Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-05-11
From n, baltimore .9msriean, .uay C.

IL rs an argument smong the opponents Of the
measure 10 represent II something derogntory 10
the independence and entity Of the States. il will
mover DO, they say, for the States 20 become the s
pendiaries Of the General Government. This ar.
gument has been resoried to, we may presume. be-
cause none better were 10 lie hsd-ior nothing but
necessity and utter poverty Of resources would re-
coneie even a pau'zln 70 the employment Of such
mode oil reasoning.
To say that the States are stpendiaries because
they receive their own money-to MAINTAIN tbat
they sacrifice their independence by retaining
their Just nghis-imples such perversion Of terms
as TO throw oil reasoning into confusion. General
Jackson, who recommended Distribution, IN his
Message Of 1880, made the following remarks. per
tnent TO this part OF The subject:
in rcgardto tie last objection ~ Drosalie sF,s,.y5
M dignity and fndepetdnecef ne STATE fgr rHsqsb.
rappears 70 only necessary 10 state the case a. n 2
20 show ta' The operation most likely 10 he tie rsy1
Of thai which the object aupnoses n M. ng
case the SAFE would s quota 6fhe national revc
nue. Tor domestic use upon liked principle. matter
n rigtf and from fund tho creation Of which n h,d
/ contributed No fair proportion; uySly there v1un he
noftiHg derog0ovy that A. matters novE ssnt ne
aeH ihemseses n thcr Sovereign character afe NOT
uhfffuenty Geutoners az the bsr ri tic FEDERAL Icrs
utc or such allowances out Of TIE National Treasury al
uy ,htpit will thef pleasure or sens, of duty to b..
~ we. 'u.m " cannot require argument t0 prove
winch oi TIE twO most comrsftie vyfh M A.
cheney " respectfully of the State G1vcrnments.V
The question Of right being once settled there r.
mains no iut'her dhculiy-at least, there ought 10
10 none IN respect TO the principle Of distribution
Inc states, having right 10 the Pulhc Lands ac-
! knowledge no favour, arc put under no ooho,iioD
nor lose aught Of their proper Independence bv re-
ceving each rs fair and proportionate quota. In
the same view II IS plain that the qualfyin g amend-
ment thrust into the Land Act at the Extra Ses
sion, by which distribution was made dependent on
the mpost scale Of 20 per cent involved a restrc-
| I'VE condition entirely foreign from the matter. By
what right are the States 70 be cut of from the en-.
JOyment OF their own property because the Tarlf
| may 20 above certain standard ~ the right o
property exlss, u exists independently Of any such
condition. There Is no Connection bstween the .,yc
questions, oRceptn 80 far 8sthe revenue Of the Gen.
efa Government IS conccrned-and why should The
States bc required 10 give up their property Tor tha
when there ore abundant means for supplying the
National Treasury without ~
It's time that We had cot into something like con.
's1snt legislation. Arc there TO 10 no settled grin.
cipiesf Must capuce and narrow ideas OF poitce
expectancy 0e continually operative TO change mea.
sufes-and 80 rapldy that nothing can be deemed
permanent IL is important for the States and Ia,
people 20 Know how the matter IS to stand with re.
gard TO the Public Lands-with whom the rpht III
property rests-whcihtr the rights OF the Stat,
once acknowledged, are TO be disputed oraio. Pc,
haps II my not be Tor the interest Of some pot,i
Clans % have these things asceuaired. The PuLl,
Lands make very good poitiral capital in the estr
| nation Of many. But the people, who have 10 pa,
tiNcs, prefer that they should constitute diGeier
! sort Of capital