Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-03-24
THURSDAY MORNING, MARCH "a.

Mr.. YERBY'5 SPEECH.-Ths Land ,,,-.,.
! We continue to heap argument upon argument
IN support OF the Distribution policy, and in de
mOnstratOn of the right of the States to the LAND
Fund.
On this subject, we have not seen a gentleman
from the country Of either party, who does not SAY
that the Money should be received. IL is one of
those plain, common sense questions, about which
plain practical men canno, eperrinn two opinions.
There are two arguments in favour Of the recent
Of the Money, either Of which is conclusive and
unanswerable. TIE first is, that the Distribution
having been ordered, it is folly for Virginia to re
fuse her quota. Her Treasury is emp,y-her PEG.
pie are embarrassed, and are not able to bear nd
ditionll Taxaon. They certainly are mol, in
condition TO be so generous 10 her neighbours as 10
surrender this fund. She needs all the resources
within her reach to maintain her credit and relieve
her own citizens. The idea that the Money will
corrupt the people is confined to a very few. The
people themselves have no fear on the subject The
only gentlemen, we have heard Of express such m
apprehension are Messrs, Richie. Bayy and Tod.
The second nrgument-and this OF itself is nU
sufhcient-i' hat the Land Fund belongs to the
States. They surrendered it to the Federal Go
vernment for certain specified purposes-which
having been performed, it is theirs as fully and ab
solutely now, as if it had never been parted with
for n single day. Even if there were doubt on
this point, the States would lie entitled TO the
money, under the Old State Rights doctrine, that
in every OF doubt, the States should have the
benefit Of the doubt, to the prejudice Of the Federal
Government This was the doctrine Of Jefferson
and Clinton. But there is not even doubt 10 this
case. The deeds OF ccssion expressly define the
rights OF the States-and under the old Confedera
ton, Congress annually distributed the proceeds OF
the sales among the States, until was found more
convenient TO let the States quota 20 directly
into the Federal Treasury, to pay the States por-
ton of the National debt The Constitution did
affect these rights-it left them precisely where
they Stood under the deeds Of cession.
There never was, nor can there be, clearer case.
And yet, because tho States have been liberal 10
the Federal Government, and permitted It fr
long series Of years, to this fund for its own
purposes, we told that it belongs to the Fede.
ril Government, and the Slntet have no right to IT,
This is gratitude This is State Risht,i The
States ore TO forfeit their rights, because fther
misplaced generosiiy-nnI there are men fourd.
calling themssyes STATE Righls' politicians, who
demand the ioffeiture-who would strip the States
Of this magnificent fund to swell the tide OF Fedcrnl
corruption and prodigaity
In this view Of tho question, the wants ord
embartassments Of the Federnl Government. ore
entitled to no sort Of confederation. n the States
were free from debt, the Fedcrs Bankruptcy
might constitute some iuducemenl with the States
to permit the Federal Government to have the
money. Bot Tho States arc in rs great distress as
The Federal Government, ard they have no other
means Of raising revenue. than by direct tor
/ upon the property and industry Of the people
justice To Themselves and their citizens, then, dc
msnds Tint they should insis. upon me money, not
lstlhe Federal Governmea, provide, as bee. it nay
| for i,s own wants.