Li1rtg RocK; March 10, lSa7. To George c. IHaikiHs, Esq,

 s4itormey General of .arkGHsas:
{"character_count": 5540, "word_count": 966, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9490000009536743], "ccnet_perplexity": [838.2999877929688], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 are in general harmless, and should they be erroneous, seldom do any public injury. But opinions of public officer delivered and published to the world, and intended for the government of executive ar ministerial offs cers of the Siate in the discharge of the du- ties devoiying on them in their official capa- city. aAd especially the opinion of the attor- ney general ellcited ou the call ot an officer whose duty it has been made 10 receive large sums of money, consisting of trust funds for i lands donated tO the Siate of Arkansas, by the general government for the sole aud only purpose, ofendowing seIninaries of learning, and making internal improvements within the State, may, and doubtless will, do much injury, and should the legislature hold those officers to strict legal accountability, may result in ruin to them and their securities.

 Your opinion of the 3d instant, and pub lished in the Banner of the 10th inst, from ! tie sweeping conclusions you seem to arrive at, will doubtless include the seminary fund. the Salt-Spring fund, and all other ''dues," whether the same be for 'staxes levied for State purposes and for all State dues,' or for trust funds, which the S,ase of ASkansas has coyenanted to collect and apply to particular i purposes.

 ln the first place, 1 wish 10 show that il l the general assembly had so wi'led 1t, il had not the constitutional power to divest the trust from it's original purpose without the assent of Congress, who was one of the par l ties to the scoHiract."

 And in the second place, that take all the legislation of ,lie last general assembly on the subject of the "Inle.nal Improvement , Eund,n they neither have diverted the same from its original purpose, nor by any act or '.resoluiion" have they attempted to do so

 For the better understanding of this sub | feet, l shall take brief review of the state of facts as iliey exist in the case under con sitlcration.

 Some few years since, Congress in her lib- eralty, granted to the State of Arkansas q. mong o,i,er States, 500, 900 acres ofland to be located and disposed by the State authorities for the purpose cf making internal improve ments within .he State. The State of Ar kansas accepted of the grant on tfie terms proposed, appointed her agents, selected the lands, the selections in whole or in part have been approved of by the proper officers oi lI,e land office department. And the general assembly lave appointed land ageni, and among the duties assigned him, is the sale of these 500, ,000 acres of land

 This without quoting the words of the several statutes on the subject, is believed to be substantially the facts.

 Does not this make in law and equity a contract between the two sovereign powers able and willing to contract;

 And is not this u contract by and between the United States and the Staie of Arkansas, for the mutual benefit of both the contract ing parlies' The United States as sovei- eign republic has strong and abiding inter- est iu the internal improvement, the facility of trade, and intercommunication of all the States in thc Union. And lIe State of Arkan- sas as a sovereign State of the Union, has a deep and vital interest in all that will ad- vance the prosperity and welfare of her citi- Zens.

 And what is better calculated 10 advance ihe happiness and convenience of the citizens of Arkansas than a judicious system of in- ternal improvement;

 Lawful contracts can only be set aside or revoked by the consent of both the contract ing parties. And il is all equally we'll estab- ished principle of constitutional law, both federal and State, that no Slate shall pass any law that will impair the obligation ol a contract.

 1 Now, sir, il my premises be well taken it results that the United States and the State of Arkansas had made contract" an sagieement" u s.covenantn executed on the part of the United States, and in course of ex- ecution by the State of Arkansas, and which neither party without the assent of the other I had any constitutional power 10 "impair" or divest from the original use.

 A little examination will show you that the 500,000 acres for internal Improvements was given by the general government 10 the State of Arkansas upon the same principle, and the conditions fully expressed, that the 72 sections were given for the endowmen. of a seminary of learning. And l believe that the most radical of Arkansas legislators never pretended that they had even the pow 4. CT to divide this fund because the original grant WAS in the singular number, and ap- piied to Congress time and again until Con- gress become tired of importantly, assented to division of the fund.- The State of Wis consin resolved 10 apply the 500,000 acre fund granted that State, to the purpose of e,l- ucalion and Congress assented 10 lhe change.

 am inclined to think, sir, that you are untitled to the honor of having made the dis coyery, that the general assembly of Arkan- sas had by a ''resolution" (certainiy intend ed for very diiieren, purpose repealed the laws and compact in relation 10 the Internal improvement. fund. and had changed it's whole purpose and destipa,ion. The discov- cry may evinee' .'penetraton keen,n but re- fleets liitle credit eitier for honesty of pur. pose or integrity of character iii ,ha, honor able boty.

 My first position that the general assem-. bly, of Arkansas could not constilutionally change the character of the 500, ,000 acre ,fus. fund paving, as i, is deemed, been fully sus- tansd; let us see if lha, honorable body has