September, 1783, congress passed another resolution, expressing the conditions on which cessions from states should be received; and in October following, Virginia made her cession, reciting the resolution, or act, of September preceeding, and then transfering her title to her north-western territory to the United States, upon the express condition, that the lands, so ceded, should be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States, as had become or should become members of the confederation, Virginia inclusive, and should be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. The grants from other states were on similar conditions. Massachusetts and Connecticut both had claims to western lands, and both relinquished them to the United States in the same manner. These grants were all made on three substantial conditions or trusts. First, that the ceded territories should be turned into states, and admitted in due time into the union, with all the rights belonging to other states. Second, that the lands should form a common fund to be disposed of for the general benefit of all the states. Third, that they should be sold and settled, at such time and in such manner as congress should direct.
Now, sir, it is plain that congress never has been, and is not now, at liberty to disregard these solemn conditions. For the fulfillment of all these trusts, the public faith was, and is, fully pledged. How, then, would it have been possible for congress, if it had been so disposed, to give away these public lands? How could they have followed the example of other governments, if there had been such, and considered the conquest of the wilderness an equivalent compensation for the soil? The states had looked to this territory, perhaps too sanguinely, as a fund out of which means were to come to defray the expenses of war. It had been received as a fund; as a fund congress had bound itself to apply it. To have given it away, would have defeated all the objects which congress and particular states, had had in view, in asking and obtaining the cession and would have plainly violated the condition, which the ceding states attached to their own grants.
The gentleman admits, that the lands cannot be given away until the national debt is paid; because, to a part of that debt they stand pledged. But this is not the original pledge. There is, so to speak, an earlier mortgage. Before the debt was funded, at the moment of the cession of the lands, and by the very terms of that cession, every state in the union obtained an interest in them, as in a common fund. Congress has uniformly adhered to this condition. It has proceeded to sell the lands, and to realize as much from them, as was compatible with the other trusts created by the same deeds of cession. One of these deeds of trusts, as I have already said, was, that the lands should be sold and settled, at such time and manner as congress shall direct. The government has always felt itself bound, in regard to sale and seltlement to exercise its own best judgment, and not to transfer the discretion to others. lt has not felt itself at liberty to dispose of the soil, therefore, in large masses, to individuals, thus leaving to them the time and manner of settlement. It had stipulated to use its own judgment. If for instance in order to rid itself of the trouble of forming a system for the sale of those lands and going into detail, it had sold the whole of what is now Ohio in one mass, to individuals or companies, it would clearly have departed from its just obligations. and who can now tell, or conjecture, how great would have been the evil of such a course? Who can say, what mischiefs would have ensued, if congress had thrown these territories into the hands of private speculation? Or who, on the other hand, can now forsee, what the event would be should the government depart from the same wise course hereafter and, not content with such constant absorption of the public lands as the natural growth of our population may accomplish, should force great portions of them at nominal or very low prices, into private hands to he sold and settled, as and when such holders might think would be most for their own interest? Hitherto, sir, I maintain congress has acted wisely, and done its duty on this suhjeet. I hope it will continue to do it Departing from the original idea, so soon as it was found practicable and convenient, of selling by townships, congress has disposed of the soil in smaller and still smaller portions, till, at length, it sells in parcels of no more than eighty acres; thus putting it into the power of every man in the country, however poor, but who has health and strength to become a freeholder if he desires, not of barren acres, but of rich and fertile soil. The government has performed all the conditions of the grant.—While it has regarded the public lands as a common fund, and has sought to make what reasonably could be made of them, us a source of revenue, it has also applied its best wisdoen to sell and settle them, as fast and as happily as possible; and whensoever numbers would warrant it, each territory has been successively admitted into the union, with all the rights of an independent state.
Is there then, sir, I ask, any well founded charge of hard dealing, any just accusation for negligence indifference, or parsimony which is capable of being sustained against the government of the country, in its conduct towards the new states? Sir, I think there is not.
But there was another observation of the hon. member, which, I confess, did not a little surprise me. As a reason for wishing to get rid of the public lands as soon as we could, and as we might, the hon. gentleman, said, he wanted no permanent source of income. He wished to see the time when the government should not posecss a shilling of permanent revenue. If he could speak magical word and by that word convert the whole capitol into gold, the word would not be spoken. The administration of a fixed revenue, he said, only consolidates the government and corrupts the people! Sir, I confess I beard these sentiments uttered on this floor, not without deep regret and pain.
I am aware that these, and similar opinions, are espoused by certain persons out of the capitol, and out of this government, but I did not expect so soon to find them here Consolidation!—that perpetual cry both of terror and delusion—consolidation! Sir, when gentlemen speak of the effects of a common fund, belonging to all the states, as having a tendency to consolidation, what do they mean? Do they mean, or can they mean any thing more than that the union of the states will be strengthened, by whatever continues or furnishes inducements to the people of the states to hold togethter? If they mean merely this, then no doubt, the public lands, as well as every thing else in which we have a common interest, tends to consolidation and lo this species of consolidation every true American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening the union itself. This is the sense in which the framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. They tell us, in the letter submitting the constitution to the consideration of the country, that "In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds led each state in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected."
This, sir, is general Washington's consolidation. This is the true constitutional consolidation. I wish to see no new powers drawn to the general government; but I confess I rejoice in whatever tends to strengthen the bond that unites us; and encourages the hope that our union may be perpetual. And, therefore, I cannot but feel regret at the expression of such opioions as the gentleman has avowed; because I think their obvious tendency is to weaken the bond of our connexion. I know that there are some persons in the part of the country from which the hon. member comes, who habitually speak of the union in terms of indifference, or even of disparagement. The hon. member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. They significantly declare, that it is time to calculate the value of the union, and their aim seems to be to enumerate and to magnify all the evils real and imaginary, which the government under the union produces.
The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to bring the union into discussion, as a mere question of present and temporary expediency—nothing more than a mere matter of profit and loss. The union
