana is equally entitled to 
 the benefits of the act of 1857 with Illinois, and she not be equally lia- 
 ble with her to pay to the General Government the amount expended 
 over it on the National road within her limits. You stood ready to take 
 for your own State that fund if Illinois received it, and I suppose are 
 equally ready to make her pay back the overplus. 
 
 I. N. MORRIS. 
 THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS. 
 
 The following is a copy of a note, addressed by the President to the 
 Interior Secretary, at the time of transmitting to that officer the papers 
 pertaining to the matter which I submitted to his Excellency on behalf 
 of the State. While his Excellency expresses his own view of the law 
 clearly, he very properly did not feel justified in giving an instruction 
 to the Secretary, in advance, to adopt his construction. 
 
 HON. INTERIOR SECRETARY : 
 
 Illinois has again presented her claim for the two per cent. I do not 
 think it very gracious in her to do so at this time of our National 
 troubles. My opinion of the law has undergone no change. I think 
 the law is with the State. 1 therefore desire you to take up the case 
 and act upon it as you may think the law is. 
 
 A. LINCOLN. 
 
 LETTER OF HON. P. B. FOUKE. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, February 20, 1864. 
 
 DEAR SIR In reply to your inquiry, I will state that I have examined' 
 your report on the two per cent, fund due from the United States to the 
 State of Illinois, submitted to Governor Yates in April, 1863, and par- 
 ticularly that part of it in which you refer, on the 20th and 21st pages, 
 to an interview I had with the President, and what was said between 
 us on the subject at that interview, held on the 23d of March, 1863, 
 when I read to him your written statement, bearing date March 19, 
 1863, and I fully indorse and sustain you in all the facts which you have 
 presented. They transpired as you represent them. The President 
 stated to me what you say he did, and left no doubt on my mind that 
 Illinois was entitled to the money she claimed, according to his view of 
 the laws relating thereto. 
 
 I will also state that after my interview with the President, I had 
 another with the Hon. John P. Usher, Secretary of the Interior, who 
 treated me with great courtesy and kindness, which terminated by his 
 leaving the impression on my mind that his view of the laws upon 
 which are based the claim of Illinois, were the same as those which the 
 President had expressed to me. 
 
 Yours, very truly, P. B. FOUKE. 
 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS.
 
 129 
 
 The same impression left by Judge Usher, the Interior Secretary, on 
 the mind of Mr. Fouke, he left on my mind at more than one interview, 
 and he has also left the same impression on the minds of others. There 
 is no doubt that his legal opinion is that the law is with the State. 
 Hence he threw the whole responsibility of resisting the claim upon his 
 assistant, while he stood in the back ground himself. It is a most sig- 
 nificant fact that no principal officer at "Washington has been willing to 
 stake his legal reputation on a decision against the State. "Why did not 
 the Interior Secretary meet the question himself, and not put his assist- 
 ant between him and Illinois? The reason is obvious. 
 
 One statement in my report referred to by Col. Fouke, in his letter, 
 is as follows : 
 
 " He, (meaning the President) also said to Col. Fonke that he had 
 talked with Mr. Usher, his Secretary of the Interior, on the subject, and 
 that his Secretary entertained precisely the same view of the laws upon 
 which the claim of the State is based as he himself did, that he, the 
 Secretary, had so said to him." 
 
 PROTEST AND PETITION FOE RE-HEARING. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, April 4, 1864. 
 Hon. J. M. EDMUNDS, Corner Gen. Land Office: 
 
 SIR I have to-day received from you a copy of the statement of an 
 account made out in your office, and subjected to the supervision of the 
 Interior Department, of the two per cent, fund arising from the net 
 proceeds of the sales of the public lands in the State of Illinois, claimed 
 by me as the agent and attorney of said State to be due and payable to 
 her under the provisions of an act approved March 3, 1857, providing 
 for the settlement of certain accounts between the United States and 
 the State of Mississippi and other states. 
 
 You give the gross amount of said two per cent, fund at $475,163 55, 
 and charge against it $739,879 99, on account of alledged expenditures 
 on the Cumberland road thus showing a balance against the State of 
 $264,716 44. 
 
 To the account thus stated, I avail myself of the immediate occasion 
 of its receipt to enter, in the name of Illinois, her deliberate and solemn 
 protest, and to affirm and deny, in her behalf, that she is bound or con- 
 cluded thereby, for the following among other reasons : 
 
 Firstly Because said account is not stated, as said act of 1857, 
 requires, but in contravention thereof in this, that the said act requires 
 the said two per cent, to be " stated, allowed and paid," and does not 
 authorize or allow the said alledged expenditures on the National road 
 to be charged against it or any off-set to be made on account of said 
 expenditures on said road or otherwise ; and also in this, that said two 
 per cent, was never expended, or any part thereof, by Congress, as trus- 
 tee, in the mode or manner required by the conditions of the trust 
 reposed by the State in that body by the terms of the compact between 
 her and the general government. 
 
 Secondly Because said account does not give the dates, places or 
 particulars, when, \vhere or how said fund was expended, so that it can 
 13
 
 130 
 
 be determined with any accuracy that it was expended in conformity 
 with the trust Congress held. 
 
 Thirdly Because said account, as stated, is vague and uncertain, 
 oppressive and unjust to the State of Illinois, and wholly unauthorized 
 by any law. 
 
 Fourthly Because said account was hurriedly made up, without 
 giving the State an opportunity to be heard on the rule or principle 
 which should have been adopted and followed in stating it. 
 
 All other exceptions to said account, as made up, are reserved by the 
 State and excepted to. I. N. MORRIS, 
 
 Agent and Attorney for Illinois. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, April 4, 1864. 
 HON. I. N. MORRIS, Agent and Attorney for Illinois, Present: 
 
 Sm Your protest of this date against the form adopted in stating 
 the Illinois reserved two per cent, fund has been received and placed on 
 file. Herewith I inclose a copy of any letter of this date to the First 
 Comptroller, transmitting a copy of your letter for a re-hearii:g. 
 Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY, April 4, 1864. 
 HON. JAMES M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner General Land Office: 
 
 SIR In behalf of the State of Illinois, I respectfully petition your 
 Honor for a re-hearing in the matter of the application of said State for 
 the payment of the two per cent, arising from the net proceeds of the 
 sales of the public lands, made within her limits, since January 1, 1819, 
 reserved to be expended by Congress, as trustee, in the compact 
 between her and the general government, in the construction of roads 
 leading to said State, the account of which has been stated in a manner 
 unauthorized, as she claims, by law, and as she hopes to establish or 
 make manifest if a re-hearing is granted. 
 
 1. 1ST. MORRIS, 
 Agent and Attorney for said State of Illinois. 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, April 4, 1864. 
 HON. R. "W. TAYLOR, First Comptroller of the Treasury: 
 SIR I inclose herewith a copy of a letter received this day from the 
 Hon. I. N. Morris, agent and attorney for Illinois, asking for a re-hear- 
 ing in the case of the Illinois reserved two per cent, fund, and he ver- 
 bally requested that no action be taken thereon at the present time. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed) J. M. EDMUNDS, Commissioner. 
 
 After submitting the protest and petition for re-hearing, I had per- 
 sonal interviews with the Land Commissioner and First Comptroller of 
 the Treasury, each of whom was very courteous, and kindly consented 
 to allow me to submit my arguments at such time as was convenient. 
 I therefore postponed the further prosecution of the claim until this
 
 131 
 
 4 
 
 winter. In two or three weeks I shall again repair to Washington and 
 renew my labors. The comptroller has the power to review the 
 account, as stated, and to change it as his mind may suggest is right. 
 There must at some period not distant, be a termination to technical 
 pleas, and then the State will obtain her rights, and substantial justice 
 will be done. 
 
 I cannot close this report without renewing the expression of my 
 continued confidence in the determination on the part of the President 
 to see that the State is fairly dealt with, and without also expressing my 
 acknowledgments for the personal kindness and respect with which he 
 has uniformly treated me. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. I. N. MOKRIS. 
 
 QUINCY, December 24, 1864.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOI9-URBANA 
 
 30112045944409 
 
 J