Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the First Session of the Twenty-Fourth Congress Page: 3,945
[865] columns, 114, xlviii p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
3945
OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.
3946
Mat 24, 1836.]
Fortification Bill.
[H- of R.
of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin Terri-
tory. This cession was made in 1784, before the adop-
tion of the federal constitution. After making certain
reservations, and stipulating For the payment of the na-
tional debt, it is provided, in the face of the act of
cession, that "all the lands within the territories so
ceded to the United States, and not reserved for, or ap-
propriated to, any of the before-mentioned purposes, or
disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of
the American army, shall be considered as a common
fund, for the use and benefit of such of the United States
as have become, or shall become, members of the con-
federation, or federal alliance of the said States, Virginia
included, according to their usual respective proportions
of the general charge and expenditure, and shall be
faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and
no other purpose or use whatever."
The cession was made during the operation of the
articles of confederation, and he said he would ask if
the States, when they came to adopt the federal consti-
tution, did reject, or even make any objections whatever,
to the terms of contract made with Virginia? Or were
they not agreed to, and their obligatory effect and char-
acter acknowledged? Let us refer, Mr. Chairman, for
a moment, to the constitution, and see the provisions in
relation to the public lands, and all contracts and engage-
ments made by the confederated States under the articles
of confederation. In the sixth article of the constitution
will be found this express provision, that "all debts con-
tracted, and engagements entered into, before the adop-
tion of this constitution, shall be as valid against the
United States under the constitution as under the confed-
eration." He said here was a recognition and a positive
pledge and assurance that "all contracts and engage-
ments" made under and during the supremacy of the arti-
cles of confederation should be binding in their effect,
and be complied with. Now, if these acts of cession be
" contracts or certain engagements," then there is a con-
stitutional provision which no man should dare to violate,
and is unalterable. Was not this acontract, a bargain, be-
tween the State of Virginia, then sovereign and owner
of this valuable extent of country, in her individual ca-
pacity, by which the title passed from her to the United
States, entered into in due and solemn form? And by
which the United States engaged to appropriate so
much as should be found necessary to the extinguish-
ment of the national debt, and that the residue should
be a common fund, for the use and benefit of all the
States that then were or should become members of the
confederation? Most certainly: and, sir, the same stipu-
lations and provisions are incorporated in all the acts of
cession, made by the other States, of land to the Gene-
ral Government; and the same rule that would apply
to the cession of Virginia, should and will apply with
equal force to the cessions of the other States. He said
he looked upon the United States in no other light than
acting in the capacity of trustee for the sovereign States,
in relation to the proceeds of the public lands, since the
extinguishment of the public debt; and that she is bound,
in the faithful execution of that trust, to distribute the
money arising from the sales of those lands among the
States upon some equitable principle, and no basis ap-
peared to him more so than that of representation.
And now, the great and grand object for which these
cessions were made having been accomplished—the
national debt extinguished—the States, by virtue of
express and unequivocal stipulations, have the right to
claim, and do claim, the residue of money that may arise
from the sales of the public lands, to be distributed
amongst them, according to the terms of the acts of
cession. Sir, in the fourth article of the constitution,
there is found the following provision: " The Congress
shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting, the territory or other property
belonging to the United States; and nothing in this con-
stitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims
of the United States, or of any particular State."
Sir, what territory did belong to the United States?
How did she acquire her title to that territory? Was it
not by a full and complete ratification, on her part, of
those acts of cession by which, and by which alone, she
acquired the right to one inch of territory? Can the
United States, in justice and common honesty, recognise
that portion of the acts of cession which is for her owa
benefit, and nullify that portion which was intended to
secure the reserved interest of the States ceding the
territory ? By this article, it will be clearly seen that full
power is vested in Congress to make all needful regu-
lations respecting the public lands, by which is meant
Congress shall regulate by law the mode and manner of
surveys, sales, perfect titles, fix the prices, and make
all necessary arrangements for their conversion into
money; and; when converted, the actsof cession point out
the uses to which the proceeds shall be applied; and the
first provision is that they go to the extinguishment of the
public debt, and the balance shall be a common fund, for
the use and benefit of all the States, including the State
ceding. The latter clause of this article unequivocally
provides that " nothing in this constitution shall be so
construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States,
or any particular State." What claims? Surely her
claims upon the ceded territory. And he said he would
ask, if the wholeof this fund was intended to be used by
the United States, as some contend, why insert this pro-
vision in the fundamental law of the land, making so mani-
fest a distinction between the claims of the United States
and those of the States? If the United States was de-
signed to have all, why say the claim of no particular
State should be prejudiced, when speaking alone of the
public lands in the constitution? Sir, the intention of the
contracting parties is satisfactorily explained by the pro-
visions of this article. The Virginia act of cession having
said that the public debt should be first paid—that the
residue should constitute a fund for the use and benefit of
all the States, conclusively proves that so much of the
ceded territory as should be found necessary for the ex-
tinguishment of the national debt was absolutely vested
in the United States, to which the individual States could
affix no claim whatever, or in any wise interfere with. It
was a deed in fee. But should the public debt not con-
sume the whole ceded territory, then, and in that case,
that balance was to constitute the fund for the benefit of
all the States, which the General Government, by her
constitution, was forbidden to interfere with or preju-
dice; she in this respect could only be privileged to exe-
cute the trust confided to her, for the benefit of all the
States. And she is certainly bound by every honorable
and legal principle, in the execution of the trust, to make
distribution among the States of all the proceeds of the
public lands now in the Treasury, or that may hereafter
come into her hands from that source.
Mr. C. said, he would further ask if the United States
had acted faithful to the trust in granting to many of the
States large quantities of the ceded territory for internal
improvements, making roads and canals, opening rivers
and creeks, and, upon some occasions, large grants for
political effect, to secure votes in presidential contests?
Is this acting honestly, and in conformity with the trust
she undertook? Was it contemplated that these lands,
set apart for the use and benefit of all the States, in due
proportion, should be given to a few of them, to the preju-
dice and exclusion of the rest ? Was it intended that any
portion of them should be voted away, with a view to se-
cure the vote of a State, or States, in a presidential elec-
tion? Sir, was it ever intended that they should be used
for purposes of bribery and corruption? .Or were they
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the First Session of the Twenty-Fourth Congress, book, 1836; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30757/m1/57/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.