Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1837-08-10

a new State, all the rest Of the Territory
is to be given to them gratis although
It should be worth five times as much US
all they paid for what they did buy,
Well may we have millions of foreign
adventures; and well may they exclaim,
"Mis IS land fOring ,ciM milk and ho-
ney"]
See Presidents Message'ot Dec. 5,I8-
SO. This is filed with bitter complaints
aginst the distribution law, which took
the surplus public money out of his hands;
and which law, he says (page 9th, ere
ceived his reluctant approval" From
the exerions which he and Mr.. v. b.
and "THE GREAT MASS OF THEIR sUproR-
rERs" (as Mr.. V. b. says) made to pre-
won't its. passing, il is plain that it would
not have received his assent at all had
not the majorities in both Houses been
strong and determined enough to have
passed it had he vetoed it, at page
u, l2, he says :-'In my opinion dis
tribution Of the surplus revenue, by Con-
gress, either to the States or the people,
is TO be considered rs among the prohi-
bitiOns Of the Constitution" Did he
sign and apprOre of law which in his
opinion was unconstitutional? II is to be
noticed that both Mr.. Van Buren,, in his
letter to Sherrod Williams and the late
President, in his Message, found their
chief objection to the distribution law up
on the plausible ground that it is unjust
to raise n revenue by taxes upon ore
portion Of the people, for the purpose of
distributing it among another portion of
them and that Congress has no power
TO do this. This is we'll calculated to
their opposition to the peoples interests,
by persuading them that they governed
by sense Of justice and respect for the
Constitution. But the statement itself is
deceptive and unfounded in truth. The
surplus money ordered to be divided, did
not come from any such source. The
whole Of il was no more than the pro-
ceeds Of the sales of the public domain,
coniessedly belonging to the States by
the terms of the original grants Of that
domain TO them. This fact has already
been clearly proved by the Treasury re-
ports an extract from which was given
in our last number showing that the
land money for the last three years only,
amounted to between 40 and SO millions
Of dollars. And it is plainly confessed,
in this very Message, (page l5) that the
surplus of revenue arises from the pro-
ceeds of the land sales.
AT page 9Th, he insists that the distri-
button oct was "an act merely for the de-
posite of the surplus monies of The U. S.
in the State Treasures for safe keeping,"
SC. and that the States have the keep
ing Of it in the same manner only as
'nny deposiie bank, or any individual,
temporarily charged with the safe keeping
or application Of the public money" But
the following is the most truly extraordi-
nary of all the reasons urged in the Mes
sage to persuade Congress to repeal the
law and not to divide the land money n
mong the States, viz page 10 :-"7hs
Slate Legislatures, instead Of studying to
restrict their Stale expenditures 10 the
smallest possible sum, ~in claim credit for
their protusion, and harrass The General
Government Jor increased supplies. So
| How innocent, and yet how sensitive !
The States, he fears, will watch the Ex-
ecutive, and will demand all the surplus
money not wanted for the public service,
and will leave none Of II in his hands.
From what the reader has seen Of the
uses to which the surplus money was put
for nearly four years while in the hands
Of the Executive, as discovered from the
Treasury reports and Presidents Mes
sages already referred to, he will Judge
whether that il the most safe and fit de-
pository Of the surplus money; and
whether the States, which have ample
and legitimate uses for il, in relieving
themselves from their debts and burthens,
and in supporting public schools and
making public improvements within their
resDective limits cannof nrudentIv ho