{"character_count": 5069, "word_count": 935, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9711999893188477], "ccnet_perplexity": [543.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
ment 0f the United StateS hdS parted With all is right and title to the land, and that the title 10 Il has become completely vested in the Territory of hrliansas, under the first act of Congress. Suppose, in the first in- stance, that all the power given to the Le- gisature had been given 10 the Governor, could he have claimed. under such an act, the right to design and build the house, and to appropriate the fund? Would 1t have given him any legislative power whatsoever! And farther, Ii suchpower had been express ly given by the act, would 1t not have been an illegal interference, on tine part of the grantor, with the rights of tic grantee, after the grant was made! But 1t Is said, as the Legislature had the power (growng out of the first act) to build the house and appro- prlate the fund, that these powers were, by the second act, vested in the Goyernor.- The question Is, are these powers derived from the first actl To settle this question, lei the act be referred to. By the act, the Is authorized to select, sell and convey. Suppose they had, by joint vote, elected q commissioner for tEis purpose would he have had the right to build and apply the fund! But, they could authorize hln to do so, by a law, giving the authority, and making the appropriation. But sup pose tine blll passed for this purpose, was highly objectionable, and could not be ap- proved by the Governor, then, unless tWo- thirds of both Houses agreed to 1t, the bill could not become law. Thus 1t will be perceived, that, although majority of the Legislature, as inc agent under the act of Congress, had the power to select, sell and convey yet they could do nothing with the fund, unless by a law, approved by the Go- vernon, or passed by vote of two-thrds of both houses; and that consequently, this power IS not derived from an act of Con- gress; but from the Organic Law. And, as 1t Is not contended that the Governor, under the second act, possessed any other powers than those vested in the EeeisIa- ture, by the first act, il seems to be clear that these powers are confined to the selec- ton, sale and conveyance of the ten sec tions of land, granted to this Territory for the erection of public building at Little

 Rock.

 An argument in favor of my views may be drawn from the proceedings of Congress

 n relation to the thousand acre grant. In that case1 for the purpose of authorizing the Governor to apply the proceeds of the grant, the ttle to the land was, by the second act, rested in the Governor, Ill trust for the be- neht ot the lerritory, and the Territory was entirely diYested of its title. This strong measure, Ii would seem, was considered necessary by Congress, to authorize the Governor to apply the proceeds of the grant.

 and, even in this case, although the title was by the act vested in the Governor, still the act expressly gives the authority to the Governor to apply the proceeds, and par ucuIarly points out the objects to which he must apply them. In this case, his acts are under the control of the National Govern ment. in relation to the ten section grant, the Government disclaims all right to inter- tere beyond the issuance of the patents to the purchasers. If the title to the 1000 acres had been permitted to remain in the Territory, and Congress had gone on with 0ut Investing the title, to authorize the Go- vernon to apply the proceeds, should have considered an act of the General Assembly of the Territory still necessary to give full validity to the acts of the Governor.

 It IS sad, that the ten section fund Is not in the Treasury of the Territory, and that 1t connot be reached by any process. Is it not ln the hands of an agent, who IS re- sponSlbie to the Territory for it and does It not belong as completely to the Territory

 as Ii the people had been taxed to raise 1t for the purpose of building State-house And surely If these questions must be an- sWered affirmatively, 1t Is certainly in the power of the Territory to obtain possession of the fund.

 In the course have taken in relation to thls business, have been influenced alone by a sense of public duty; and, although < nope has been expressed that 1 will profit nom tine adrnonitions that have received. yet as ] do not acknowledge either the ius- tce or the truth of those admonitions, | fear shall continue to be as obstinate an as- serter of the rights of the people hereafter, as have endeaVored heretofore to be.

 consider my own convictions to be my guide Tn the discharge of public duty, and that no power on earth could save me from beinc ioresworn, if l neglected a duty which be lleVed my oath of office required me to per form and that if should be guilty of such conduct, l should render myself unworthy of PubAc confidence, and of the office i

 In conclusion, let me present one farther Vlew of thls question. Suppose that, at the session ot the Legislature held in 1881, d majority of the two Houses had elected an agent to carry out the authority given to them by the act of Congress, Gas tley cer- talnlY had the rioht tn dnA ard IL. .l.