Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1841-07-03

TO the United States, was she not one of
those States, and did not the grant to them
include her? Why then were the words
insertedl Can any other purpose be i'm
agined than that of securing to Virginia
her separate or Irrespective" proportion!
The whole paragraph, cautiously and care
fully composed, clearly demonstrates that,
although the fund was to be common, the
title common, the administration common,
the use and benefit were to be separate
among the several States, in the defined
proportions.
The grant was for the benefit of the
States, according to their usual respective
proportions in the common charge and cx-
pcnditlTe" Bear in mind the date of the
decd; it was in l7S4-bcfore the adoption
of the present Constitution, and whilst the
Articles of Confederation were in force.
What, according to them, was the mode of
assessing the quotas of the different States
towards the common charge and expendi-
ture! 1t was made upon the basis of the
value of all the surveyed land. and the i'm
provements, in each State. Each State
was assessed according to the aggregate
value of surveyed land and improvements
within its limits. After that was ascer-
tanned, the process of assessment was this:
Suppose there were five millions of dollars
required to be raised for the use of the
General Government, and one million of
that five were the proportion of Virginia;
there would be an account stated on the
books of the General Government with the
State of Virginia, in which she would be
charged with that million. Then. there
would be an account kept for the proceeds
of the sales of the public lands; and, if these
to five millions of dollars also,
Virginia would be credited with one mil
lion, being her fair proportion; and thus the
account would be balanced. 1t is unne-
cessary to pursue the process with all the
other States this is enough to show that.
according to the original contemplation of
the grant, the common fund was for the
separate benefit of the States; and that, if
there had been no change in the form of
Government, each would have been cred
tied with its share of the proceeds of the
public lands in its account with the Cen
eral Government. Is not this indisputa-
bic! But let me suppose that Virginia or
any other State had said to the General
Government, Il choose to receive my share
of the proceeds of the public lands into
my separate treasury; pay it to me, and |
will provide in some other mode, more
agreeable to me, for the payment of my
assessed quota of the expenses of the Gen
eral Government" can it be doubted that
such demand would have been legitimate
and perfectly compatible with the deed of
cession! Even under our present system,
you will rccoect, sir, that during the last
war, any State was allowed to assume the
payment of its share of the direct tax, and
raise it, according to its own pleasure or
convenience, from its own people, instead
of the General Government collecting it.
From the period of the adoption of the
present Constitution of the United States
the mode of raising revenue, for the ex-
penses of the General Government, has
been changed. Instead of acting upon
the States. and through them upon the
People of the several States, in the form of
assessed quotas or contributions, the Gen
eral Government now acts directly upon
the people themselves, in the form of taxes,
duties, or excuses. Now, as the chief
source of revenue raised by this Govern
ment is from foreign imports, and as the
consumer pays the duty, it is entirely i'm
practicable to ascertain how much of the
common charge and general expenditure is
contributed by any one State to the Union.
By the deed of cession a great and
sacred trust was created The General
Government was the trustee, and the States
were the cestuy que trust According to
the trust, the measure of benefit accruing
to each State from the coded lands was to
be the measure of burden which it bore in
the general charge and expenditure. But
by the substitution of new rule of raising
revenue to that which was in contempIa-
ton at the time of the execution of the
deed of cession, it has become impossible
to adj Just the exact proportion of burden
and benefit with each other. The meas
ure of burden is lost, although the subject
remains which was to be apportioned ac-
cording to that measure. Who can now
ascertain whether any one of the States
has received or is receiving, benefit from
the coded lands proportionate to its burden
in the General Government, Who can
know that we are not daily violating the
rule of superintendent prescribed by the
deed Of cession! TO me it appears clear
that, either from the epoch of the estab,
lishment Of the present Constitution, OF
certainly from that of the payment of tho
Revolutionary debt, the proceeds of tnt
public lands being no longer applied hy tn,
General Government according 20 tina
rule, they ought to have been ;ranslerre,
to the States upon some equitable princi
pie of division, conforming as near as pos