the necessity of bringing into the settlement of this difficult point a conciliating temper, and endeavour, in a spirit of equity, to make such a compromise of conflicting interests and pretensions, as will, under the various aspects of which the subject is susceptible, be most likely to satisfy the ends of reciprocal justice. In considering this subject, let it be borne in mind, that the appropriation in question, is intended to raise a permanent fund for the benefit, not only of the present generation, but for all posterity. This provision in the states, formed out of the public land, as has heretofore been shown, will be constantly increasing in value in each township, in which the school section is reserved, in proportion to the increase of the population. Although made, therefore, upon a territorial basis, it nevertheless is perfectly equitable as it respects population. This, however, would not be the result of a territorial apportionment in the states, which have not been formed out of the public lands. The object to be obtained by the appropriation now asked for, is the education of the people of the several states. Justice would seem to require, then, that it should be distributed according to the numbers to be educated. A territorial apportionment, therefore, when we consider the inequality of the population in the several states, in reference to their extent, would be far from equitable. On the other hand, a numerical apportionment, though it would be just at the moment when made, would cease to be so, as soon as the relative population of the states should change, the provision in question being for the future as well as the present. It is obvious, also, as the land appropriated must be sold by degrees, and the proceeds be gradually paid over and invested by the states, as received, a numerical ratio fixed this year, would not be applicable to the next. A just numerical apportionment would, therefore, be impracticable. From the above views, a compound ratio of population and extent of territory would seem to be the one, which, under all circumstances, would be most equitable. In other words, let onehalf of the proceeds of the aggregate quantity of land, which shall be assigned to satisfy the just claims of the states, which have yet had no grants for the purposes of education, be distri buted amongst them according to their federal numbers, and the other half according to their extent of territory respectively. This plan, if the population of the future, as well as the present, be taken into consideration, would ultimately distribute the benefits of the education fund more nearly, than any other rule, according to numbers. Thus, the present generation, in states of large extent and sparse population, would have a better proportion for education, than the inhabitants of the states, covered with a dense population. On the other hand, although the provision for the education of the present generation in thickly settled states, will not be so good in proportion to numbers, as it will be in the states with a thin population; yet past experience in relation to the progress of population, which naturally tends to vacant territory, teaches us to expect, that this disadvantage will be daily diminishing, and when the population becomes equally dense, or nearly so in all the states, an equivalent advantage will be enjoyed by those states, which have at present a dense population. According to this plan, then, the states with a dense population, will gain in future, what they lose at the present time; and the states with a sparse population, will lose at a future period, what they gain at present. And thus the account of advantages and disadvantages will not only be settled by the different states but also between the present generation and posterity. In whatever point of view, then, this subject is placed, the compound ratio of apportionment will manifestly come nearer to the point of equal and exact justice, than any other that has been suggested. Such are the outlines of a plan for carrying the Maryland Resolutions into effect, which, though others more suitable to the purpose may be suggested, appear to us to be practicable, and We general arguments, well adapted to the attainment of the object proposed by them. We beg leave to observe, that in this feeble attempt to promote that object, we have abstained which might be urged to show the expediency of devoting a small part of the public domain, to the purpose of enlightening the mind and elevating the character of a free people. These would be more particularly appropriate and necessary, if the question were now an original one, and no partial appropriations had hitherto been made. We have, therefore, confined ourselves to the limits, that were occupied by the Maryland Report, which first called the attention of the other states to this subject, and which embraced such arguments only, as were calculated to show, that equal and impartial justice, as well as the spirit of our federal compact, required, that appropriations of public lands, proportional to such as had already been made in favour of a part of the states, should be extended to all. That Report does not complain of the grants to the hitherto favoured states, nor aim at divesting a single right or privilege, which has been given them. On the contrary, it applauds the wisdom and patriotism, which gave birth to so enlightened and liberal a system of policy and only contends, that equity now requires an extension of it to all parts of the country alike. It does not presume to prescribe the mode in which justice shall be done, but merely asks of Congrees to do it in such a way, as to them shall seem expedient and effectual. We have attempted in these remarks, to answer such objections to the Maryland Proposition, as have arisen from a misapprehension of its nature. We have also endeavoured to obviate such as are applicable to the measures, which have been supposed to be necessary to carry the principle of it into effect, rather than to the principle itself, by venturing, with great deference, to suggest a practicable plan, for placing, as nearly as the nature of things will allow, all the states of the Union upon an equal footing. This plan, together with the arguments which we have offered in support of the Maryland Resolutions, as well as in answer to the objections which have been made to them, we now submit to a candid and impartial public, and will only add, that those Resolutions appear to us to be founded in the strictest principles of justice and sound policy. Their object is to provide the means of enlightening the people, who are not only the only legitimate source of power, but also the tribunal, by which the proper exercise of it be finally tried. The stability of is our free institutions, therefore, depends upon a general diffusion of knowledge. No axiom in political science is clearer than that EDUCATION should be co-extensive with the RIGHT OF SUFfrage. To make it so, is the ultimate object of the Maryland Resolutions. Their success is connected with the highest interests of |