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

The following is an able view of the
public land bill of Mr.. Clay. 1t is from
the pen of an intelligent citizens who ha
manifested but little Interest in the part,
conflicts of the state for several wear:
past. HIS views are just, and so plainl,
stated, that they cannot fail to convince
every unprejudiced mind, that the Pres
ldent acted correctly in Withholding bis
signature from the bill:
PUBLIC LAND QUESTION.
The public lands of the United States
have recently become topic of much in.
terest. That there must be change Of
policy in citation to them, seems to be
conceded on all sides, and the only ques-
ton is, whether they shall be hereafter a
source of private and political specula-
ton, or whether they shall be deyoted to
furnish cheap and independent homes to
our brothers and children when the crow
ded population, or~the high price of lands
In the old states may induce them to seek
residence in the new states. The great
west is particularly interested in the re-
suit Of this question, because the rapidly
OF her future growth depends upon it. |
have examined the bill passed at the last
session Of congress which the President
thought proper 10 retain, and will un-
doubleday return with his veto, and find
Its provisions to be as follows, viz:
LIST. The states of Ohio, Indiana, Hi.
nols, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi and
Louisiana, are TO receive twelve and a
half per cent. of the nett proceeds of the
sales of public lands within their limits,
in addition to the 5 per cent. theyare EN-,
Titled to receive by the terms of the com
pact by which they were admitted into
the Union, to be applied 10 some object or
objects of Internal improvement Or edu.
cation.
Cd. The residue of the nett proceeds
OF land salcs, after deducting the II
per cent. is to be divided, by this act, a.
nong the twenty.four states of the I'm
ion, according to their federal representa-
tive population, to be applied to such pur.
poses as the legislatures of the several
states may think proper.
Sd. 1t gives to the states of Mississippi,
Louisiana and Missouri, 100000 acres of
land each, to Indiana 1 l 1879 acres, to the
state of Illinois 10000, and to the state
of Alabama 100000 acres; the proceeds
to be devoted to objects of internal i'm
provement within those states.
| know the people of Kentucky too
well, not TO be satisfied, that, if they be-
lieve this project, for the disposition of
the public lands, to be in violation of
sound principles, and that it would be un,
just in its operations, they have too much
integrity and honor to sustain it, even if
it were beneficial to themselves. With
this reliance, will show it to be contra
dictory In principle, and unjust in prac.
tice, not doubling that if can establish
these positions, that my countrymen will
decide against the land bill, and reject
those who favor the iniquitous scheme.
say the act is contradictory in pinci
pie. If Kentucky and the old states have
any right to the lands in the new States,
it must be an equal right; that is to say,
Kentucky has as great a right in proper
ton to her population to the public lands
lying in the state of Missouri, as Missouri
herself has. To give each state its rights,
therefore, the aohole proceeds of the sales
Of public lands should be divided among
the whole twenty four States. But such
is not the proposal made in this bill; it
begins by giving the new states one
eight of the whole proceeds, and then
lets them in for their proportion of the re-
mainder. If the proceeds of the sales in
Missouri be million of dollars, there
must first be deducted per cent. under
the compact, and then 10 l-2 per cent.
under this bill, amounting in all to II II
per cent. equal to $4,000. This would
leave to be divided only $895,ooO; of
which Missouri would also receive her
federal proportion. The proportion Of
Kentucky would be about $4,000. By
this principle of distribution, Kentucky
would receive less than fourth as much
as Missouri, with federal population
five times as large! The same dispro.
portion will appear in a greater or less
degree, in relation to all the old and new
states, and the territories would get moth.
ing.
Why is this? If Kentucky have any
right to the lands in Missouri, it is an
equal right. and why is she denied her