Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1841-08-12


we desire 10 place before them the consid-
eIations which will at least serve 10 sas-
tain the votes which were given in its IA.
vor, aud might possibly, if urged in sea-
son, and duly weighed, have not been
without effect upon some votes which
were given against it.
One of The chief arguments against the
hill has been prored, since the debate upon
II IN the House, to be entitled to no weight
whatever, being founded in gross error,
r, rather IN prpns'erous absurdty. We
refer TO the objection To it on the ground
"i the proceed Of the sales Of the lands
not having yet repaid TO the Treasury the
money expended in the acquisition, care,
and management Of them. So far from
from this beng true, as attempted to be
shown by simulated account current got
up Tor the putpcst, The truth is that the
expenses incurred by The Government on
account Of the Public L inds have not only
betn repnid by the procct DIS II the s4es,
but hare been repaid alreefoM. Had this
fact been rs Meil asce riaint d before the
question upon the passage of the bill in
the llous', Us II is now, it would, we be
IIrve, have added to the maiorily BY
which that bill passed.
The mos; Influential argument against
the bill, h0wever-the argument most re.
lied upon, and indeed the most plausible
is that which is found d upon the state of
the revenue, aud the cons quent imputed
interference of this appropriation Of the
proceeds olthe land sales with the tariff
compromise act of 1888. Plausible MS it
is, this OBI ctlon TO the Distribution Bill is,
when we come to examine it, entitled TO
little more weight than the preceding one.
In the first place, a wrong has been
done to the States, 10 the amount of all the
revenue drawn from the Public Lands for
the use Of the General Government since
the extinguishment Of the Public Debt.
BY tacit consent of the States, after the
adoption of the present Constitution, the
proceeds Of those lands were constituted n
fund for the payment Of that debt. But
neither By the terms Of the acts OF cession,
nor by those Of the Constitution Of the
United States, is it contemplated that the
lands shall constitute source of revenue
for the support Of Government. They
were TO constitute, on the contrary, ac-
cordlng TO the oct of cession (of Virginia,
for example) ga common fund for the use
and benefit Of such Of the United States
as have become or shall become members
of tine Confederation or federal alliance of
the said States, according 10 their usual
respectirc proportionsin the general charge
and expenditure, and shall be faithfully
and bona .Gde disposed Of for tina, purpose,
and for no other use or purpose ,ctatSo-
erCr." Nothing can be clearer, when the
date ofthIs cession 1854 and the circum.
stances Of the case are considered, than
that from the Establishment Ct the press MT
Constitution, when separate State contri.
buttons to the General Government ceas-
ed, the avai!s OF III, s. lands became due to
the States ssvcrolly; and that if they were
allowed, in liberal spirit, to be pledge d
for the payment Of the debt OF the Revo-
luton, the right of severalty was not
thereby annihlatt d, but only suspended
until that debt should be paid off. This
view Of the subject is confirmed by The ST.
lence Of the Constitution concerning these
lanes when cnumerating the sources
whence Congress shall have power to de.
tive revenue. 1t is by the law OF might,
therefore, and not Of right, that the pro-
ceeds OF these lands have been hitherto
(snce the eXtingushment Of the debt, J
appropriated 20 the uses Of the General
Government. To +, dresslhe wrong, so far
MS is in the power Of Congress, by giving
the proceeds Of this property to lis right.
lul owners, is an act Of justice which
ought not 10 be for moment DELAYED
now that Congress has recovered its con.
stitulional authority over The subject. The
argument against paying this just debt,
that the debtor wants the money for other
purp,s s. can hardly be considered a sul-
ticent bar 10 the claim.
With regard to the Compromise Act,
the passage of the Land Bin. SO far from
violating either tie letter or the spirit OF
that act, rs necessary 10 carry the original
intent and purpose Of that act into effect.
The Land BIZ, which President JACK
SON contamehously refused to return TO
Congr' SIS aIler determining not 10 sign il,
was sent to the President for his approval
on the second day of March, 1893. On
the same day, and at the same time, was
presented 10 him tho bill which became u
law and is tnmiliary spoken Of US the
Compromise Act. The two bills passed
together we've the fruit Of the same com
promise;- aud, though embodied separate
Iy, were yet one in purpose. Tue Slamese
twins are not more closely united N the
flesh than these bills were in the spirit
! he separation of them could have been
effected by no ordinary effort. 1t re-
quiied the " iron nerve" and fearful power
Of Gen. JACKSON TO tear them asunder, to
bud the one live, and plant bis colossal
foot on the other. Ills mere Veto in that
case would have been powerl,ss; the Sc.
Ite Land Dis,rihntion bill was in fact regard-
ed in The debate upon il, hrilg connected with
the Conn Iuml-e hili, aud being realty part and
purcell oi the Compromise. Thus M BESToN.
opposing The hi, said he " objected 10 the dsi-
button "a u iHlllry un illusion, and deception.
II was Ia diNiee out CERTAIN parcels of money with
one hand and 10 gather back still larger parcels
ri the Other. Fifty or one hundred thousand
dollars to be distributed To State, from the
land fund.- and twice thrice that amount to be
taken from that State IN taxes upon ,t ron blank.
ets lannels. cotton and ems, and all the COM
forts and neceesaries OF life Two millions were
to be distributed from the land fund.- and three mil