At the commencement of the war of the revolution, several of the States possessed immense tracts of land, lying principally west of the Alleghany, mountains. The title to these lands was generally acknowledged, but the ownership of them was the occasion of much discontent to the other States. They contended that as the war was carried on by the united exertions of all, these unoccupied lands ought to be regarded as something wrested from the common enemy, and to be retained for the general benefit. They further insisted, and with much earnestness, that the several members of the confederacy ought to be placed upon an equal footing; and that the ownership of these lands would confer upon the States possessing them, a permanent superiority over those destitute of this sourse of revenue. So strong was this feeling, that some of the States, Maryland in particular, for a long time refused to join the confederation of 1777, and at last only consented, because, to use her own words, "it hath been said, that the common enemy is encouraged by this State not acceding to the confederation, to hope that the union of the sister States may be dissolved, and therefore prosecute the war in expectation of an event so disgraceful to America."

To remove this difficulty, Congress after having recommended to the several States a cession of these lands to the general government; by a resolution of Oct. 10, 1780, among other regulations, provided, "that the unappropriated lands which may be ceded or relinquished to the United States, pursuant to the recommendation of Congress of the 6th day of September last, shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States." This recommendation and pledge

were met by the several States with that spirit of disinterestedness, which distinguished the age, and in the course of a few years, the States of New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, South Carolina and North Carolina, ceded to the general government, almost the entire western country. In 1802, a further cession was obtained by an agreement with Georgia. The arrangements relating to these cessions, were entered into with great care and deliberation. Congress, by the ordinance of July 13, 1787, in relation to the Northwestern Territory, gave an assurance that the trust resulting from the cessions which had been, or might be made, would be faithfully and wisely executed. By this celebrated ordinance, which was the work of a distinguished citizen of Massachusetts, who yet lives to witness the results of his sagacity and patriotism; the blessings of a free government, a liberal public provision for education, and a perpetual exclusion of slavery were secured to the persons who should settle on these lands.

The ceding States on their part, in order to prevent a recurrence of that inequality which induced them to make the cession, and as if in anticipation of the claims now so strongly urged, accompanied their deeds of cession, with conditions so expressed as to leave no room for doubt as to their intentions.

The expressions in the deed of Massachusetts are, that they transfer, &c. to the United States of America, for their benefit, Massachusetts inclusive" &c. The language of Virginia, whose cession was prior to that of Massachusetts, conveys the same idea in a still more explicit form. It is as follows: "All the lands within the territory shall be considered as a com

11

mon fund, for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become or shall become members of the confederation or federal alliance of said States, Virginia inclusive, according to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever."

The form of expression varies somewhat in the deeds of the other States, but all contain a clear expression of an intention to cede the lands to the general government for the common benefit.

Upon the formation of the constitution, this great interest was not overlooked. By sect. 3, art. 4, it is provided that "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."

In the opinion of the Committee, there can be no question as to the rights and duties growing out of these proceedings. For all beneficial purposes, the several States are the owners of these lands, as a common fund. The power of Congress is merely that of a trustee, bound to administer the fund for the equal benefit of all. The General Government has no more right to distribute this fund partially, to give to one State and withhold from another, than the trustee of an hereditary estate has to appropriate it unequally among the heirs. It does not affect the right in this case, that if Congress should choose to disregard these obligations, there is no tribunal before which it can be arraigned, and compelled to do justice.

The public lands not included in the cessions of the States, were obtained by the purchase of Louisiana and

the Floridas. In regard to these, there would seem to be no room for question. They have been paid for out of common funds, and all analogy and reasoning concur in considering them as common property. If any additional reason were wanting, it would be found in the fact that the proceeds of the sales of all the public lands, fall about ten millions of dollars short of repaying the money which has been paid for them, with interest.

The Committee have already remarked, that a claim is made by the new States to the whole of the public lands. As this claim varies very much as it is advanced by different States, or individuals, they propose to make a statement of the nature and extent of these demands, somewhat in detail, and to accompany the statement with some remarks upon their validity.

It is said that it is inconsistent with the sovereignty of the States, that a foreign power (and such the advocates of this doctrine are pleased to denominate the General Government,) should be the owner of lands within their limits. There is much in the theory of state rights and state sovereignty, as expounded by some modern politicians, at once puzzling and alarming. It is very difficult to comprehend the reasons by which they support their doctrines; but it is quite easy to see that these doctrines, if adopted, would put a speedy end to the Union. Without however undertaking to discuss this argument in the abstract, it will be sufficient to remark, that the States interested in the present question, have no right to avail themselves of it. Their existence as States, is the mere result of the arrangements detailed in the former part of this report. It is in virtue of the compact entered into when the lands were ceded, that these States have been admitted into the Union-and they cannot deny the va

lidity of what lies at the foundation of their political existence. Nor has any State ever acted in consistency with this doctrine; all are anxious to obtain grants from Congress, and every application is an admission of the title of the General Government. Besides, the title of individuals residing in these States, to their lands, is derived from Congress. The doctrine now under consideration, if true, would render all these titles invalid, and transfer the ownership of all the land to the several States, in their corporate capacity.

It is contended by some, that these lands were a fund set apart for the payment of the public debt, and that they should be given up to the several states, when that object is accomplished. It is difficult to perceive the force of this argument, when urged as a matter of right. It is in contradiction to the terms of the deeds of cession; and is unsupported by any evidence that such was the understanding, either of the general or state governments. But if the ground of the argument were admitted, it would not support the conclusion which is attempted to be founded upon it. If the lands were appropriated as a fund for the payment of the public debt, or, as the argument is sometimes stated, of the debt of the revolution, then they are to be held until they have discharged the whole of this debt. Now it is well known, that the public lands have fallen far short of paying the debt of the revolution alone. The whole amount received from the sale of these lands by the General Government is but about forty millions of dollars.

The debt of the revolution was about two hundred millions. If this debt has been paid from other sources, the public lands are still holden, in equity, to reimburse that sum. When this sum of two hundred