The Hawk-eye and Iowa patriot. (Burlington, Iowa) 1839-1843, 1841-02-25
PRE-EMPTIONS.

: By reference to another column II Will
be perceived that the Pre-. emptiou Bill has
passed the Senate. That there should be
some permanent rule regulating this sub
iect, equitable and advantageous to the
Pioneers Of the West, none Of our read
ers in this par. of the Country will doubt.
But that it was absolutely necessary
that the settlers could not secure their
claims as well under their oMns"Conven-I
,ional" or neighborhood laws, we deny.
To be sure, il is far better 10 have the law
on many accounts, as ii legalizes course
which, although universally in vogue,l
was in fact unlawful. But that is not the
principle about which we have been con-
tending. All we have ever attempted to
prove was that the. settler stood Just as
good a chance Of securing his land with.
out as withthe existence Of a presumption
law. All who live in this country know
this. If it is true that the bill passed the
Senate, as has been stated 'sunder the in
auence Of the argument that il is better.
to legalize what is incurable and ineyi,a-
BILE, than to keep on the statute book
provision which is dead letter." if this
was the motive, then all must consider
Mr. Clay's views acquiesced in TO very
considerable extent. We shall recur to
this subject again, after we receive the bill
as it passed the Senate. We extract the
following from the National Inleligencer.
The proposition, originally Mr. Cal
houn's, but moved as an amendment to
! the bill by Mr. Young, producing condi-
,ional cession of the Public Lands to the
States within which they lie was reject
ed by large majority.
The amendment, moved by Mr. Crit
tenden, for coupling with the pre- emp
ton principle the Distribution of the
proceeds of the Public Lands among all
the States, in proportion to their right of
property therein, was negalived by a
small majority; majority produced, pro-
badly, by the apprehension on the minds
r of some Senators that the introduction of
that enactment into this bill might be the
means of defeating the bill for pre-emp.
ton, which they are in favor of on its
! own merits, and therefore not willing tc
: connect with any other project. We
cannot but hope however, that the two
measures will at last go hand in hand
and that, if they be made the subject d
different acts, the one act will no, lag fa
in the rear Of the other, whether it pass
at this session or the next
The extent of the majority in favor o
the permanent prospective pre-emptio,
Ian may perhaps surprise some Of ou
? readers, who are not prepared for what
: at first sight. appears TO be so radical
!, change in our Land system. The fact is
however, as we understand, the principl,
U of that bill is already as effectively par
of the Land system as if it had been in lie
i gal existence for forty years. There is
t conuentionallaw stronger than temptation
to break it, which now protects the actn
, al settler against any competition at sale
of the Public Lands. And this bill ha
: passed the Senate by such majority
: under the influence of the argument tia
i it is better to legalise what is incurab
> and inevitable, than to keep on the stat
ute book a provision which is dead let
ter. Of the conclusiveness of this argu
Il ment we cay nothing; butt certainly wa
n not without its effects on the Senate.