|
|
|
have never been surrendered, either by distinct cession, by
uniting with the other confederated States, or by subse-
quent adoption of the federal constitution. That her claim
rested, not originally upon derivative rights from the ces-
sions of the States, but upon conquest and the treaty with
Great Britain. That the acceptance, by her, in common
with the oilier States, of these cessions, only bars the as-
sertion of her original claims, so long as the observance of
the terms of those cessions is in good faith adhered to.
But that, if in a contingency, she will not permit herself to
contemplate, — the disposition of these cessions are disre-
garded by Congress, and the limitations therein proposed
are over-leaped; if unjust distinctions are made; if partial
distributions are directed of this fund, in denial of her just
proportion of its benefits, — then the obligations of the ces-
sions cease, and she reverts to her original claims, founded
upon common conquest and confirmed by treaty. We further
contend that the confederated States, as an aggregate pow-
er, received from the cessions a trust authority, to be ex-
ercised in the mode designated by the terms of cession.
That this authority, thus limited, is not enlarged by the
powers granted to Congress in the constitution. That this
power is an agency for the States, not for the General Go-
vernment; and the exercise of it must tend to the benefit
of the States, in proper distinct proportions, and not a
general indivisible benefit. That the public lands were
never contemplated as a fund for defraying general civil
expenses; that a distinct power to raise revenue for this
purpose, in a different mode, has been granted to Congress;
and this distinct, express delegation of power to act upon
specified objects, is an exclusion of any implied source of
revenue. That the power of this agent in acting for the
States, should be applied to such objects of State expendi-
tures as would approach most nearly to "the general use
and benefit of all. " Your committee would refer briefly to
the action of Congress upon this fund, as sustaining this
view. The funds set apart for purposes of education,
(though it may be doubled if it was a strict observance of
their trust-authority, inasmuch as the immediate benefit
was confined to particular States, ) yet tended to the "com-
mon use and benefit of all the States, " inasmuch as it qua-
lified, for a proper discharge of their duties, the citizens
of those several States who are regarded by the constitu-
tion as citizens of all the States.
That portion of the terrritory granted to the Marquis
Lafayette, was the discharge of a common debt, incurred
by the States in their distinct capacities. A debt, if not
|
|
