The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-07-28

lhM peculiar state OF fac0 compolA nae 10 inquire,
myself and to ask the people to inquire, what is the
precise value of the Distribution act and especially,
what Is It's value compared with the Tariff
In so far as the administration of the public lands
by the Federal Government, is the means of waste,
or of pecunary political corruption the Distfbu-
ton Act accompishes nothing fol it leaves The ad-
mnistration of the public domain to be continued per
maneny in the hands of the Federal Government
In so far as the benefit of distribution might be to
take the question of the public lands of the field OF
politics, to absolutely share of them to the
old States the Distribution act accompishes nothing.
For In the first place. the act is at all times snbec to
the question of repeal and, in the second place. the
act, if unrepeaed, is selfnuified by the following
clause contained in it, VIZ
"Propided, That nothing herein contained shall be
construed to the prejudice of future applications for
reduction of the price of the public lands or to the
prejudice Of applications for the transfer of the public
lands reasonable terms to the States within which
they lie, to make such future disposition of the
pubic lands or any part thereof as Congress may
deem expedent.'
The question of Distribution remains therefore
mere question of dollars and cents.
Congress has agreed for the present. that there shall
be distribution in time of peace SO long as the state
OF the Treasury does not require the imposition OF
duties exceeding 20 per cent al valoreIn but that
whenever it becomes necessary to subject the people
to such amount of taxation, then the proceeds OF
the public lands instead of being disr buted among
the States shall remain in the Treasury 10 tighten the
pufueh OF taxatlon, imposed on the fHopie ny 'ne
Federal Government
On the other hand it is said, that by ceasing to re-
| cur to the public lands for revenue and by relying
wholly duties, the question of the Federal revenue
IS relieved from the disturbing OF the fuctua-
ion and uncertainty of the element of the revenue de-
rived from public lands, and that moreover the neces-
sy thus created for higher rate of duties on imports
is beneficial to certain interests, by giving them high
er protection.
This assumes contrary to what experience proves,
ha
enough to carry on the Government. Whereas,
for aught that at present appears, unless recourse
be had to the public lands it may be necessary either
to add continually to the public debt to provide
additional revenue by means of excises, stamp du-
ties, or direct tax on real or personal estate.
Besides which, in the present attitude OF the ques-
ton, if the protected interests can have adequate
permanent protection, without meddng with the
question of the public lands is it not better for those
interests to make sure of, and be content WITH an
lection, rather than desperately and wantonly to
throw away that abundantly good thing in the chase
of the idle shadow of supposed better thing
For it is to be remembered that the Distribution
question has become mere Watchword OF parties,
and that unstable all party ascendancy is, in the
United States, it is unwise and not sound cacula-
ton of stability and certainty for the protected inte
rests to build themselves the sandy foundation OF
| such inconsiderable point this, and on decl-
sion Of the question: which decision at any new cleo
by another Congress.
Then as consideration of money, what is the
amount of money which any person in the United
States is to gain by the proposed repeal Of this lm
taton of the Distribution act?
Under the operation of the Distribution act GER
tain of money is to be paid over to the several
States by the Federal Government What is the
profit and loss this process to each individual c-
zen Of the United States?
II would be well for every citizen of the United
Stafps hpfnr he inlar takpS IN al
of the present Congress for not wishing to stop the
wheels of Government for the SAKE of distribution,
before he makes up his mind to two three years of
grinding poverty in order to get his share of the dis
tribution down deliberately, with pen and pa
per- and reckon up the amount of his share.
Suppose million Of dollars, million and hall,
or two millions, to be distributed, how many
cents rather how few CENTS will that make to each
| individual citizen in the United States Let every
calculate for himself And, order to get those
few cents head do the farmers, miners manntactu-
rers sugar planters, and mechanics intend desire,
| to sacrifice the tariff !?
| But, suppose they get those few additional cents
| which the repeal of the limitation will give them
Suppose instead of cents it dollars, would there
be any profit in the operation Where does the mo-
| ney they to receive come from! Is 1t not their
own money, paid to the Government in taxes out OF
their pockets For the distribution money IS to
| be taken out of deficient not an overlooking Irea-
sury. Every dollar Withdrawn from the Treasury for
distribution leaves a vacuum which has got to be filled
by additional taxes; and it is very losing
operation for you to pay taxes to the Government IN
order to have the Government pay back the net pro-
ceeds to you because you do get all your owl mo-
ney back again. 1t would have been much better to
have kept it in your own pocket the whole time; for
you receive it back subject to the deduction OF the
loss and expenses incurred in the process of its being
collected from you, kept awhile, and then returned to
you by the Federal Government
But is said the distribution is for the benefit OF the
States some of which very much In debt. But,
what then :? What is State2 The argument i'm
| plies that Slate is a something totally ndepen-
| dent Of and disconnected from the People of the
State. The Federal Government! is to impose taxes
on the people of all the States united collect the mo-
ney into the Federal Treasury and then pay 1t over
to the State Governments Would it not be more
direct cheaper and better for the people OF the States
to pay these at once into their own State irea-
sury? Or, on the other hand, what is there
for employing the agency of the Federal Government
to collect part of the money needed to conduct the
State Governments, which does not apply to the
whole2 Why not give up State taxes altogether,
and centralize the Government at once, by having
an uniform system of taxation and collection, and
disbursement for all objects whatever within the limits
of the Union renquishing the present system Of tax
aton collection and disbursement for any object under
the separate au horty of the individual States ? Ger
tain it is that citizen of an individual State can
save any thing in taxes by this round about process
of paying to the Federal Government, and through
the Federal Government back to his own State, the
taxes necessary to carry on his own State Govern
ment.
SO that neither to any individual citizen of the
United States, nor to the citizen of any Of the
indebted States and still less to any citizen of either
of the unndebted States is easy how any pc
cuniary profit should by the distribution of the
proceeds of the sales of the public lands, 1otiiSt the
Federal Treasury is in deficient and impoverished
condition.
Tables published in the newspapers showing
how much money each county and each State, &C.,
would be entitled to receive under the Distribution
act With surplus treasure hand TO distribute, this
is very well but th efcient and impoverished Trea-
sury the table of what each State would receive
under the act ought to be accompanied with table
of what each State had to contribute in taxes in
der to make up the distributed and it would
then be seen, that Massachusetts,, for instance, must