Virginia. Virginia. Virginia.. Georgia.... Mr. Henry. Mr. Vining. Mr Bedford. South Carolina.. Mr. Monroe. Mr Lee. Mr. Grayson. Mr. Pinckney. ....Mr. Houstoun. States divided. New York...... Mr. Smith (no.) So the question was lost and the words were stricken out. Mr. Ellery, of Rhode Island, seconded by Mr. Smith, of New York, now moved to strike out all that which related to setting apart a section for the support of religion. On the question, Shall the words, "and the section immediately adjoining the same to the northward, for the support of religion," stand? Mr. Bedford. Delaware.. Virginia. Virginia.. Virg nia.. Mr. Grayson. South Carolina. .. Mr. Pinckney. States divided. New York...... Mr. Smith (no.) So the question was lost and the words were stricken out. A motion was then made by Mr. Johnson, of Connecticut, and seconded by Mr. King, of Massachusetts, further to amend the paragraph by inserting after the word "schools" the following: "and the section immediately adjoining the same to the northward, for charitable uses;" which amendment was lost. The Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, voted by States. To adopt a measure the vote of seven States was required, and in certain cases nine. vote of a State was not counted unless at least two members were present On May 20, 1785, the ordinance as finally amended was passed with the following provision for education: There shall be reserved the lot No. 16 of every township for the maintenance of public schools. The Ordinance of 1787 "for the government of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio" confirmed the provision of 1785, and declared that "religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." A few days after the passage of the Ordinance, regulations were made for the sale of the western territory, and in these it was provided that lot No. 16 in each township should be given perpetually for schools, and that "lot No. 29 in each township, or fractional part of a township, to be given perpetually for the purposes of religion;" and, further, that "not more than two complete townships to be given perpetually for the purposes of a university." The grant of lot No. 29 for the purposes of religion has only been made in two instances in the case of the Ohio Company, and what is known as the Symmes Purchase. Ohio, and the other western States admitted into the Union during the first half of the present century, received the sixteenth section of every township for the use of schools, in addition to the grant of two townships for universities. The Commissioner of the Land Office, in 1846, and the Secretary of the Treasury, (R. J. Walker,) in 1847, recommended an increased grant of lands for school purposes to the new States and Territories. In the first session of the Thirtieth Congress, February 15, 1848, as the question was about being put on the passage of the bill admitting Wisconsin as a State of the Union, the Hon. John A. Rockwell, member of the House of Representatives from Connecticut, moved an amendment giving the thirty-sixth in addition to the sixteenth section in each township for educational uses, which was rejected, fifty-eight voting in the affirmative, and eighty in the negative. In the acts establishing territorial governments for Oregon, in August, 1848, and for Minnesota, approved March 2, 1849, it was provided that sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in each township should be reserved for the use of schools. UNITED STATES LAND GRANTS FOR EDUCATION IN MINNESOTA. As Minnesota was the first State in the valley of the Mississippi to receive twelve hundred and eighty acres in each township, to be employed in training her children for intelligent suffrage, the only safeguard for the perpetuity of a republican form of government, it is desirable to trace the steps she has taken in husbanding this precious gift from the nation, and the results of her supervision. When, in 1857, a Convention assembled to form a constitution, preparatory to its admission into the Union, an interesting discussion arose as to the wisest course to be pursued in disposing and guarding the school lands. The Committee on Education reported a provision that for the next ten years after the ratification of the constitution, the public school lands should "not be disposed of otherwise than by lease." The Hon. A. E. Ames said: "I deem it proper to state what governed me as Chairman of the Committee having this subject under consideration, in inserting that clause. In my opinion, this gift of the General Government to the future State of Minnesota for the support of public schools is a sacred gift, which should be taken care of and husbanded in the best manner possible. Looking to the past, I saw how many of the western States having similar grants have disposed of them almost immediately after assuming the form of State governments, without realizing but a small portion of the amount which they might, with a little care, have realized as a perpetual fund for the support of schools hereafter. I have said that it is a sacred gift, intrusted to us for our children and our children's children; if we husband it well, they will rise up and called us blessed.' we squander it away, we shall receive only their curses." Delegates as intelligent and public-spirited as the committee, advocated a different policy and opposed the incorporation of the clause as to leasing lands, into the constitution. Hon. H. H. Sibley, who became the first Governor under the State organization, advocated what he thought would be "carrying out the great democratic idea of bringing down, as near as * * * * If for possible, to the people, the disposal of these lands." He desired that Article eight of the Constitution of Minnesota is as follows: SEC. 1. The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. SEC. 2. The proceeds of such lands as are or hereafter may be granted by the United States for the use of schools within each township in this State, shall remain a perpetual school fund to the State, and not more than one-third of said lands may be sold in two years, one-third in five years, and one-third in ten years; but the lands of the greatest valuation shall be sold first: Provided, That no portion of said lands shall be sold otherwise than at public sale. The principal of all funds arising from sales or other disposition of lands or other property granted to this State in each township for educational purposes, shall forever be preserved inviolate and undiminished; and the income arising from the lease or sale of said school lands shall be distributed to the different townships throughout the State, in proportion to the number of scholars in each township between the ages of five and twenty-one years, and shall be faithfully applied to the specific objects of the original grants or appropriations. SEC. 3. The legisla ure shall make such provisions, by taxation or otherwise, as with the income arising from the school fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools in each township of the State. SEC. 4. The location of the University of Minnesota, as established by existing laws, is hereby confirmed, and said institution is hereby declared to be the University of the State of Minnesota. All the rights, immunities, franchises, and endowments heretofore granted or conferred, are hereby perpetuated unto the said university, and all lands which may be granted hereafter by Congress, or other donations for said university purposes, shall vest in the institution referred to in this section." An act of the Legislature, approved March 10, 1860, made the Chancellor of the State University ex officio Superintendent of Public Instruction, but failed to provide a salary for the performance of the duties of either office. Notwithstanding this inconvenience, the Chancellor immediately proceeded to attend to the interests of public schools. In his first report, dated January 14, 1861, under the head of school lands, he says: During the month of June, 1860, the capital of Wisconsin was visited, and several days passed in interviews with the officers of the State in relation to their land system, its defects, and a better way of conducting the sale of lands. In order that a general idea might be obtained of the present value of our school lands, the following questions were addressed to the Superintendent of Schools in each town. Is there timber on the school sections? To what extent? Are the school lands swampy or well drained? Are they watered by springs, creeks, or rivers? The present highest market price for similar lands? Are there settlers on the school lands? Were they there before the survey was made? Have any depredations of timber or grass taken place? The answers returned, show that the school lands are among the most valuable in the State, and legislation in relation thereto cannot be too careful and deliberate. The constitution imposes a healthful check upon those, who for purposes of private speculation, would hurry a sale of the entire school lands. Governor Ramsey seconded the friends of education, in preserving the school lands from hasty sale. In his message to the Legislature of 1861, he says: The Constitution provides that the proceeds of the school lands shall constitute a perpetual school fund for the State, and that the principal arising from the sales of such lands shall forever be preserved inviolate and undiminished. It is the necessary logical implication of the constitutional provision, that the school lands should be administered with a view to the permanent interests of the school fund. It is only by adhering to this as a fundamental principle of legisla tion, by regarding the school lands not as a temporary source of relief from present burdens, but as a provision for the permanent interests of education, that we cau rightly discharge the sacred obligations to posterity which this trust imposes upon us, or fitly respond to the elevated and paternal policy of the general govern ment. There has always been a disposition in the new States to hurry the school lands prematurely into market, partly originating in the desire of interested parties to obtain possession of these lands at low prices, and partly from the impatient eagerness of the pioneer to realize an immediate income therefrom, for the support of schools. There are, indeed, some plausible reasons why the pioneer should ask that the school lands should be used for his benefit. His are all the struggles and privations incident to the early colonization of the wilderness. By the sweat of his brow are laid the foundations of that wealth which is to yield the future revenues of the State. The expense and difficulty of maintaining schools in our present sparse and poor settlements, it is speciously alleged, renders local taxation more burdensome and legislative aid more welcome now than at any subsequent period. It would, perhaps, be difficult to prove that the hardships and poverty of the first settlers in a new State are of such a peculiar character as to constitute a special claim to enjoy the benefit of the school grant to the prejudice of posterity. And it will not be overlooked, as against a pretension so greedy in its motive and so subversive in its consequences of the welfare of the State, that if the first settler endures some privations, he also enjoys great advantages which are denied to his successors. If he turns the first furrow, he also reaps the richest harvest. He does not accept the rugged lot of the pioneer as a personal sacrifice for the good of the State from which he therefore claims a special bounty, but from a shrewd calculation of its prospective benefits to himself. The rapid rise in the value of lands which attends the first stages of the growth of new settlements, turns principally to the advantage of the first settler, who has had the choice of the best locations; and that which he is so apt to claim as the tardy fruit of his own toil, more often results, without his agency, from the increase of population and capital around him. With what justice then can the incoming thousands of men who shall complete the social superstructure about him, and swell the sources of his prosperity, be deprived of the benefits of the enhanced value which they will give the school lands? Nor has this policy, which would impoverish the future for the benefit of the present, any support in the sentiment of paternal solicitude. Our children we |