The Arkansas advocate., 1837-03-10
AFFAIRS AT WASHINGTON CITY. From the United States Telegraph, of Feb T.
 THE PUBLIC LANDS.

thn biil to limit the sales of the public lands was. after having undergone fornighi's discussion. reeomm- ted to the committee on Public Lands Before the vote was taken, Mr Calhoun delivered his opinions in regard to It's character and tendency showing that t was directly calculated 10 defraud the country of is soii--to throw the public domain into the hands of greedy speculaors-to oppfess the honest and indus tfioas settier-and to introduce extended system of fraud, perjury, and corruption in the country He ey alnined il al some length, both ln pecuniary and political point of view, and declared that he would much prefer to cede he lands to tbe new States on eefain eehdtions' than to give encouragement 10 the system recommended by the bill. He suggested a plan, as to iis general outlines without entering into details, and expressed the hope that the subject would beexanined before the bill should be finally acted up on
 The original bill reported by tbe Committee on Public Lands contained provisions highly injurious to the new States, veil unjust and oppressive to the actual settler Ihe sales of the public lands were i'm ted to small number of acres, to be purchased only by particular classes, aud then oay under oath suSain- ed by afldavlls of witnesses. in addition to these restrictions, the purchaser was ta reside given time on the land, and 10 open and cultivate one tenth part ot his purchase and, crown a he was to wait fee geaf8 before he could get his patent being in the meantime lable failure 10 comply with any of the numerous conditous o forfeit both laud and purchase money te tae Government. Besides these, the bill contained no graduation principle at ali, and lands oi every quality, whether heretofore in market or not were po down at the same price.
 ihIs btl during the debate. underwent various chan ges-and finally lyas so metamerphosed by amend. ments, that ihe fathers Of | declared hey would not vote for a all. Their wrath made them forget their o!sprHg-and there was general belief that the bantliae would have to be sent 10 the hospital.
 h his state ofrhiags judge White offered an amend. ment a substitute 10 the whole bill This substitute contained provisions highly favorable the NEW States, at east and desife call THEIR attention to the proceedings en it. They Will perceive the difference | etWeea tie bill and the substitute by the following staI IeneBt
 Fh sT. The substitute extended tbe pre-emption pf.aeip fa lands subject entry, as well IS those which ha never been offered for sale This provision was lsacuiiaHy favorable to Mississippi, Alabama, oaisiana and other new States, because twothras of the settlers lands that have been offered for safe.
 SECOND. T eateuded the graduation principle to ACTUAL SETTLERS oNLY-hxiag the pNce al 60 cents per acre for such as hal beea n market TWENTY years -75 cents for those VI, ,i,h had been n market rIF- TEEN yeaFs-ahd one d0tiaf for those which had been in maskel TEN years
 THIRD. Il gave pre-empa lien rights to an equal quantity of land where the 'sler bad been disturbed in his possessions by the loc&Aaa ot Indian resefpa tions-a provision founded manifest justice to the actual settler.
 FouRrH. t was free of the obnoxious clauses registers and receivers nt& c00rs of judi cature fer tae trial aud determination of questions of tile prescribing numerous restrictions and limitations on inc persons as well property of pufchasers and requiring oahs and allidavs before the settler could even BID for and much less obtain title to f.
 These being the leading provisions of the bill and the substitute il may well be asked. how came Il 10 pass that Messrs. King, of Alabama, Norvell aud LYen from Michigan, Fulton, Of Afkansas Benton, oi Mieso0r, (and others from the new Staies,) voted e 1ti,5t tie snbsiitue Viii they deny that WAS moi more favorable to the States they represent than the bill They dare not tie fact is too obvious, and every man iii those States would al detect the weakness of such a position. Was 1t because they desired to reduce or limit the revenues from the public lands2 Why did they not then bring in bill 10 re- strain the President from selling so many millions Of acres 10 the specuaiors? This plain and simple mode would have effected the object directly aud These reasons, therefore, could not have influenced the!f votes the question How then shall ae- count for this open and undisgused betrayal of the E rights aad interests of tileir consiituents Why did they moi pursue the course of Messrs. Black and Sevier? We can give bui answer. The substi- [ tute vas introduced by JUDGE WHITE, and their political animosies would not allow them to advance a proposition which might add to hss popularity, AL THOUGH BY REFUSING THEIR SUPPORT, THEY saeRf- { FIcED THE BEST INTERESTS OF THOSE WHOM THEY WERE SENT HERE TO REPRESENT. This appears 10 LIS the only ground upon which their condpct can be expIaned and il is for their constituents to say whether
 the reason is sufficient to justify the oet. It is mat ter for them, and not for We not surprised
 that Senators from the old States, who, ike us opposed to the pre-empton principle, should vote against the substuie but for Elr Benon, the boast
 ing auhor of the graduation principle, and Mr. King, the advocate of pre-empon rights, to vote thus, is straage Ifthey will send heated pasans here bound hand and foot to mere party leader they ought not to expeet or receive any other treatment. What are
 their interests in the scale against the interests of r.