Mr. MORRILL. I do not know that I ought to mingle in the debate on this subject. I consider it so peculiarly a western question that I feel some little delicacy in saying anything on the subject; but from my connection with the ComDistCol, I feel a little interest in the passage of the bill, if it can be passed without vio sting the interest which is represented here by Senators. In my country we make provision directly out of the public treasury in support of the schools. If the people in the DistCol hada treasury, I should think that a better way; but they have not, and they are obliged to rely in great part upon the action of Congress. N ow, what has particularly struck me is the character of the opposition to the bill. It is said in the 1st place that a grant of one million acres will not amount to an hing, will come to nothing at all; that it will not benefit the schools; notmore than $50,000, it is said, will ever be raised to these cities for the benefit of the schools. I do not know how that will be. If that is so it would be an argument against the measure, I agree. Whether it is so or not, I do not know. I cannot understand exactly how it can be so, because it is said that the lands which have hitherto been anted, the moment they have passed out of e hands of the Government, as a general thing, particularly in the case of the railroad grants, (and I believe the honorable Senfrom Iowa seemed to argue that it had the same effect if ou granted the lands for schools) have been increased in value twofold. If that is so, or if the result is anything in that proportion, we ouvht to expect a very large return. hen iit said byt e Senfrom Kansas that this bill ought not to pass, because it will be peculiarly oppressive to his State, and he assumes that it would be practicable to locate 40 miles square in one body, for speculators, to cover that quantity of land With this scrip , and hold it until the growth of settlement had made it immensel valuable, and keep his children and the children of his constituents from the enjoyment of their rights. All that must be on the supposition that he and 1118children and the children of his constituents own all the land in Kansas, which we do not agree to. The children of the DistCol own it as I much ashe and his constituents precisely; and that has nothing to do with the propositiou, provided we think it is a reasonable one. Then I do not understand how that is prac ticable, and ithas no influence upon my mind for this reason: we have been doing this thing repeatedly. This is not novel, it is not new. As I understand, you granted to colleges for agricultural purposes land scripprecisely in the same way. This bill is patterned on that; I do not know that it is a transcript of it, but it follows the same principle precisely. That is a precedent for it, so that I cannot understand that there is any practical difficulty about it. The honorable Senfrom Indiana, who may be supposed to know something about the West and western lands, and the ComPubLands say that in form there is no difficulty about this. Now, I should like to know how it turns out that the moment a bill appropriating only a million acres for the benefit of schools here comes to have the united opposition of persons who claim to own the public lands, who claim to understand most about the policy of the public lands. I have had occasion to look at the question of the public lands somewhat, to see how they have been distributed. I know the argument of my honorable friendfrom Iowa; it is, that every acre of land you have given to the western States for schools, for railroads, canals, wagon roads, as swamp lands, and what not, has all redounded to the great glory and benefit of the Treasury of the U.S.