the sale and disposition thereof, confers not the right of the eminent domain as to those mines.

There is a class of powers conferred upon Congress, which although delegating sufficient authority to accomplish the object, are yet to be regarded as falling short of the right to dash out of existence an essential attribute of state sovereignty. Thus by the constitution Congress has power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." And yet the court decide as to our navigable rivers, that the sovereign rights of the states cannot be trenched upon in that regard by the general government. Again, Congress is authorized by the constitution, "to make all needful rules and regulations for the sale and disposition of the public lands," and yet the court decide that no authority is conferred thereby upon Congress to grant to individuals any portion of the eminent domain of a state. Again, by the constitution Congress is empowered "to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin," and yet upon the principles of the decisions above referred to, it is perfectly manifest that the court would not hesitate a moment in deciding, that the power "to coin" did not confer a right to seize and convert to its own use the uncoined gold and silver belonging to a state either in the mass, or in its crude unwrought state in the mines, and that such an assumption would be in derogation of the rights of property as well as of the eminent domain of a state.

Thus far your committee have examined this subject as a question of political jurisdiction, to which the right of property, as such, is a mere incident. They have felt it a duty not only to assert and maintain the rights of states against encroachments of the federal power, but to canvass and refute the somewhat prevalent doctrines of the day, that the new states still remain under a kind of special "guardianship in socage," and that when finally emancipated from thraldom, they are to stand beside the original states in the conscious degredation of lessened powers and diminished rights. To maintain such a doctrine is to blot out of the statute and cession of Virginia the fundamental condition of the trust, that the new states shall have "the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence, as the other states." To maintain such a doctrine is to deny that Michigan has been admitted into the Union "on an equal footing in all respects whatever with the

original states," the constitution, laws and compact to the contrary notwithstanding. There can be no distinction between those states which acquired their independence by force of arms, and those which acquired it by the peaceful consent of older states.

But whilst your committee would recommend the full and unreserved assertion upon the statute book, of the sovereign right of Michigan to all mines of precious metals within her borders; they would at the same time also recommend (for the encouragement of our citizens and all who may feel disposed to open and work any of said mines already known, or to prosecute their researches for further discoveries) not only a just, but a liberal policy to be observed. Your committee feel assured that true policy would dictate that the state should never engage in mining operations. That all mineral lands held in her own right should be disposed of in fee, after a proper inspection and graduation of minimum prices. That in the same law asserting the sovereign right, there should be a relinquishment in perpetuity of the same, in behalf of citizens of Michigan now or hereafter owning lands containing minerals, in fee derived from the general or state government. And that for purposes of revenue the state should have recourse to an uniform speciflc tax, regulated by a moderate per centage upon the annual product of all mines wrought within her borders, whether the same are owned in fee or leased from the general government. To carry out these several recommendations your committee would report the accompanying bill as amendment to the bill referred to them from the commitiee on public lands.

F. J. LITTLEJOHN,
Senate Judiciary Com.

an

1846.

No. 23.

STATE LAND OFFICE,

Marshall, March 17, 1846.

Hon. WM. L. GREENLY, President of the Senate :

SIR:-In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 14th nst., please find enclosed a statement of the number of acres of University and school lands sold the past year at the minimum price, and the number sold in the months of January and February of the resent year.

And I have taken the liberty to give also the semi-annual sales for he years 1844 and 1845, by which it will be seen that the sales rom July to December in 1845, are materially heavier than in the corresponding months of the previous year; and that there is an ctual increase of the sale of the primary school lands even up to he present month, notwithstanding the fact that the most choice lands re first selected and those remaining are comparatively inferior.

Respectfully, &c.

ABIEL SILVER, Com.