The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-03-29
SUSPENSION NOT REPEAL.

we observe that the editors OF the Mammal
lntengencer and the Globe in noticing the late
Message of the President to Congress, speak
oil II as recommending the REPEAL OF the Dis
| tnbutlon law, as it is called, whereas little ex
animation would have informed them that the
Executive proposes only SUSPENSION OF lis OPP
Grafton. Whether this misconstruction be IN
territorial or not we do not feel at liberty to say,
but It 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
cumsiances, but recommends a SUSPENSION OF
ITS OPERATION, at a crisis like the present when
the National Treasury is empty, and the Gov
eminent requires all the means within its reach
TO sustain the dshonorcd 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 projection. Congress is not now
to decide whether the public domain shall re-
vert back to It's original owners, the debt for
which il stands pledged having been cancelled
but simply whether ii be expedient when the
! Government is not able to discharge outstanding
liabilities, and is obliged TO borrow money for It's
current expenses, TO part with fund 10 which
reference has always been had as resource
against national debt, when the condition on
which it was 10 be abandoned to the States, is
not complied with.
| When the Distribution was passed, il
formed an essential part Of system Of com
promise which, as was supposed, had been
placed permanent basis. Subsequent
events have, however proved that the expec-
tations entertained in regard TO this compro-
mise cannot be tiHfHed, and that a rate of
duties higher than that ohich had been pro-
posed, TO wit, a maximum Of tlcenty per cent is
indispensable TO create revenue adequate 10
the expenses of the country. Such being the
case, is il 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 TAIN 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 a
schedule Of duties lehich shoud not IN any
case e,rceed hreHty percent the proceeds Of the
sales Of public lands shoutd go 10 The States to
phich those tands originality 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-
teIaned, that the scale would produce sur
plus revenue after the current expenses of the
Government should be deducted Now, what is
the real state OF the case, experience has de-
moastrated} The result of the schedule of
duties in which twenty per cent. was named as
the maximum, so far from showing a surplus,
has fallen short OF the national expenditure, and
it is universally conceded that alarge increase of
duties will be necessary 10 effect that object. In
view Of thus change OF circumstances the Pre-
sident has deemed it his duty to express, in an
ticlpatlon, his approval OF any increase that
may be demanded, and very properly suggests
the proprlety OF sUsPENplNG, NOT REPEATING, the |
law authorizing the distribution of the proceeds
of the sales Of public lands, until such i cond-
ton Of things shall take place as will justify the
contemplated re-assuDption of their rights by |
the States Let us suppose case, by way of
ILLUSTRATION. There is family OF brothers who |
have succeeded to the estate of their common
parent, and, the estate being encountered by |
debt, 1t is proposed to name trustee, whose
duty il shall be to receive all of the rents and |
apply certain portion Of them to the payment
of the outstanding membranes. In process
49, l,. 4
Celed, and the brothers eater into a 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 ap-
proprated 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 bc,n appropriated to the expenses of the
trust, the trustee will not receive enough money
10 pay these expenses and will be obliged to is
sue new leases on the farms not included in the
spec Appropriation IN order 10 effect that end
Under these ciiculn stances, the trustee comes
forward aud says: '.Gentlemen | approved
ehur'y VI the Prncipe on which you entered
INTO the mutual agreement under which | have
acted, and had matters remained in the same /,
coalition as when the trust was created, should
have been happy TO have paid over to each Of
YOU yet r respective potion, OF the rents on the
larins, MOI included in the appropriate N 10 cur
rent trust expenses but thines have turned oul
find from The receipt, OF the cur
iI al, 4
10 the bankruptcy Of the holders Of several Of
hese farms, and that it will moreover be at. o. t
u'ely necessary to lease anew at high rates the