:i SPEECH WILLIAM H. SEWARD, ON THE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, ' DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, / FEBRUARY 27, 1851. WASHINGTON: BUELL & BLANCHARD. 1851. SPEECH. Mr. President : The organization of the American Republic is a political anomaly. Ancient and modern States, rudely constituted with¬ in narrow limits, have aggrandized themselves by colonies, and conquests, while passing through various revolutions of govern¬ ment. But the world has never before seen a State assume a perfect organization in its very beginning, and extend itself over a large portion of a great continent, without conquests, without colonies, and without undergoing any change of constitution. The success of Portugal and of the Netherlands in planting profitable commercial colonies in the East Indies, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, stimulated nearly all the European States to attempt to secure similar advantages, by exploring and appropriating to themselves portions of the New World, then known as the Western Indies. Spain, Britain, and France, divided between themselves nearly all North America. Each of these Kingdoms, however, pursued a policy so rigorous as to hinder the growth of the colonies it planted. The United States, in the Revolution of 1776, supplanted Great Britain in sovereignty over the region lying between the St. Lawrence and Louisiana, and stretching from the Atlantic coast to the banks of the Mississippi. The conquering States, practically independent of each other, were embarrassed by conflicting boundaries. The controversy was magnanimously ended, by an agreement that %ach should release its claim of unappropriated territory for the common use and benefit. New York led the way, and ceded her claims as well of a po¬ litical jurisdiction” as “ of the right of soil,” “ to be and inure to the use and benefit of such of the United States as should become members of the Federal Alliance of the said States, and for no other use or purpose whatever.” Virginia claimed the broad region lying northwest of the Ohio, and relinquished it in 1785, with a declaration that it should “ be considered as a common fund for the. use and benefit of such of the United States as have become or shall become mem¬ bers of the Confederation or Federal Alliance of the said States, (Virginia inclusive,) according to their usual and respective pro- » 4 ♦ portions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever.” Massachusetts soon afterwards released to the United States, u for their benefit, Massachusetts inclusive.” Connecticut conveyed in 1786, in the same form. South Carolina, in 1787, ceded, u for the benefit of the United States, South Carolina inclusive.” North Carolina, in 1790, conveyed by a deed containing the same declaration which had been used by Virginia ; and Georgia completed the title of the United States by a cession on the n same terms, attended with other stipulations which are not now * important. The Constitution of the United States, adopted in the course of this great transaction, sanctioned it as follows : u The Con¬ gress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or other property be¬ longing to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”— Art . 14, Sec. 8. The Continental Congress had previously adopted the Ordi¬ nance of 1787, by which they established a Government in the Northwestern Territory, and provided for its future subdivision into States. With a view to that great political purpose, the Constitution declared that “ New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.”— Art. 5, Sec. 8. The purchase of Louisiana from France in 1808, the acquisi¬ tion of Florida by a grant from Spain in 1819, the discovery of Oregon, and the recent purchase of New Mexico and Upper California, extended our domain along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico to the Rio Grande, and, from its head waters, across the Rocky Mountains and the Snowy Hills to the Pacific Ocean. The aggregate quantity of this national estate is fifteen hundred and eighty-four millions of acres; of which, one hundred and thirty-four millions have been definitely appropriated, and there remain, including appropriations not yet perfected, fourteen hundred and fifty millions of acres. Using only round numbers, these lands are distributed among the States and Territories, as follows : Acres. In Ohio - Indiana Illinois Missouri Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Michigan 745,000 2,751,000 14,060,000 29,216,000 17,238,000 14,308,000 22,854,000 24,864,000 5 Arkansas Florida Iowa Wisconsin Minnesota Northwest Territory Oregon Territory - Nebraska Territory Indian Territory - „ California and Utah New Mexico - 27,402,000 31,801,000 27,153,000 26,321,000 56,000,000 - 376,000,000 - 218,536,000 87,488,000 - 119,789,000 - 287,162,000 49,727-,000 The domain came to the United States encumbered with a right of possession by Indian tribes, which is gradually extin¬ guished by purchase, as the necessities of advancing population require. At the establishment of the Federal Government, the United States suffered from exhaustion by war, and labored under the pressure of a great national debt, while they were obliged to make large expenditures for new institutions, and to prepare for defence by land and by sea. They therefore adopted a policy which treated the domain merely as a fund or source of revenue. They divided it into townships, sections, and quarter-sections, and offered it at public sale, at a minimum price of two dollars per acre, on credit, and subsequently at private sale, on the same terms. In 1820, they abolished the credit system, and reduced the price to one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. In 1833, they recognised a right of pre-emption in favor of * actual occupants; and the system, as thus modified, still re¬ mains in form upon our statute-book. The United States, how¬ ever, have, at different times, made very different dispositions of portions’ of the domain. Thus there have been appropriated to the new States and Territories, for purposes of internal im¬ provement, for saline reservations, for the establishment of seats of Government and public buildings, and for institutions of education, as follows : Acres. To Ohio Indiana - Illinois - Missouri Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Michigan Arkansas Wisconsin Iowa Florida - 1,847,575 2,331,690 1,649,024 1,793,748 1,473,994 1,384,944 -• 1,332,124 1,674,598 1,489,220 217,920 46,720 1,553,635 6 Besides these appropriations, the Senate will at once recall several acts of Congress, which surrendered, in the whole, seventy-nine millions of acres for bounties in the Mexican war, bounties in the war of 1812, subsequent gratuities to the sol¬ diers in the same war and in Indian wars, cessions of swamp lands to new States, and for the construction of a railroad from Chicago to Mobile, and other internal improvements, none of which last-named cessions have yet been located. The aggregate of revenues derived from the public domain is ^ one hundred and thirty-five millions three hundred and thirty- nine thousand ninety-three dollars and ninety-three cents, show¬ ing an annual average revenue of one and a quarter million of dollars since the system of sales was adopted. Mr. President, I think the time is near at hand when the United States will find it expedient to review their policy, and to consider the following principles : First. That lands shall be granted in limited quantities, gratuitously, to actual cultivators only. Second. That the possessions of such grantees shall be secured against involuntary alienation. Third. That the United States shall relinquish to the States the administration of the public lands within their limits. These principles, sir, have no necessary connection. I shall therefore discuss them separately. First. A gratuitous allotment of lands in limited quantities to actual settlers and cultivators only. This principle involves three propositions : 1. A limitation of the quantity which shall be granted to any one person; 2. Occupation and cultivation as conditions of the grant; 3. A gratuitous grant. First. A limitation of the quantity to be allotted to any one person. If the public lands were moveable merchandise, price would be the principal, if not the only subject of inquiry. On the con¬ trary, it is only the money received by the Government on sales that perishes or passes away. The lands remain fixed just where they were before the sale, and they constitute a part of the territory subject to municipal administration as much after sale as before. The possessors of the land sold become soon, if not immediately, citizens, and they will ultimately be a majority of the whole population of the country, supporting the Govern¬ ment by their contributions, maintaining it by their arms, and wielding it for their own and the general welfare. To look, then, at this subject merely with reference to the revenue that might be derived from the sale of the lands, would be to commit Ihe fault of that least erected spirit that fell from Heaven, . whose ,7 . “ Looks and thoughts Were always downward bent, admiring more The riches of Heaven’s pavement, trodden gold. Than aught divine, or holy, else enjoyed.” All will admit—all do admit—that the domain should he so administered as to favor the increase of population, the aug¬ mentation of wealth, the cultivation of virtue, and the diffusion of happiness. I do not say that land in this or in any other country ought to he or ever could be divided and enjoyed equally. I assert no such absurdity. But I do say, with some confidence, that great inequality of landed estates, here or elsewhere, tends to check population, enterprise, and wealth, and to hinder and defeat the highest interests of society. Every State in this Union recog¬ nises this principle, and guards against undue aggregation of estates by restraints upon accumulation, by inhibitions of entails, and by dividing inheritances. A partition of this vast public domain is inevitable. It has been going on ever since the lands were acquired. It is going on now. And it will go on here¬ after with increasing rapidity. That partition affords us an op¬ portunity to apply the same beneficent and invigorating policy in a new and benign form, without disturbing any existing estates, or interfering with any vested interests, and without disturbing any established laws or customs. There is no arbitrary measurement of the portion of land which one possessor can advantageously cultivate. Yet there are, practically, dimensions within which lands are held for that purpose; and when these are exceeded, the surplus is held for purposes of commerce or speculation. Commerce in the public lands, although by no means immoral, nevertheless, ought to be regarded with jealousy. It diverts capital from active or pro¬ ductive industry, and prolongs the period before the land pur¬ chased can be made fruitful. Mortgages, judgments, and acci¬ dents of insolvency and of death, render the title uncertain and confused, and thus exclude the lands from market. Every one has seen in new countries extensive tracts of land upon which the speculator had laid his hand, and thus rendered them useless to himself, useless to the community, and useless or nearly so to the State. The want of some security against inconve¬ niences so prejdicial to the States may now be supplied without producing any embarrassment to individuals or to the Gov¬ ernment. Secondly. The same policy seems to commend thAprinciple of insisting on permanent occupation and cultivation as condi¬ tions of a grant of any portion of the public domain. It ought to be kept open and available to those who seek it for cultiva¬ tion. It ought therefore to be kept free from absent owners, who, while they would exclude settlers, would leave it entirely 8 unproductive, and who would pay to the State either nothing, or at most a tax that would poorly compensate for stamping sterility upon the soil. The same principle that dictated the abandonment of the credit system in 1820 seems to prescribe now a limitation of the sales to actual settlers. Nor "would the revenue derived from sales be affected by such a measure. The price of the land is fixed and uniform. If more lands are sold at one time under the present system than would be sold with such a limitation, a rest must follow, until the excess of land sold above the actual supply of the market shall be taken off at a profit or loss from the hand of the speculator. The commercial revulsion of 1837, aggravated by wild and reckless speculations in the domain, gave us instructions on this subject which ought not to be neglected. The Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Felch,] who has discussed this subject with very great ability, dwells upon the difficulty of prescribing the evidence of occupancy and cultivation. But this difficulty would soon be removed if the system should be changed. A title might be withheld until improvements should be made sufficient to prevent a voluntary forfeiture. . Thirdly. The question of making the grants of public lands gratuitously is one of more difficulty. By gratuitous grants I mean those which would be practically so, and that the lands thus disposed of should be charged with the costs of the. grant. The demand of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, or of two hundred dollars on a farm of one hundred and sixtv acres, although it is not unjust, and although it may be necessary, is nevertheless, in its practical operation, a tax upon the privilege of cultivating the domain. But the first and fundamental interest of the Republic is the cultivation of its soil. That cul¬ tivation is the sole fountain of the capital or wealth which sup¬ plies every channel of industry. The more it is taxed, the less freely it will flow. It is true indeed that, notwithstanding this tax, labor seeks the soil within the new States and Territories, and that society advances there with a rapidity unparalleled. But it is equally true that the tax prevents the immigration of a very large mass of persons who are destitute of employment in the Eastern States, while it rejects even a greater mass of cultivators in Europe. We are competitors with the European States in agriculture and in manufactures. They have the ad¬ vantages of cheaper labor and greater capital. We ought therefore to invite here the labor necessary to augment our pro¬ ductions, and the industry and skill required to prepare them for internal and foreign commerce. Can it be doubtful for a moment that it is our policy to bring the manufacturer to our 9 own shores, and to invite the farmer to supply the wants of the artisan from our own unproductive lands ? Commercial supremacy ^ demands just such an agricultural basis as the fertile and extensive regions of the United States, when inhabited, will supply. Political supremacy follows com¬ mercial ascendency. It was b} r reason of the want of just such an agricultural basis, that Venice, Portugal, and Holland, suc¬ cessively lost commerce and empire. It was for the purpose of securing just such a basis, that France, England, and Spain, seized so eagerly and held so tenaciously the large portions of this continent which they respectively occupied. It w*as for the purpose of supplying the loss of this basis, that England has within the last seventy years extended her conquests over a large portion of India. We now possess this basis, and all that we need is to develop its capabilities as fully and as rapidly as possible. Nor ought we to overlook another great political interest. Mutual jeal¬ ousies delayed a long time the establishment of the Union of these States, and have ’ever since threatened its dissolution: It is apparent that the ultimate security for its continuance is found m the power of the States established, and hereafter to be established, on the public domain. Those new and vigorous communities continually impart new life to the entire Common¬ wealth, while the absolute importance of free access to the Ocean will secure their loyalty, even if the fidelity of the At¬ lantic States shall fail. Such as these, sir, may have been some of the considerations that induced Andrew Jackson so long ago to declare his opinion, that the time was not distant when the public domain ought to cease to be regarded as a source of rev¬ enue. Such considerations may have had some influence with the late distinguished Senator from South Carolina, [J. C. Cal¬ houn,]* to propose a release of the public domain to the States, on their paying a small per centum of revenue to the United States ; and we are at liberty to suppose that a course of reason¬ ing not entirely unlike this brought that eminent statesman, who is now Secretary of State, to propose here a year ago a gratui¬ tous appropriation of the public domain to actual settlers. Nevertheless, the practicability of such a policy, and its har¬ mony with other national interests, are as yet by no means gen¬ erally admitted. The first objection which it encounters is the economical one, that it would be unwise to give away the pub¬ lic lands. But the property given would remain with the giver after the gift, and w T ould be enhanced in usefulness by the gift. All that we should give away by surrendering the public do¬ main would be the revenue that might be derived from sales. The honorable Senator from Michigan pathetically asks, what new fountain shall be opened to supply the deficiency, if this one be closed 1 And has it come to this, sir : that the Federal 10 Government, charged with only the burdens of national defence, of commerce, and of arbitrament between the States, while abso¬ lutely relieved from all responsibilities of municipal and domestic administration, yet enjoying unlimited power of indirect as well as of even direct taxation, cannot sustain itself in a season of profound peace, without consuming the patrimony of the States ? Sir, I answer the Senator’s inquiry : The resource to supply the deficiency of a million and a quarter of dollars will be found in retrenchment of the expenses of administration. A Senator. Will this Government ever retrench? Does the Senator from New York expect this Government to re¬ trench ? •Mr. Seward. No, sir; not*while the revenue remains full. Reduce the revenue a million and a quarter, or even five mil¬ lions, and you will find the expenses of the Government accom¬ modate themselves to the reduction. Raise the revenue to a hundred millions, and you will find the expenses adjust them¬ selves to that standard. Sir, if you are ever to have retrench¬ ment, you must begin with reducing taxation. And where can you begin so well as with the taxation upon the privilege of cul¬ tivating the national estate ? But, sir we shall have no such deficiency of revenue to supply. Alarms of an exhausted treas¬ ury are continually sounded here, while the revenues received under a system of imposts, which in many respects is most unwise, annually exceed all estimates of administration. Last year, the Secretary of the Treasury predicted a deficiency of sixteen millions of dollars, and yet no deficiency at all occurred. The revenues for the present year are equally prosperous ; and they will never be less prosperous while we are at peace, as I hope we shall always be, for the wealth and industry of the country are constantly increasing and expanding. I knpw, in¬ deed, that revenue is liable to be affected by fluctuations of trade; but such disturbances are only occasional and tempo¬ rary^ t-' The Senator from Michigan exaggerates the prodigality of what he calls the giving away of the domain, by stating that it cost seventy-five millions.of dollars—equivalent to twenty-two cents per acre, or thirty-two dollars and twenty cents for each farm of one hundred and sixty acres. And from such premises as these he argues that it would cost thirty-five millions of dol¬ lars to give away the public lands lying in Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, and Minnesota. Sir, I do not understand exactly the basis of the Senator’s estimate of the cost of the domain, but I can nevertheless safely pronounce his speculations entirely fallacious. If the cost of the revolutionary war, the cost of the long controversy with France which ended in the purchase of Louisiana, the cost of all the Indian wars, and the cost of the late war with Mexico, all of which were in some 11 degree connected with the acquisition of the public domain,, should be included in the estimate, the entire cost of the public lands would be seven hundred millions, instead of seventy-five millions of dollars. If, on the other hand, the expense.account be credited with all the national benefits—financial, commercial, and political—which have been secured, the domain would be discharged from all indebtedness whatever to the Treasury. Sir,- the acquisition of the domain, whatever was its cost, is a transaction completed, ended, past. Its value is what it is worth now, not what it cost. Mr. President, . the question of such a disposition of the-pub- lic lands as I have suggested is entirely misapprehended. It is not wdiether we shall relinquish a revenue of a million and a quarter. The revenue has ceased, and the fountain from which it flowed is dried up already. We have by various acts, passed within the last ten years, given up seventy-eight millions nine hundred and thirty-two thousand five hundred and thirteen acres, which are now in mar¬ ket and coming into market, and which must be taken off from the hands of States and individuals before our own sales can be renewed. The Secretary of the Treasury assures us that the revenue from the public domain is suspended by this legislation for a period of sixteen years. Sir, a revenue that is suspended for sixteen years has practi¬ cally ceased forever. The Senator from Michigan, perplexed with this argument, reviews the Treasury.estimates, and reduces the period of exhaustion to eight years. Sir, I say, then, to the Senator, that he has not changed the case. A national revenue that is suspended for eight years has * practically ceased forever. But, sir, neither the Senator from Michigan, nor even the Secretary of the Treasury, has estimated the period of exhaustion at its full length. Congress is annually making new appropriations. The Senate has at this session passed an act disposing of ten millions of acres. We all hope that that act will become a law, although its effect would be to add at least five years to the term for which the revenue from the domain is suspended. Let us then apprehend the emergency as it is, and act accordingly. The domain no longer yields, nor will never again yield, a revenue. Since its financial benefits have ceased, let us no longer dispose of it by impulse and caprice, not to say by partiality or favor, but let us so dispose- of it as to secure political and social benefits to the whole Union. It is objected that the domain is pledged to public creditors. The debt charged upon the domain is §27,935,350—a debt which is rapidly diminishing-, and, if we practice economy, will have disappeared, by the appliance of revenues from customs alone, long before the public domain will yield a dollar, for even the payment of the interest on it. But if it be necessary to hold 12 the public domain liable for the debt, we may properly set apart sufficient lands for that purpose, and let the residue be disposed of as other interests require. The Senator from Michigan resisted the policy proposed, on the ground that it would reduce the value of real estate in the new States. It has been urged that that inconvenience would also reach the old States. The inconvenience, Mr. President, if it should occur at all, would be merely temporary. * The reclaiming of the domain would go on more rapidly; and we all know that cultivated as well as vacant lands rise in value just as rapidly as new lands lying amongst or adjacent to them are improved. What 'would be lost in the first instance, would be abundantly regained afterwards. There is, however, Mr. President, one objection of a more serious nature than any I have yet considered. I hear it said oh all sides, that the domain ought to be disposed for great and beneficent objects—objects beneficial to the old as well as to the new States. Sir, I have always favored such a policy; and it is upon that ground that I have cheerfully voted hitherto, as I shall continue to vote hereafter, for appropriations upon that principle, so long as Congress shall continue to adhere even in form to the ancient system. It is upon this ground that I shall support the bill now under consideration, which proposes to bestow upon the State of Louisiana the public lands within her limits, to enable her to improve the navigation of the Missis¬ sippi—a policy that I brought before the Senate at the last session—a measure of great urgency, and of conceded national importance. I have had, moreover, a hope that this great ‘resource might be applied to the establishment of a system for the gradual but certain removal of slavery, by a scheme of com¬ pensating emancipation. I have thought that the, slaveholding States might wisely propose such a system, and that the free States ought to accede to it. But, sir, it is manifest that if the old States could not agree upon such a system, or even upon any other system of partition of the public domain among the States, or of distribution, of its proceeds, while they held unquestioned the political power of Government, they cannot now hope to agree upon and secure the adoption of such a system, when that power is actually passing over from them to the new States. The new States will control the decision of this great question. We may, nevertheless, by yielding to what is inevitable, modify the policy to be adopted. I submitted, Mr. President, a second principle, to wit: that the public lands, so to be granted to actual settlers, ought to be secured to them against involuntary alienation. I respect all lawful contracts, and I would not unnecessarily interfere with even rigorous remedies which existed when such contracts were made. But it is wise as it is just and humane 13 to alleviate prospectively the relations between debtor and cred¬ itor. Within the last twenty years, imprisonment for debt, a system which had prevailed for more than two thousand years before, has been safely abolished by every State in this Union, and I believe by every commercial nation in Europe. New York, the most commercial State, has with equal safety abolished the rigorous remedy of distress for rent, and has exempted certain portions of estates from liability to sale for debts contracted after such laws were passed. Other States have adopted the policy of protecting the homestead "from compulsory sale. A home is the first necessity of every family ; it is indispensable to the education and qualification of citizens. Cannot society justly withdraw it from the hazards of commercial contracts, and from exposure to the accidents of disease and death? We bestow pensions upon decayed soldiers who have faithfully served their country in her wars; we protect such annuities against involun¬ tary assignment; and the policy is as wise as it is generous. But he who reclaims an acre of land from the sterility of nature, and brings it into a productive condition, confers a greater ben¬ efit upon the State than valor has often the power to bestow ► Sir, all that is moveable in property may be used as a security for credits—and that security is adequate to supply all the wants of commerce. The home of the farmer, the asylum of the children of the Republic, may be safely reserved and protected. There remains, Mr. President, a third principle, which, I think, demands the consideration of Congress, wdiich is: That the administration of the public lands within the States should be relinquished to them. It has been sufficiently shown,- that the United States can no longer derive any financial benefit from the domain. They can at best hope to appropriate it to purposes of internal improve¬ ment and education. Experience has taught us nothing, if it has not shown that the action of Congress upon those interests is less judicious and beneficent than thfe action of the several States. Of all the railroads, canals, andfother works of internal improvement—of all the universities, colleges, and schools, in the country, the States are, almost exclusively, the projectors, founders, and patrons. To maintain that the United States can select .such objects, and apply the public lands to the attainment of them, more wisely than the States could do, is to controvert the principle of our Constitution, which assigns domestic inter¬ ests and -affairs to local administration. Sir, we have only a temporary jurisdiction and a temporary estate in the domain— both of which' are of brief duration, and comparatively valueless. The reversion of both belongs to the States, and is infinitely important to them. It is not until that reversion has taken place that the domain really begins to contribute to the wealth and strength of the whole Republic. 14 Nor am I greatly embarrassed by the objection that the new States would derive an unequal share of the benefits from what is justly called a u common estate.” If all the public lands lying within their limits were released to them, they would still be inferior to the older States in the advantages of capital, labor, and commercial position. Every dollar of revenue which we should release, would remain within the new States, enhancing their ability to construct channels of trade, and to found systems of education—while their own increasing wealth and prosperity W'ould equally increase the wealth and prosperity of the old States, with whom they are intimately related and indissolubly connected. The Senator from Michigan is alarmed with apprehensions that the simplicity and certainty of titles would be put in jeop¬ ardy, by a transfer of the public lands to the States. But, sir, our machinery of title, which is so perfect, could be at once transferred to the States, and they could operate it w r ith increased efficiency, and with economy, which is unknown to us. No one could defend for a moment the principle that the Federal Government ought to retain the domain, with all its expenses of administra¬ tion, for the mere purpose of conferring titles in it, upon the citizens of the States. The possession of the domain, moreover, creates relations of landlord and tenant, of patronage and dependency between the Government and the States, injurious to both. This has been an inconvenience hitherto unavoidable, and it ought to be con¬ tinued no longer than shall be required by a paramount national interest. I shall consider, Mr. President, very briefly, the power of Congress in the premises. So far as the Constitution is con¬ cerned, I shall pass by all commentaries and all glosses, and take my stand upon the simple text — u The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory and other property belonging to the United States.” The®power of disposition thus conferred is general, unlimited, absolute. It is the same pow r er that Con¬ gress has to dispose of forts, magazines, arsenals, edifices, or ships. They have power to sell. They have power to give. Of course the power should be exercised in this as in all other cases, for the best interests of the nation, but the discretion of Congress is not abridged. Let us now examine the supposed limitations in the deeds of cession; for the rights of the States are secured by the Consti¬ tution. There are several grants which, it has been seen, are expressed in different forms. It is not the form employed in any one of the grants, but the general spirit and effect of them all, that explain and define the power conveyed. New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, released, by language broad 15 and comprehensive. They conveyed u for the benefit of the United States.” Virginia and other States amplified, but manifestly for the purpose of expressing the same meaning more fully. They grant¬ ed u for the use and benefit of the United States,” and declared that the estate and jurisdiction conferred should u be considered as a common fund of all the States, according to their usual respec¬ tive proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and should be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that-purpose, and for no other purpose whatsoever.” This language was adopted with reference to the then existing Articles of Confederation, under which the States were charged with contributions for the sup¬ port of the Federal Government, which system was afterwards modified by the Constitution of the United States, so as to dispense with contributions from the States, and invest Congress with power of taxation upon imposts, and of direct taxation, accord¬ ing to representative population. Certainly the terms of these grants were not intended to confine Congress to a disposition of the lands by sale only : Because, first, they expressed no such thing; and because, secondly, the political jurisdiction, as well as the right of soil, were included in the designation of u a com¬ mon fund.” Again : It would be practically impossible, under any system whatever, to secure equal benefits from the domain to all the States. If you sell the lands in Ohio, you may divide the avails between that State and all her sister States, but the land will still remain, yielding power and wealth, directly to the State, forever ; while the other States can be only indirectly recipients of such benefits. What was intended then was simply this : that whatever dis¬ position Congress should make of the domain, should be one purely national and impartial. It seems to me to mean noth¬ ing more, and the Constitution expresses that meaning fully. If, then, the adoption of such principles ^1 have discussed has become necessary already, or shall hereafter become necessary, the policy would then be a proper exercise of the constitutional power, and would fall within the trust as defined by the deeds of cession. • This is a subject of vast importance. It* reaches across the whole basis of the great empire which is rising on this Conti¬ nent, and forward through all the stages of its elevation, and even of its decline and fall, if it shall not be perpetual. Posterity x and perhaps the civilized world will review our decisions in the light reflected on them by their broad and lasting consequences. May they be such as will safely abide so severe and so impartial a scrutiny.