By all fair construction of the relations between the federal gov ernment and the several states, as adopted and acquiesced in by universal consent, the sale of the vacant and unsold public lands is reserved to the general government; and the right, after sale to tax such lands for the support of the state government in which they lie, is inseperably connected with the sovereignty and jurisdiction of such state. Is it then, in the power of Congress to change a settled and salutary feature in our government, and by the introduction of a system of leashold tenures, abrogate the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the state in that regard? The committee feel warranted in saying that from the premises they have already laid down, the general proposition is deducible that the federal government has not the right to lease her public lands within this state without first obtaining its consent. If indeed, a doubt could remain, the provisions of section four of the act of 15th June, 1836, providing for the admission of Michigan into the Union, settles the whole question as to the powers of both governments. The said fourth section is in these words: "And be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained, or in the admission of the said state into the Union, as one of the United States of America, upon an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, shall be so construed or understood as to confer upon the people, legislature or other authorities of the said state of Michigan any authority or right to interfere with the sale by the United States, and under their authority, of the vacant and unsold lands within the limits of the said state; but that the subject of the public lands, and the interests which may be given to the said state therein shall be regulated by future action between Congress on the part of the United States, and the said State or the authorities thereof; and the said state of Michigan shall in no case and under no pretence whatsoever impose any tax, assessment or imposition of any description upon any of the lands of the United States within its limits," The provisions of this section, are perhaps more liberal for the rights and interests of this state, than laws generally are for the admission of new states into the Union; for it is clear that the only right reserved by Congress is the "sale," and not any other disposition of the public lands within its limits; and even that "sale" it is expressly declared "shall be regulated by future action between Congress, on the part of the United States, and the said state or the authorities thereof," So long as the United States continue to dispose of the public lands within the limits of this state, agreeably to an equitable and settled policy, any interference on the part of the state might be of questionable utility, yet by the provisions of the saida ct, the right to do so, seems to exist. If on the contrary, the general government shall persist in the policy attempted to be introduced by these leases, it is not only the right but the duty of our state authorities to take such steps as will prevent a growing evil of this kind-an evil detrimental to the rights and interests of this state, and an encroachment upon its jurisdiction and sovereignty. The committee are aware that in the case of the United States vs. Gratiot, et al. 14 Peters Reports 526, a different construction of the second act of 3rd March, 1807, has been given by the Supreme Court of the United States, relative to the power of the President to lease lead mines in the state of Illinois; but this power was sustained on the grounds that it had been the uninterrupted and settled practice of the government in that state, in relation to lead mines only, for no allusion is made in that case to any other minerals, Should, however, the same doctrine be declared in relation to all minerals, it could have no application in this state, where by the provisions of the act admitting her into the Union, no such right has been reserved, but on the contrary, the subject of the public lands "shall be regulated by future action between Congress on the part of the United States, and the said state or authorities thereof.” "Formerly the lead mines in the now state of Missouri were leased. This was while a territorial government existed there; when Missouri became a state, opposition was made to the system, and to the practice under it-they were successfully resisted, and the whole system was driven out of the state of Missouri. In that state there is no longer a body of tenantry, holding under leases from the United States." The case of Michigan is different from that of either Illinois or Missouri. In the latter states the system was commenced while they were territories of the United States, but in Michigan no lease for such purposes was ever executed until she became a State, and their relative rights in this respect are as different as the exercise of an ancient right, or the attempt to introduce a new one, could make them. The act admitting us into the Union repeals all acts of Congress, contravening its provisions, and the right to revive and enforce an act applicable only to the territories of the United States, while they remain such, cannot be raised by implication, to be enforced after we become a state, so as to effect our sovereignty and jurisdiction. Such rights to operate, should have been as expressly reserved by Congress as the reservations and stipulations of treaties between sovereign and independent governments. Your committee cannot but entertain the hope that when this subject is brought fairly before Congress for its consideration, such action will be taken by that body, as will, without collision, secure to Michigan her just rights in the premises; and the interests of this state being deeply involved in a speedy and equitable settlement of this subject, your committee beg leave to introduce the accompanying bill and joint resolutions. 3 |