The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1839-01-26


terms 10 the States, and close land Offices within
their limits, and you will at once, place the States
beyond the reach Of the action OF The Government,
and influence OF Executive control and would there
by leave both the new aud old, far as the land
question II concerned, free from all improper bias
10 The election Of the Chief Magistrate The only
point Of conflict that could possibly remain between
Them IN reference TO the lands, would be as 10 the
conditions Of the cession; and Il may be easily
shown, thai " the terms should be liberal and salts
factory, in the first instance, 10 the new States as
have proposed that they would neither have The dis
position nor the interest 10 disturb The compact; or if
they should the hazard of losing the lands in con-
sequence would be far less than II would be should
The present system be continued But there may be
some who may admit this 10 be true, and yet object
that the advantage which anticipate from the mea-
sure would be purchased, the part Of Of the old
States, al too great sacrifice. II would be prema-
ure 10 undertake 10 answer this objection before II is
ascerldined what portion Of the proceeds should be
left TO The States, and what paid over TO the Govern
ment and this cannot be done till after laborious
investigation, as has been stated. All maintain al
present IS that The portion allotted TO the States
should not only be Just and LIBERAL but such as would
interest them 10 preserving The arrangement Thus
far il would be obviously the interest of both parties
as has been shown. In The mean time / have sug
gesied an equal division Of the proceeds under The
beli. that il would be satisfactory 10 the States
and probably not far from the division which rigid
investigation would establish.
But Of one thing feel assured that, when the sub
ect is fully examined il will be ascerained that On
apportionmenl Of the proceeds may be fixed on which
will give TO the Government per acre as large
or not much less, on all The lands which might
thereafter be disposed of il has received for what
has been disposed OF since the present price
fixed; and which would leave, al The same time, 10
The States liberal and satisfactory allowance. IL
this should prove to be The fact, the interest OF all
parties, even in pecuniaTy point Of view, would be
rec.nciled But that would be taking too narrow
view of this important subject. To determine cor
recty The true interests of The parties II this arrange
ment We must raise our eyes above pecuniary con-
sideralionS, 10 the far more interesting view-he
political bearing Of the measure. Thus viewed the
gain 10 BOTH and TO The whole Union, would be in
caculabe. The new States would gain the owner
ship and administration Of their whole domain-a
gain not more essential 10 their own independence
han To the convenience OF their citizens who would
thereby have their claims, connected with the public
lands, adjusted by their own Legislature, instead Of
being dragged TO great distance from home 10 await
The tardy and uncertain action Of Congress But
their greatest gain would be, that they would be
elevated TO equality with the other States IN all
respects, and exempted from the controlling in
fuence ofthe Government arising from widely ex-
banded system Of land Offices.
To the Union the gain would be not less important.
Congress would be relieved from immense and
increasing mass Of business which now consumes
at least onethrd Of its time, and be left free to
its attention 10 other subjects of deep interest which
II is now compelled 10 neglect. The sessions would
be greatly shorlened-a matter oil importance, not
only in pecuniary but still more in political point
OF view. But these though important, are bur minor
advantages. There others immeasurably greater.
II would close our land Offices in the new States,
and with them, the door 10 the vast patronage and
influence which they place in the hands of the Ex-
ecutive. Who can estimate this advantage? Who
is there that has particle of patriotism or love of
Republican institutions who would not rejoice at the
reduction OF such immense patronage, made not only
without injury, but with advantage, to the public
When we add TO this that II would remove all
OF conflict between the old and new States; that it
would withdraw from the Presidential contest the
public lands that prolific source of corruption in the
hands of the profigate and, finally that it would
save our vast and noble domain itself from being
squandered in the struggle, it is hardly in the power
OF calculation 10 estimate the advantages that would
result
Having suggested what believe to be the
proper policy 10 be pursued in relation TO the public
lands within the new States, and hastily traced the
advantages of the measure have suggested for con-
sderalion the next question is, have we the rghtlo
dispose of the lands in The mannerpruposed7 would
not have supposed that there could have been doubt
on this point, had not the Sen tor from Massachu-
sets Mr.. Webster, raised il on this, well as on
former occasion The Constitution gives to Con-
gress, expressly, the right to dispose Of the public
lands; and why may they not dispose of them 10 the
States as well as 10 individuals lean see no rea-
son, and never have heard one assigned. We are in
the daily habit OF making grants to the States for
public purposes and if we may grant, may we not
also sell or dispose Of them, as have proposed E.
The lands belong to the States, in their confederate
character, as has been stated and Congress is the
trustee 10 dispose of them for the common benefit.
They are bound, in the tulhlment Of the trust 10
dispose Of them to the best advantage and if The
disposition proposed be the best for all concerned
Congress has only the right 10 make it, but would
be bound by the trust SO TO do.
Entertaining these views, il may be asked why
have not brought forward the measure this session
My answer is, there is not time, at the present short
session, TO digest and carry through a measure of
SO much Importance, and involving SO many and
such conflicting interests. But pledge myself, il
rraS ant At fhn
early day, and 10 my best efforts to press it 10
decision. If can prevent it, no other measure
relating TO the public lands shall take precedence
Of it.
which ought 10 be adopted in reference 10 The pub
lie lands within the new States; and il now remains,
in conclusion, to assign my for voting against
the engrossment Of this bill.
Believing that nothing short of radical change
OF policy, such as that proposed can arrest The evils
apprehended from the present system, am Of the
opinion, that till some permanent remedy can be
applied, that the proper course is 10 vote against all l
partial and temporary expedients like the present;
and shall, in conformity TO that opinion, give my
vote agains, this bill believe it to be The course
not only the best calculated 10 insure in the end the
application OF permanent and efficient remedy but
also 10 prevent in the intermediate period, the mis-
chieis naturally resulting from the present system
But in addition 10 these general reasons there
others against this particular measure, sufficient to
induce me TO vote against II. Passing others by
shall only notice one.
This bill is pressed on the Senate, on the ground,
among other reasons, that it is financial measure
is stated that the Treasury is deficit and that
al the effects of the reduction of the price of the pub
lie lands would be present Increase of the revenue
from that source. ! am not prepared to say whether
such would be the fact, not having examined the
point sufficiently 10 form an opinion but if it should
be So II would 10 me constitute objection. instead
of recommendation. II is admiled that the in
Grease OF the revenue would be temporary, and be
followed in short time by a corresponding reduc-
tion. Now, if am not mistaken the income of this
and the ensuing year will, without further addition
10 the revenue, be sufficient meet the expenditures