Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume] (Vandalia, Ill.) 1832-183?, 1833-08-07

I ''S"' III 'hio pili! n IiSut, ana dill tIud
right, is asserted in the distributive pro
vision of the bill, and denied in the pro
vision. which gives a preference to the
new states. Upon what principle is it
that they are allowed p l-2 per cent. De
fore the distribution is made? Have they
a right to that specific amount? If they
have right to IL l2 per cent. have they
not the same right TO 90, so, or 1Ol
Does not the mere allowance of prefer
ence contradict the distributive principle
and admit that the new states have prior
right TO their own soil? The truth is, the
states. as such, have no rights in the soil
OF each other. All the public lands Oh
this side of the Mississippi were conveyed
to the United States, as money, to pay the
national debt, and for the benefit of the
common treasury. Virginia owned the
lands which now constitute the states OF
Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Did she ever
intend to give any part of them to Mas
sachusetts, to be sold for the local purpos-
es Of that state? Would she have con
veyed her hands to the United States, if
she had supposed that the latter would
have distributed them among the other
states, which had neither title nor claim
to them? Massachusetts has been, from
the date of the constitution, and is now,
selling out her public lands, and putting
the proceeds into her own treasury.
Could she, under such circumstances.
have the assurance to ask, and would
Virginia have had the liberality to cons
cede, that she should apply to her local
purposes the entire proceeds of her own
lands, and also an equal proportion of
those of the old Dominion? All the old
states have sold out their public lands, and
put their proceeds into their own treasur-
les. What right have they now, to claim
a share in the lands of the new states?
Let US come nearer home. Kentucky
has been and is now selling out her pub
lie lands, and putting the proceeds into
her own treasury. What right have we,
after keeping the whole OF the money, to
say to Ohio, you shall give US, also, por
ton Of the proceeds of your lands? Let
US change situations; suppose that Ohio,
after selling her own lands, and enjoying
the benefits, were to come to Kentucky,
and demand of her part of the price Of
the lands below the Tennessee river.
Should we think the demand modest or
Just; on the contrary, would not our peo-
pie feel themselves insulted, and repel the
insolent claim with scorn and Indignation?
This bill would make US equally insult
ri eicto tata
the public lands were given to the United
States, not for distribution, but to be sold
for specified purposes. By distributing
them among the States, or selling them
for any ether purposes. The United
States would violate the conditions and
purposes of the grant; and il is a matter
of grave consideration, whether the new
states are bound to submit to such a dispo-
sition. But as the purposes of the grant
are substantially fulfilled, and the pro-
ceeds of the public land sales are no lon
ger wanted to pay the national debt, it is
undoubtedly in the power of congress to
reduce their price, so that the poorest "a
mong US may obtain freehold and a
home upon the cheapest terms. The true
policy of the country unquestionably is,
to educe the price, so that the proceeds
will only be Sufficient to cover the ex
pense of purchasing the Indian titles, ma
king surveys, and paying the expenses of
the land system. First rate lands might
be purchased at 90 or 80 cents per acre,
and second rate much lower, so that the
humblest of our citizens would find them
selves able to acquire excellent farms, live
in comfort, and raise their children with
robust bodies and vigorous minds. The
reduction of the price of the public lands
is so obviously the true policy Oft the West,
that we are tempted to inquire what mo-
tive could have originated the bill which
is framed to keep up the price and make
the western states, for a century to come,
tributary to the eastern? To my mind
the motive is very obvious. 1t TO foster
the manufacturing monopolies of the east.
The first Objects to throw the proceeds of
the sales of the public lands out of the
treasury, that there may be necessity
for keeping up the tariff. This might
have been effected by reducing the price;
but that would have injured the manufac-
lures in another way. 1t is their interest
to retain as many poor people as possible
in the eastern states, that they may EN-
ploy them at cheap rate in their work
shops. A reduction in the price of pub,
lie lands, would induce them to abondon
Al