Mr. SAULSBUR“ I shall be glad to hear the “why.” Letme put a'case. In most of the States of this Union there are what are called vncant lands, the title to which is in the State. There has been a eat deal of that kind of land in my State. We have a law, as I presume most States have for their vacant lands, that gives the privilege to an person who knows where there is vacant lan to petition the Legislature of the State for a grant of the land; and the Legislature may grant for a consideration, or they may grant it Without any consideration. Suppose now that the Legislature of a State where there are vacant Iands located, does by solemn act of the Legislature grant to A B 500 acres of vacant land situated in such 100or such a.township. That, then, is the law of the land. Suppose A B goes into possession of that land, ditches it, makes improvements upon it, will the honorable Senator say that it would be competent for the Legislature of that State to repeal that act and divest the title granted? It is a contract, as most of the law is resolved into contract; it is a contract between the State and the individual. When the grant is made by the State and accepted by the individual the contract is perfected, and it is not in the power'of the grantor to divest the grantee of the title. So in this case, if the right to that portion of the DistCol was in the U.S., and congress had the power to part with it and I shal not discuss that aspect of the question, because it has been already exhauste by the Senfrom Maryland when the Government of the U.S., acting thron h its legislative dept, made a grant 0 that portion of the Distwt to the State of Virginia, and that grant was accepted by the State of Virginia and she went into possession, it became a contract executed, which no one of the parties has the right, without the consent of the other, to.revoke. A contrary doctrine would lead to the most disastrous consequences in every State of this Union. What! make a Solemn grant, part with your title by the most solemn mode in which you can part with itbeeause the most. solemn and' formal way in which the Government of the U.S. can art with title to property is by an act of the congress of the U.S. part with your title, vest it in A B, see him go on, and after he has accepted the grant improve the subject matter ofit, and then turn around and say you have a right to divest it! Why, sir, this principle, if applied practically, would destroy an amount of title to real estate in this country, destroy an amount of property valued at millions and untold millions; and it is the 1st time in my life I ever heard the doctrine advanced. it is not in any book, not even, as an eminent lawyer of my State once said, “ in 17 Dogberry, bound in boards.” There Qu not be found such a principle in any law book, not even in the old black letter law books, nor in any law book in any State in this Union, or in any court where English law is administered. such a principle is totally subversive of the law which governs titles to estates. Mr. President, some of us supposed before now that we knew a little about law; but if these principles he correct, then I apprehend that 19 20th s and 99 outof every 100 lawyers will have to go back to the A BCof the law, and see if the cannot dig up some hidden meaning which as escaped the observation of all those who have essayed the paths of the law heretofore. Mr. President, I have said all I have to say on this subject, and will now hear the reasons which the honorable Senator can assign wherein, if the act of retrocession be constitutional, congress gets the power to resl it.