Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-03-19
No. lO4.--VOLUME XXXyIlI.

Constitution, that "direc taxes shall be apporoned
among the States, according to their respective numbers,
} which shall be determined by adding to the whole
number of free persons, including those bound to SER
vice for term of years, and excluding Indians not
taxed, three ths of all other PERSONS; other words,
according to what is usually termed federal numbers.
In practice, however, the government rarely resorts 10
direct taxes, and the revenue is raised almost exclu
slvely from duties imports, and the public lands.
Still the obligation of the compact in the deed of ces
SION is just binding IT under the confedera
tlon and the States of the Union should receive the be-
nett of the ceded lands proportion TO the usual re-
spective proportion in the general charge and ex
pendure. Can this be effected by any distrbu-
tion? Assuredly not; because the revenue being
paid in duties on importations, it is impossible 10
tell in what proportion it is paid by the several
States. There is no one subject on which there 10
more difference of opinion, than as 10 who pays the
duties on mpoEations BY some it is maintained, that
they paid by the consumers OF the imports. by
others, that they paid by the foreign producer of
the imports BY others, that they paid by the do
mestic producer of the export which is given in
change for the import And, yet, again. others hold,
that the duty is divided among all Of them and the
merchants and factors through whose hands they pass
Nor have we any accurate knowledge of the
amount Of imports consumed in each State Paid
the revenue s it is utterly impossible to ascertain the
usual respective proportion Of the several States in the
general charge and expenditure. And, il dstribu-
ton OF this fund allowable under the deeds of
cession otherwise desirable it is impossible TO make
it with justice because the proportion of each accord
ing to the rule supposed in the decd of cession
is shown to be unascertanabe. But, by carrying the
proceeds of the lands into the Treasury, and applying
them, with other revenue, 10 defray the legitimate
penditures OF the Government, they exactly fulfil the
letter and the spirit of the Decd for, by diminishing the
necessary taxes the people Of the States by the
amount of the land fund.- (of which taxes each State
would have tc pay its usual respective propoton) in
that proportion each State receives the benefit of it
and, according to its original design, the proceeds OF
the lands applied common fund, for the COM
mon emolument and benefit of the Union, instead Of
being split up and divided into separate funds, for the
separate benefit of the several States, conempat
ed by the Distribution law.
| If any distribution can be lawfully made under the
deeds of ccsson, (Which is dened,) surely there is no.
thing 10 warrant such distribution as this law rro
vdes for. The deeds convey the lands for the benefit
of the States of the Union, and the States only-but
the Distribution law gives dividend to each of the
Territories and the District Of Columbia, without au
thorty from the deeds for doing There is nothing
in them which can be possibly construed to authorize
any distribution except to the States alone.
| The Distribution act is unwarranted even by the
principles of those who claim tile right TO distribute
under the deeds OF cesson; not only because II gives
portion OF the fund to the territories and District OF Co.
umba, parties not named in the deeds, but because OF
the inequality and injustice of the distribution as be-
tween the States.
On the principle contended for, the distribution among
the States should be according TO their usual respective
has already been shown, that this proportion is unasce
tanned and unascerainable. But suppose the ratio oil
direct taxation assumed as the proportion IN which the
ought be and borne by the States and there
fore the ratio Of distribution it has been taken by
Congress in this law. Is the distribution IN that pro.
portion Certainly not. Zach one of the States
first receives 10 per cent. the nett proceeds OF the
lands sold within their respective limits and alter the
new States have received this great advantage they
then come in with the old States and receive an equal
divid them
ing to their respective Federal numbers There IS no.
thing in the deeds, nothing in the principles on which
the right Of distribution IS claimed under them, TO au
horze this inequality, or to sanction this gross injustice
to the old States And TO make this inequality more
glarng the usce gross, the States receive
100000 of public land each, or so much as with
what they have heretofore received, will make oOO0OO
EACH TO be appropriated works of internal improve
ment for which the old States receive equivalent
But of this he would say mere hereafter.
Having thus, he thought, shown that there was
nothing in the deeds Of cession which authorized any
distribution among the States OF the proceeds OF Inc
ceded lands much less the distribution directed IN the
existing law, it seemed almost needless TO consider,
whether those deeds authorized a distribution of the
proceeds Of the lands acquired otherwise than by those
deeds themselves Much the larger proportion oil the
public lands acquired by the purchase OF Lousi-
ana and Florida from France and Span and the cessions
from Georgia and North Carolina since the adoption OF
the Constitution, and it would be absurd to contend,
that the deeds OF cesson from the States, which have
relation TO connection with these purchases, au-
thorize distribution Of the proceeds Of the lands in the
Louisiana and Florida purchases. The argument drawn
from the deeds Of cesson, such is IS too narrow
for the purpose For, as he had somewhere seen It
quantity stated, the argument is on this side OF the Mis-
slssipp the lands on the other.
But the power TO distribute the proceeds nj the lands
fas we'll those acquired by the cessons Of New York,
Virginia Massachusetts,, Connecticut, and South Ca
roina under the Confederation, those ceded by
North Carolina and Georgia since the adoption OF the
Constitution of the IT, s., and those purchased from
France and Span is claimed under the second clause
of the third section of the fourth article Of the Const
tuition, which provides, "That Congress shall haze
power dispose of and make all ncedful roles and re-
gula,ons respecting the territory or other property be-
longing TO the U. s.; and nothing IN this constitution
shall be construed 10 prejudice any claims OF the
IT, s. or of any particular State II is commended,
that an unlimited power of disposition over the public
lands is here conferred Congress IT this be sound
construction of the Constitution 1t IS apparen, that "
equally gives unlimited power OF disposition over
ali other property belonging to the S. for, this power
of disposition whatever may be It's extent. ana whc.
Their limited or unlimited, is given over the "terrory
and "other property belonging 10 the u s. IN the very
same words-so that to justify the Distribution law,
under this clause of the Constitution its friends are
driven 10 assert for Congress unlimited power 10
dispose of the property Of The United States al IT'S plea
sure Let us examine the extent and the consequences
of this construction. What IS the property oil the
United States Under this head must be included not
lie buildings the custom-houses, the FORTS arsenais
decks, lighthouses navy, munitions of war, the pub,
lie money, whether raised by taxes or otherwiSe-ai
these and more, property belonging TO the United
States And will it be commended, that over all these
Congress- has an unlimited power Of disposition =
power to SELL power to distribute or give away to the
States, or to individuals according to their mere DIS
cretion, To adopt such construction, IS 10 chanec
tho whole nature and character of the Government
10 convert i, from Government of limited to Co
yernment of unlimited powers fit dispose CT its
property, its money, just as it chooses it may through
else Directly or indirectly any and every power which
it may aspire to. In the Report OF 1879 and 100, in
treating Of the genera! welfare doctrine, Mr. Madison
uses this language Now, whether the phrases IN
be construed 10 authorize any measure eiat
mo 10 the common defence and general welfare as con-
tended by some, or any measure only in which there
might be an application of money, as suggested by .he
caution Of Others the effect must substantially DC .he
same destroying the import and force OF lhe pa.so
nowers WHICH follow these general