The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-03-29
SUSPENSION NOT REPEAL.

lHleHiSencer and the Globe, IN notlclng the ldle
Message of the President to Congress, speak
OF 1t as recommending the nEPEAL of the Dis
trbutlon law, as 1t is called, whereas little ex-
animation would have informed them that the
Executive proposes only SUSPENSION Of its OPP
Grafton. Whether this misconstruction be in
territorial or not, we do not feel at liberty to say,
but 1t IS most certain that the Interpretation
given, is calculated to excite feelings against
the document which could not have existed had
the true meaning been set forth. As we stated
in our paper of yesterday. the Presidents Mes
sage contains an approval of the PRINCIPLE OF
the law In question, under given state of cir
cumstances, but recommends SUSPENSION OF
IT'S OPERATION, at crisis like the present when
the National Treasury is empty, and the Gov
eminent requires all the means within its reach
to sustain the dishonored credit of the country.
The question that now presents itself is, as we
conceive, very different from what it would
have been had the Distribution law been open
for adoption or rejection. Congress is not now
to decide whether the public domain shall re-
vert back to its original owners, the debt for
but simply whether it be expedient, when the
Government is not able to discharge outstanding
liabilities, and is obliged to borrow money for its
current expenses, to part with fund to which
reference has always been had as resource
against national debt, when the condition on
which it was to be abandoned to the States, is
not complied with.
When the Distribution was passed, ii
formed an essential part of a system of COM
promise which, as was supposed, had been
placed on a permanent basis. Subsequent
events have, however, proved that the expec-
tations entertained in regard to this compro-
mise cannot be fulfilled, and that rate of
duties higher than that which had been pro-
posed, to wit, a maximum Of taoenty per cent, is
indispensable to create revenue adequate to
the expenses of the country. Such being the
case is it not right and proper that in recon-
mendng the imposition of higher duties, the
Executive should recognise the condition on
which the distribution, as proposed, was found
ed and would not the failure to do so, have been
Justly regarded as breach of good faith? The
matter appears to US to be one of simple con-
tract in which the contracting parties agreed
that IN consideration Of the establishment of q
schedule Of duties 1ohich should not IN any
case e:rceed twenty per cent the proceeds ofMe
sales Of public lands should go to the States to
which those lands originally belonged. In
graduating the scale of duties here mentioned,
reference was had to the then condition of the
country, and to the reasonable expectation en-
tertained, that the scale would produce a sur
plus revenue after the current expenses of the
Government should be deducted. Now, what is
the real state of the case, as experience has de-
monstrated2 The result of the schedule of
duties in which twenty per cent. was named as
the maximum, so far from showing surplus,
has fallen short Of the national expenditures, and
duties will be necessary to effect that object. In
view Of this change of circumstances, the Pre-
sident has deemed it his duty to express, in an
ticipaton, his approval of any increase that
may be demanded, and very properly suggests
the proprietyNof susPENDING, NOT REPEATING, the
law authorizing the distribution of the proceeds
of the sales of public lands, until such condi-
ton Of things shall take place as will justify the
re-assuDpton of their rights by
the States. Let us suppose a case, by way of
illustration. There is family Of brothers who
have succeeded to the estate of their common
debt, it is proposed to name trustee, whose
duty it shall be to receive all of the rents and
apply certain portion of them to the payment
Of the outstanding membranes. In process
of time the Indebtedness is supposed to be can
Celled, and the brothers enter into stipulation
that the specified rents on certain farms, which
it is presumed will be sufficient to defray all
current charges against the trustee shall be APP
proprIated to that purpose, and that the income
from the residue Of the common property shall
be paid over in proportions named to the several
brothers. Subsequently, however, it is ascer-
tanned that, owing to the bankruptcy of some of
the tenants holding the farms, the rents of which
have been appropriated to the expenses of the
trust, the trustee will not receive enough money
to pay these expenses, and will be obliged to is
sue new leases on the farms not included in the
specihc appropriation in order to effect that end
Under these circumstances, the trustee comes
forward and says: ''Gentlemen, | approved |
entirely of the principle on which you entered
into the mutual agreement under which | have
acted, and had matters remained in the same |
condition as when the trust was created, should
have been happy to have paid over to each of
you your respective portions of the rents on the
farms, not included in the appropriation to cur
q hui hav I'm ont
differently. find, from the receipts of the cur
tent year, that there will be deficiency, owing
10 the bankruptcy of the holders of several of
hese farms, and that il will moreover be abso
ulely necessary to lease anew at HIGH rates the