Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1842-06-02


States, but was clothed with the power of rails
ing It's own revenue, by direct exercise cf the
taxing powcr-by what right we ask, under the
DEEDS oil cession OF otherwise. wds the Land fund
taken from the States, among which ii had been
previously EQUALLY DIVIDED, aud paid in
TO the national treasury, 10 be employed, no; for
'the use and benefit of THE STATES, accord
ing to their usual proportion in the general charge
and expenditure" but to the use of the Union
without The slightest reference to, and uniformly
in violation of, that equal rule of superintendent,
prescribe with so much care and caution in tho
deeds OF cession
If the authors Of the deeds Of cession did no,
contemplate the transfer of the Lands TO the Fed
erai Government as source of revenue, We ask
did the trainers Of the Federal Consultation have
any reference TO them in the preparation Of that
instrument Manitestly not. The Constitution
itself is on this point its nterpretcr-and its
language Is SO plain, precise and lucid, that ''the
wayiarlng man. though fool" cannot iuisapprc-
head or distori its meaning. 1t provid only two
sources OF revenue for the Federal Government
"imports and taxes" The Lands were not
dreanad Of at that ,ia,e; for if they had been,
they would have been specially set apart for that
purpose II the States, for whose "us. and benefit"
they hal been ceded to that government in trust,
had not robelied, as we take it for granted they
would have done, against so glazing AN intraction
o! the deeds. anu so obvious an aggression upon
their rights. And III this connection, we would
ask all strict construers of the Consiituiiou--,hose
who claim 10 be the peculiar guardians and cham
pions o' ihat instrument those who, reversing
The scrnturGi maxim, contend that the spirit kill
lett! and that the letter nakcth alive, and who
therefore go for literal adherence to it's provis-
sions-we ask them, where they find, in the
constitution, any warrant, even By the most torc-
ed and aiitudinous construction of that instrument
for using the fund arising from the sales Of the
La Z And p,nrn In than
lind any provision oft,iat instrument, which sane
lions the purchase Of Lands, to be afterwards sold
aud It's proceeds converted into revenue! We
challenge them to put their Gngcrupon the clause
Which sQulnts at such thing. On the contrary,
'he right to do so is emphatically negatived by
the fact, that ether sources of 'ievenue are pro-
vided, and that they are limited, in express lam
guage, to duties upon imports and to direct taxes.
They, therefore, who claim the Lands, as Fed
efal revenue" do not only most lati,udinously
interpret the cons,ituiion--an act which they
hoid 10 he In others crime Of no small inagui-
tude,-but they actually intcrpolate words into
that instrument which its authors did net pu,
mere! So far from the Public Lands being le-
giunatd source OF revenue Tor the federal uovern-
inen'' we hold, that, In using it revenue at all,
tnai government overstrps the express grant of
the constitution, which virtually cuts of from it
all revenue not derived from imports and taxes"
while IL Just as mani;esily tramples the deeds of
cession, which clothed it only with the powers
OF trustee, iot specific aad enumerated purposes,
under its feet
But let us look at the cotcmporancous EXPOSE
ZION oil The meaning Of the deeds of cesson as fur
nished by the ordnance, passed by the Congress
OF the Conlederacy, in 1885. The public is in
lcoted ior the first alusion to this most important
document, to MIR. Irving, the able member of the
House OF Delegates from Cumberland county.
Inc Enquirer, 1t Is true, enjeavored to get rid OF
It's force, not bya critical exposition of its mean
ing, but by the application of one OF its fayorile
understanding at the Ordinance as the dis
covering ORG mares ncst''-but are much de-
celved, If, before this discussion is over he does
not Ind 1t 10 be rather nest Of hornets. "Jefer-
son" too, the correspondent Of the Lynchburu
Republican, labored hard and long to mystify its
meaning, and thereby to impair lis force-though
he lnaniiestiy recled under the heavy burden,
which so severely tasked, and, what is more, baf-
fled his ingenuity.
The argument against the construction given
by The friends of the Distribution policy, to the
Ordinance of 1885, is, Tint it did not authorize
the money derived from the sale of the Lands to
6a applied 10 lite ordinary Expenses Of tie States
But what of that The States were compelled
10 support the COnf dera!ion-and this they did
by ievylng tax upon their citizens for the pur-
pose OF raising sum sufficient TO pay both their
own ordinary expenditures and the acquisitions
made upon them by the federal govern
nent. 1t made no difference with them, there
ore, whether the money arising from the Land
sales was applied TO the one purpose OF the other
while the general government having the man
Igemant OF taa. fund, it was most convenient TO
III parties that the Land money, after having, in
he express language Of the Ordinance, been first
distributed among the States, in the ratio of
heir proportion In the general charge and cxpen-
iiure," should go into tke federal treasury at
nee. no one Can doubt, that, if the States, or
ny one or more OF them, had chosen so 10 %,
hey might have applied the Lard fund to their
ordinary expenses, and paid the general govern
nent lis regGlsiion from the proceeds of their
axes. Ihe Ordinance shows this, beyond all
lisPnte-and ,ha, is the purpose for which it was
luoted--lhat under the Confederation, and imme- !
lately after the execution Of the deeds of cession
he money arising from the Public lands was re-
saried aud treated as fund for the separate .sse
md benefit n lie safes, and indeed. that was
hen regarded as the only mode by which the in
cntlon vi the ceding States could be carried out,
nd Tie nights OF all parties secured. We ask
'ur readers 10 look again at the language Of the
ordnance OF 1885, as quoted in Mr.. Smiths let
er. 1t Will BE- seen that the Land warrants
we're drawn Tor, In lie name Of the thirteen
states, respectively, according 10 the QUOTAS in
lie last preceding regusItion" upon them and
80 careful were It's trainers to protect the lights
ii each STATE, and 10 prevent any one Of Them
rom obtaining greater distrbulive portion than
she was entitled 10, that it was provided. that,
'n case more land than lis prOpOrii0n is allotted
or sale III ANY STATE, at any DISTRIBUTION,
deductions skaL be made Msrejor at The ntri."
III seems to Us, taking together the language Of
lie deeds Of ceSSIon and lie ordinance OF 1855,
md coupling with it the silence Of the constitution
II respect to the Public Lands as ii source of"re-