Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1841-03-15
REMARKS OF MR.. WEBSTER,
ON PRE-EMpTIoN, AND DISTRIBUTION OF
PUBLIC LANDS.


ton BILL Jan. 81, as reported by the National In
tcgencer
Mr.. WEBSTER said, rise to say few words
in answer to the honorable member from New
York, (Mr WrigIir,) on the amendment which has
been moved by the member from Kentucky, (Mr
Crittenden,) and which proposes to connect with
this preemptiOn bill provision for the disiribu-
ton of the proceeds Of the public lands among The
States.
have been of opinion, for several years, that
such a distribution, made on principles of justice
aud equity, doing justice TO all the States new
and old, is a provision which makes daily pro-
grcsS in public favor, and must at no distant day,
receive The sanction OF Congress. have indeed,
little doubt that the measure will pass at the next
session, carrying with it proper provision, by
way OF exemption, for actual settlers, and fulfil
ling all the Just expectations Of those of the new
Suites 10 whom less ofthe public land has been
given for purposes of Improvement than to the
others. But shall not discuss this subject now.
Tho honorable member from New York has
nlitulted thut the general feeling, in iivor Of dis
rrihulou. which prevails in the Northern and
Eastern States, arises from the hope that, when
the lrra>ury shall be- deprived OF the income
from the lai 0ices it will become necessary TO
rrpjeui ID il by laying heavier duties an importu-
DuS an tlat III tins manner greater protection to
American manufactures may be secured, In 9TH
er words being not in favor " disrIbutlon he in
,okcs against it the fears Of high protecting ta-
riff
Ii is not Tor me TO say what reasons mny aetuate
others hut such is not my ground Of proceeding.
II there were Eol single article produced which
needed, or deserved protection, should be oil the
same opmion now uln
| Whatever reason there is for distribution lies in
This, that looking AT the original beet OF the
sons MAIZE lay Virginia and other Sta'es, and 10
! the fact TINT The debt OF the revolution has now
been paid, fair is presented TO the Suites to
say that the proceeds of the sales Of the public
lands should he divided amongst Them according
TO numbers, ms the nearest approach that can now
he made to the original nentiOn in the trausac-
ton of cession
This is the general ground. No doub. it is IL
measure affecting the finances and the state Of
| Treasury, and this part of the case hns not been
over looked. know, of course, that distribution
among the States OF the proceeds Of the sales of
public lands, reduces, by so much, the general re-
ceiptS into the Treasury, and tor one, am quite
ready 10 make up the deficiency by new duties to
be imposed certain articles of luxury. ! have
always spoken Of such articles rs proper subj ects
ofduteS. have referred particularly to silks and
wiEcs--wirl are not of The class of protected ar.
cles. it is true, Congress las been srenuousy
: petilioned To protect the silk manufacture, but the
rate Of duties which has been suggested would
, probably he little eicacious for such result.
: But looking at the sub jecl in merely financial
point of view, il appears TO me that duties ought
= Immediately to he laid on these articles. Why
- not: They are articles of consumption almost
f entirely by the more all!ueut. They not oflhe
: necessares Of common life, or essential TO any
: branch of our own industry. Why then not col
j. lect duties from them? am Of opinion that
r nd orem duty ottwcnty Or twenty five per cent.
g would probably quite supply the deficiency caus
II ed 10y Withdrawing the proceeds Of the lands
IF from the Treasu Y. And this is exactly what |
Is recommend to be done Distribute the proceeds
If Of the sales of the public lands among the Suites,
aud make up the loss to the Treasury Ivy duty
1t on silks and wines. This is my opinion Of our
oil.
e ton thus stated steers clear Of all dispute about
g duties tor protection IL puts the simple question:
Y at once, Is better for all the People that silks
e and wines should continue to in free, or
1t that they should he reasonably taxed at the GUS
n tom house, and the proceeds of the sales Of lands
y he divided among the States? This is the PLAZA,
Ct narrow and direct question.
81 The honorable member from New York sup
e poses it not wise TO rely entirely on duties i'm
,e ports for The support of Government. Certainly
e not, in lime of war, or apprehensiono of war; but
= such duties have been main reliance for
he thirds of the history of The governments. Their
amount Is, OF course, in some measure, uncertain
70 and flucluutihg, bur hardly more in time of
e peace, than the amount Of land sales. At the
ii r.se ul The late war, the income from the sale of
e lands was very sunll. remember to have called
on Mr.. Madison OH the 4th or 5lh of March, 1917,
u. The period of his retirement from office. lie
e spoke upon the subject of the public lands, and
J, remarked lliat Northern aud Eastern gentlemen
ri were not sufficiently sensible of their importance
It and went on to observe that in his opinion with
d prudent management, they might he made 10 pro-
re duce million and haif year, or certainty, Il
JlI million - low was even his eslinIne al that
l. time Of he income to he expected from this quar-
l. TEL We have seen il reach, at least in one year
Of twenty times That amount. But even with such
Ut Slight hopes from The pulc lands AMI ,leht of
AZ eighty n hundred millions, lhc Internal taxes
We're iepealed, and the nation trusted 10 commerce
J. for the supply of the Treasury,
Al I lie honorable member from New York seem
rs ed TO put his reasoning into the form of a syilo-
2 gsin. You rely on mporations, he argues, to
Al furnish revenue. and yet you lay duties 10 check
i. mpor,atons.
l. Mr.. Wright signihed his dissent to this state
1, ment]
lie MIR Webster understood him; but, of
L course he can best explain his own meaning.
e Mr.. Wright explained. lie said his argument
ST was this his idea Of protection was this. The
y idea of protection 10y duties carried with it the
lie idea that they should be such as to preclude for
ii cign competition; an 10 he protecting duties,
4 they need not to be revenue duties: nay they
Or might operate TO stop revenue altogether
re Mr.. Webster. So understood The honorable
X member, exactly. And none can doubt hat if IA
ls Government relies on duties nporations for
e. lis revenues il would he absurd TO lay duties OH
so high rs to prevent importation. Certainly,
Or maintain no inconsistency of that kind. But il is
le not always true that moderate duties diminish i'm
Is portaton al all. Sometimes even high duties have
Dr. not that effert There is no reason to suppose
OF that small duty silk would greatly diminish
10 its importation. Nor il il certain that it would
re increase The price. Although the general rule Is
I'd rue, tint duties paid by the consumers, yet
bl there ARE instances in which the duty falls the
d, producer, hy depressing the price in The market
ms of pro lucilon. Our own experience in some ar
al ticles OF West India traffic has shown of
r. lhnt kind. All this depends on the nature of the
article the number OF markets which it finds
al. Of ,l,l
produce, which usually finds market in the
E. country where the duty is laid. But this subject
il too extensive and various to be discussed now.
In my opinion, duties necessary for revenue