Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1830-03-02
this point the gentleman from Massachusetts,

this point the gentleman from Massachusetts,
In January, 1895, expressed himself thus
There could be no doubt if gentlemen
looked at the money received into the Treas
ury from the sale Of the publick lands to the
West, and then looked to the whole amount
expended by the Government, (even includ
ing the whole amount of what was laid out
Tor the ARMY latter must be allowed
to be very inconsiderabie, and there must be
q constant drain Of money from the Vest to
pay the pabtick lands. 1t might indeed be
SAID that this was no more than the rehuence
OF capital wh-:h had previously gone over
the mountains. Be it so. Still its practi-
cal effect to produce inconvenience, IF not
distress, by absorbing the money of the peo-
| ple."
| commended chat the publick lands ought
not to be treated merely as " fund faf rev.
enue"-that they ought not to be Aoarded
"as great treasure" On this point the
Senator expressed himself thus: Govern
ment, he believed, had received eighteen Or
twenty millions of dollars from the publick
lands, and it was with the greatest satisfac-
ton he adverted to the change which had
been introduced in the mode of paying for
them; get he could aever think the national
domain acas to b. regarded as any great
source Of revenue The great object ofthe
Government in respect to these lands, was
not SO much the money deriued FROM thesr
sale, as it was the getting them settled What
he meantt to say was, he did not think they
ought to hug that domain as A eRFAr TREAS
uRE, ichich aoas to enrich the Erchequer."
Now, Mr.. President, it will be. seen that
the very doctrines which the gentleman SO
Indignantly abandons were urged by him in
1925; and if l had actually borrowed my
sentiments from those which he then avow.
ed, l could not have followed more closely
in his footsteps. Sir, it is only since the
gentleman quoted this book, yesterday, tina,
my attention has been turned to the senti.
ments he expressed in 1926, and, if / had
remembered them | might possibly have
been deferred from uttering sentiments here
which it might well be supposed, had Dor.
rowed from that gentleman.
In 1925, the gentleman told the world
that the publick lands sought not to be
treated as treasure" He now tells US
that "they must be treated as SO much treas
tare.,1 what the deliberate opinion of The
gentleman on this subject may be, belong.
not to me to determine, but do not think
he can. with the shadow of justice or propri
ETY. impugn my sentiments, while his own re.
corded opinions are identical with my own
When the gentleman refers to the condition.
of the grants under which the United State.
have acquired these lands, and insists that
as they are declared to be "for the com.
mon benefit of all the States" they can on.
ly be treated as so much treasure, think he
has applied rule of construction too narrow
for the case. If in the deeds of cession, il
has been declared that the grants were in.
tended for "t the common benefit of all the
States" it is clear, from other provisions
that they were not intended merely as 50
mach property: for, it is expressly declared
that the object Of the grants is the erection
Of new States; and the United States, in &C
cepting the trust, bind themselves to facili-
tate the foundation of these States, to be ad-
mitted into the Union with all the rights and
privileges Of the original States. This, Sir,
was the great end to which all parties look
ed, and it is by the fulflment of this high
trust, that "the common benefit of all the
States" is to best promoted. Sir, let me tell
the gentleman, that in the part Of the coun-
try in which / live, we do not measure polit-
cal benefits by the money standard. We
consider as more valuable than gold, liberty,
principle and justice. But, Sir, if we are
bound to act on the narrow principles con-
tended for by the gentleman, am wholly at
a loss to conceive how he can reconcile
his principles with his own practice. The
lands are, it seems, to be treated as so
much treasure" and'must be applied to the
"common benefit of all the States" Now,
if this be so, whence does he derive the
right to appropriate them for partial and To-
cal objects? How can the gentleman con-
sent to vote away immense bodies of these
lands; for canals in Indiana and Illinois, to
the Louisville and Portland Canal, to Ken
yon College in Ohio, to Schools for the Deaf
and Dumb, and other objects of a similar de-
scription ? If grants of this character can
fairly be considered as made "for the COM
mon benefit of all the States, it can only be,
because all the States are interested in the
welfare of each-a principle which, carried
to the full extent, destroys all distinction be-
tween local and national objects and is GER