{"character_count": 6130, "word_count": 1041, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9699000120162964], "ccnet_perplexity": [1703.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
had, as already shewn, the undoubted right to the soil but the act for the admission of Alabama into the Union, required that this State should disclaim all right and title to the waste lands within her territory. With this restriction imposed upon her, if binding on the State, could Alabama be said to have been admitted into the Union in accordance with either the Constitution or the act of cesA sion by Georgia? Previous to Alabama's ac- quiring 60,e00 free inhabitants, the title of the soil was vested in the General Govern ment in trust for the payment of the expenses incurred by the purchase from Georgia, and for the State, when she should throw off the shackles of territorial dependance. The mo- ment Alabama was admitted into the Union, all right of the Government as trustee in the soil ceased; and that right, under the Consti- tuition, became vested in theStateG Government. The first part of the condition as trustee, "the defraying the expenses incurred by the purchase" has been accomplished; the latter part, however, of the trust, conveying the lands to the State Government, has not been complied with.

 Your Committee would not be understood to intimate, that this State has not been ad- mltted into the Union as free, sovereign, and independent State. All they intend is, that Congress, in the act of admission, made requirements in violation of the Constitution; but which, being unconstitutional, are conse- quently null and void and. that the act, so tar as it follows the Constitution, is binding. The Government of the United States was formed for special purposes; and not having acquired the right of soil, in opposition to the old States, could not acquire it by gift, grant, or purchase from the new States. The State of Georgia could not have conveyed to the Government fee simple title in the soil, for they would be depriving the State to be form ed of one of the attributes of sovereignty; neither can the State convey this title A State cannot commit suicide, or, in other words, it cannot give or contract away any quality by which its sovereignty would be destroyed. It can legally do nothing which would interfere with the constitutional rights of the citizens. Nor can the General Co., vernment acquire this right, by the passage of laws at the time of the territorial govern ment; for that would be the creating of a power for its own benefit in opposition to the Constitution, and to the destruction of the condition of sessions.

 But it is argued, that the condition for the admission of this State into the Union, was the cession of the waste lands and that the convention accepted of the condition. We have shewn, that the State could not convey, and the necessary consequence is, the Gene ral Government could not accept. But sup pose the State could convey, can Congress now exact that which was internationally demanded and obtained. If the State, at the time of its admission, was entitled to be, so without the condition, is the unconstitutional exaction by Congress to be binding on the State Or, to illustrate the proposition, suppose Congress had conditioned, as a pre- requisite to the States admission, that all negroes should be emancipatcd, and the Con vention had accepted of the condition, will any one contend that the condition would be binding? If it would not, how can it be contended, that the present condition in re- lation to the lands is so. Your Committee are, therefore, ofthe opinion, that, inasmuch as the General Government did not acquire the right of soil by the Revolution, and could not after the adoption of the Constitution, that the act for the admission of Alabama into the Union is good and valid, except that part which re- quires the cession by this State of the waste lands; and that that part of it is null and void, and of no effect. Therefore,

 Be tt resotred by the Senate and House of Repre- scntatiues o the State of Alabama in General Assem- Hy conoened, That this General Assembly concur with the State of Mississippi in the opinion express ed by the Legislature of that State in relation to the right of that State to the unapproprated lands within her boundaries

 Be tt further resolred That this State, being so- vereign State, has the exclusive right to the soil and domain of all the unapproprated lands within her acknowledged boundaries.

 Be tt further resolUed, That our Senators be in- structed, and our Representatives requested to use their best exertons to induce the General Govern ment to acknowledge this right of the State.

 Be tt f.rther resolred, That the Governor be re- quested to transmit a copy of the foregoing Report and Resolutions to each of our Senators and Repre- sentatves in Congress; and also to the Executives of the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Georgia, with request that the same may be laid before the Legislatures of their respective States.

 MOSELEY BAKER, Chairman.

 On motion of MT ROBERTS, the report was ordered to lie on the table.

 MT EVERETT from the select committee to which was referred the memorial of Geo. F. Sallee reported bill to quiet the claim to certain property in the city ofMobile there in named; which was twice read and referred to the judiciary committee.

 MT RICHARDSON from the select commit tee to which resolution on the subject had been referred, reported bill to prevent free negroes or persons of color from emigrating to this State. and for other purposes; which was read and ordered to second reading to- morrow.

 MT You've from the committe of House of ofRepresentatives, appointed to investigate the official conduct of Charles H. Peters and Mathew c. Houston, made report, and of- ferred the following resolution:

 Resolred, that the evidence submitted to the com mittee, does not justify the House of Representa- tives in preerring articles of impeachment against Charles w. Peters, judge of the county court of Morgan county, nor authorize them to address the Governor recommending the removal of said judge from office; does the evidence submitted antho- rze the House to prefer articles of impeachment