The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1842-02-09

understood and applied An eqaat ais.liDu.'o' w VI,
or rather division of intelligence, sot pohticai
power, and of social privileges, is IN one. sense
aeraranism, and inasmuch as it is ier these tiiaI
we live and labor, we are proud to be caiiea
aorariaus. We would have too the chances 0,
obtaining property, equally dIstrloute", anu
would also that every man might haye from 60
vernmeut, equal protection IN the possession
and endowment of all he can honestly acquire
Rnt when we come to an equal distribution or
onv5distribution at all, of property, IN behal OF
those who hold property, we protest against II;
and as an encroachment Oh one OF tne hatu5di
and inalienable rights of the individual. we de-
clare against it in behalf of every ndviaual' uh-
compromising war. co.o,o
The act of the last extra session OF congress
contemplates. asis expressed in ITS tiIe, tilv :,
"Dstribution of the proceeds ofthe puollclahos' :
The public lands are property-the proceeds ol
the sale of these lands is the same properly, eA
;st;ng in another form. The Distributor OF
this 6roperty is ordered by the act under con-
sjderation, and arbitrary distribution OF properly
is aprarianism in its worst form. >,
Tie public lands are the "connon properly
Of the States United,-not the joiut properly OF
the United States. We beg our readers 10 STUDY
and mark we'll the difference; for IN 1t is invaiy
ed the only rational exposition OF the inulViuual
States rights to the public lands, or the ploceeu
arisinp from their sale. AS States United, eacn
individual State owns part Of the 'ehole whence
the term scon,naon property not me
,phole of mart, which would make them Joanl
nroperty owned by each in the proportion which
each had contributed to their purchase. Under
this view State withdrawing from the Confed-
Grafton would have Just claim to her part OF the
whole, according to her proportion IN "the gene
raj CHARGE and expenditure" But if the other
view be taken, and the public lands be recog,
nsed either as the joint or common properly OF
tbe limited States, it follows that a State with
drawing from the Confederation ceases to belong
to the United States, and consequently loses her
ripbt. both to the whole ofa part or part OF the
whole of the public lands or the proceeds arising
from their sale. We have not time or room at
present for more elaborate exposition.
Without enquiring how those lands became
the common property of the States Uii.ea' we
assume. and we believe, can maintain, that they
are SO. The change of form from earth to gold
certainly does not change the fact Of property,
nor the ownership of each individual State of its
mart of the whole, according to its proportion in
the general charge and expenditure. But the
Distribution Bill does, and takes what as Land
is admitted to the common property of the whole
in this proposition, and as Gold, distributes it in
another proportion, arbitrarily determined, and
having no reference to this standard OF estimate
For majority of the States to do this would be
treason against the Union-for any one or more
of the States acting separately to assert it, would
be nullifcation-for the Congress OF the United
States to do it, is agrarian,sm. G