Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-05-27
POLITICS.

,hs.e remarks. Tae main subject propose TO resume
III my next. .o. INV,
You use the following language III '"e 'e'''" f"
praph OF your remarks
ain his second letter he contends that "ii tue ianos
were designed rs 4 r0st faad III the hands OF Govern
,oen and that trust has been uhiieo, IL IS c'ar Na'
the Government - Invested OF all r'gh' Wha'e'si ~ *
,,d IN the subject, Our answer 10 TINS -, mat tiie
has MT been tl,iled, The DEEDS Of ceSSon requ
ur that tina, Gov"rnmsn shall hc'd The lands III per
peiuity Jui not soarec q rfrs"He % tSeg' 4"e
deeds drawn with rt;A' Nar!e care ''" Pe''s'o
or langcace indeed II, o!eseeirs t"e purpose |"
,vbich the land fund might be perverted, to throw
around the equal rights oil the &asS an ifnrfegnao'e
barrier The Virginia deed, for example, declared thai
the fund derived from the tr"ceefs OF we 4a"os Sh"h.
le for .the use and henet Of the Siairs--n whai
way: By pouring it INTO the Treasury ana a2pFopr'a
,n- il 10 the ordinary expenditures 81 tue feue'a' u'
yern,nent: No. Bat, according to Their usual res
pecve proportions IN the genera c"a'se anu Ap'"1''
ture.
You perccise copy the whole view, in order that
the public NAY have iai means OF Judging br'yeen
us You have not done nie tbs justice: but VIII "0'
complain. ,
Let ~ examine all the positions y" '!e a'''s fS
tons calmly am, sobery.
First You say that, in regard 10 the lands, tie
TRUST has NOT been t".fitsd am grained 10
hear this and Wi! set aside the admission Tor future
Seeond VOW saw that tie "dceds Of cession rfGn'rc
that the GovEnxnr>r stall A0id Ike aHGS IN P'rPeutty
This, too, is al important admission, Us VIII appear
hereafter. ,.
ThirI' You say the lands not designed ''es a
xo,rcc of r.r.nne 10 ase}t" Uhe Governmental but
Iouo,;nT your language aga;n he fand dcFtced tfo"s
IKE profefds of ne iondS stod be for "THE Use AHh
BrNrrI!' of the SieteS-in 'rhat 'ray? BY pouring u
lpto ME Treasure. and cpproprdit7g 10 the ORDINARY
Yyrv.n,rrrrs or rnr FEpEEN GOVERNMENT =
no But "AcooEpiSG TO THEIR USUAL RESPECTIVE
PROPORTIONS is THE GENERAL CHARGE AND ExrfN-
pirrRE.
Now. Sir. If you will pardon me the remark, there
~, .,ph q II
only contradictory but distractions. You say that
the fund was common tnsG, that 1t was piecgec
"in psrpeiutiy for the purpose OF meeting the gene
raj charce and c1pent,tare OF The confederate states
and in the same breath that It was not 10 90 into
the common sstreesury al all, nor TO be "Gplroprt
atsd IL The ORDINARY ExrrSprruEE or rHE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT Pray, Sir, what difference 90 you
propose TO make between tie 'gfatrat ch"rge ma r.
pcadtturt, and the ''0f"'rtrg rPendd"TtS y 10. re-
Lsy0f Gorermnen; pEoes, am utterly unable TO
eoureirc OF auy difference Whatever. That whca con
s,iluted the 'gcnerat tdaree and e'pndt'nre OF the
States coutederated together, was identcaliy Inc Cf
diaorv expenditures Of nc ffGor@ Government from
wear 10 year: that aad that oaty. The annual eS2ehd
ure. OF TIE Federal Govcrnmen-the Government
oc the States, and the 'seasid charec upon the
States, which the fund vas pledged to iqndate-
There was o:!er caarsc whatever winch oonhn
the States IN their common or confederate charac
for No other chgrre could, by possibility, have eX
,s,ed or did exist, The States had, 1t IS true, the
expenditures Of their own respective governments
10 pay: aud s was SeP@r1ie and i"al5>F""t not a
nyrn,rnl c.roc and The lands wsrc ceced as you ad
mn, "a meet le aeaGyaL ckarge, not the tadtctd@dt
debts or liabilities III" states AVID for tins reason alone
twas set apart and called ''tomn0" t""@ l"deeG,
SIR fvou val, look closely to your own words YOU VIII
nsrceive that yo have been able to On such violence
o!anpuage as 10 negative tins truth even IN statement
for vhen YOU AS the question SIS tie und 10 BE- P0ared
into the treasury aad GPproprtadto ne OBITUARY efPeH
afuyes IF the Fedcrai G0rtrnmeat ouanswer "Ho-
int fmork the words S0rereeR rs nfsat're to TIE pro-
IN
tnMe GENERAL CHARGE AND EAPENDllukE.
Now YOU must that this, so lar from nganeins
the idea that the fund went 10 pay The "ordmdry a.
psaGttures does, in truth affirm IT. tor The limitation,
admitting the payment only ree:s to the "PToportonS,
>.h,cn each should bear. Your words refer to The 0p
porttonmca the nd in the payments. not to the pay
nent itself and the grosSest weakness I" speak
oc the g,poriioa.acmt us 'commoa t"nd IN paying
common d,h ana 10 deny at The same tme lhe i'aoi
ltv Of the fund 10 pay The ceht
But. Sir, 10 iin. the whole matter 10 single po'nt,
what were the "orGiaars tfPeHdd"fsSo ne ftdtfat uo
1erpmcat you sprak ~, separate and dtSftacf from
that uoenerai charpe cad tlD.ndst"re mentioned IN
the deeds of cesson, The permanent ii'n on the land
tnnd. OF what na;Gre we're they: Or what items
composed' Ey what authority .tvlcd, For what Nnr
nose contracted? BY what means iiqu'iiied: II these
lands were not intended TO pay the "ord@ary e1pend'
,ures" Of the Federal Government, what were they de-
s,rncd to paw: Name the object, and separate IT. u
YOU can from the 0rdinGry eaP'Mdtt"reS u ne fGer4t
Iorcrnnatat" Fer myself, am utterly unah" I" cor
the confederate States, SUCH were bound to pay,
other than the ''ordaary expenditures Of their govern
men :,
Bnt need not press this point upon you. You,
YOURSELF have admitted, uneonSccaSy the very iac' IA
unes,ion The sentences immediately succeeding TIE
sno,al,oa have made from your remarks above, arc
The following:
81 %, il lie remembered that this deed made IN
der the old Cont, ,;ctat,an sysru and prior 10 the
ndop ion OF the Federal Constitution, when tie res
pecve proportions ocac Stale IN the genera! charge
nad xpenure coH1 jc 0.eeraiHtd t-sh ejS"f'ft oeT
fqia!u Congress i!cn assessed no power ~ rrying
duties IN i,npasts or 1t tasn. in any OTHER
way The States raised It ALL eGd congress n'a'e an
nuai reguSi.io,s no" M Ter tic G"oaafS 'edtch ffg
7rere Ia cortrJefs according to aiItd
ard canal ratio Tie interest Of each OF ;hcr in Tie
Land fund therefore. bo:e accurate proportion L"
the amount which each required 10 Contribute t"
lie genera. expenditure
Nov, S.r, you here observe. in tie most express
terms, that the "c.NtR,i CHARGE ASP LNrf>piTt Kt
loss than those "AENUAL REQU iSifiONS mc6t
In Congress an The suites tor Mc amourtS eiich hsn
,rere srtray rqaird 10 coairtac ecso'&i"g io0 frat
,nd loaGi ra!;o. Ihon, Sir these "dnHgGi rtg.i:t'
inns constituted The aeJai chGrs Gad eTpoaGtare
for the payr.cn, ct whio, Tie lands were expressly
coded And vet Sir YOU declare, in the teeth Of this
admission tina, tie land iund was n0t intended to aiect
the s.or4inars eypndtarcS # NE feaerai HofernwfH
Sr Won must na7tun ..islui rfa!!; this course oi d.
duc;icn appears to nv mad utterly rn:n'elg he. /!
is as :, were 10 eascn against reason, 90 nSc reason
AGAINST the use cf reason and 10 ate uif 20 .'ve good
reason 10 rrryc TIA, is good for netting a ell
But th:s is not all Ynu have enlangl,d yourself in
cyiricahly in meshcs of your weav ne. You use
immediately a.;cr your argument above, the following
illustration:
.Thus If rcqu'sition was made upon Virginia i"r
Sl0OGG0 and so much land was sod curing The year
.sen,,,cd her to the sum Of 5O,ooo, she was compel
led 10 RAISE the additional OF $50 1000 by taxes up
on her citizens, 10 make up the deficiency, and by pm
reasonns well according 10 the street rules
So GOO She would have been entitled 20 The surplus Of
$4,000, to 60 into her own treasury.
ow mark how this Illustration must elbarrass you
You say, tina. after paying the "annnai rfqaisHion OF
Congress out of the land money Virginia could nave
been "entitied 10 tie surpaS II any, ITO go 'nto az"
ore, T,fasury" Your illustration admits then that