The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-07-28

"yseh anu 10 ASK INC people 10 inquire, "hai ID .''
precise value Of the Distribution act and especially
what is its value compared with the Tariff
In SO far a. the administration Of the public lands
by the Federal Government is the means of waste
or Of pecunary political corruption, the Distrbu-
ton Act accompishes nothing foI leaves the al
mnistTaiion of the public domain To be continued per
maneny in the hands of the Federal Government
In 80 far a. the benefit of distribution might be u
take the question Of the public lands out of he field o
politics. TO absolutely share OF them to the
old States the Distribution act accomplishes nothing
For in the first place. the all times snhject To
the question Of repeal and in the second place the
act, If unrepeaIed is self nuiied by the following
clause contained in IT, VIZ
"Propidsd That nothing herein ntained shall be
construed to the prejudice of future applications for
reduction of the price of the public lands, TO the
prejudice Of applications for the transfer of the pubic
lands on reasonable terms the States within which
they lie, or make such future disposition of The
public lands. or any part thereof as Congress may
deem expedient.'
The question Of Distribution remains therefore a
meie question of dollars and cents.
Congress has agreed for the present. that there shaii
be distribution in time Of peace, long as the state
OF the Treasury does not require the imposition OF
duties exceeding ~ per cent. al valorem but tha'
whenever II becomes necessary to subject the people
to such amount Of taxation, then the proceeds oil
the public lands instead Of being distributed among
the States shall remain in the Treasury to tighten the
burden of taxation, imposed the people by the
Federal Government
On the other hand it is said, that, by ceasing to re-
to the public lands for revenue, and by relying
wholly on duties the question of the Federal revenue
is relieved from the disturbing OF the fuciua-
tion and uncertainty of the element Of the revenue de
rived from pubic 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
or protection.
This assumes contrary to what experience proves,
haiti he n
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, or to provide
additional revenue by means Of excuses, stamp du-
ties, or direct tax on real or personal estate.
Besides which, in the present attitude OF the ques-
tion if the protected interests can have adequate
permanent protection, without meddling with the
question of the public lands, is it not better for those
interests to make sure of and be content win, an
abundanty good thing viz. adequate permanent pro-
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 il is to be remembered that the Distribution
question has become mere watchword OIL parties,
and that unstable all party ascendancy IS, IN the
United States, it is unwse and not sound cacula-
ton of stability and certainty for the protected nte-
rests to build themselves on the sandy foundation of
such inconsiderable point as this, and on deci-
sion of the question: which decision, at any new cleo
tion is subject to be revised and probably reversed
by another Congress
Then, as a consideration of money, what is the
amount of money which any person in the United
States to gain by the proposed repeal OF TINS ii
tation 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 ctt-
zen Of the United States
Ia ha cit, If he N ed
States before he undertakes to censure any members
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 order to gel, his share of the dis
tributlon to set down deliberately with pen and pa
per, and reckon up the amount of his share. .
Suppose million of dollars, million and hall,
or even 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 in order to get those
few cents Il head do the farmers miners, manuiactu7
rers, sugar planters and mechanics intehd Oh uese'
To sacrifice the tariff
But suppose they get those few additional cents
which the repeal OF the limitation viii give ihe"''
Suppose instead of cents 1t were dollars, would 'here
be any profit in the operation Where does the mo-
ney they are To receive from! Is II not their
own money, paid to the Government in taxes out oi
their own pockets For the distribution money IS 10
be taken out OF deficient not an overlooking irea-
sury. Every dollar withdrawn from the Treasury Tor
distribution leaves a vacuum which has got TO De hed
by additional taxes; and 1t IS a very iosing
operaton for YOU to pay taxes to the Government m
order To have the Government pay back Inc net pro-
cee,s to YOU because you do not get all your own mo-
new back again 1t would have been much better to
have kept it in your own pocket the whole Time Tor
YOU receive it back subject TO the deduction OF the
loss and expenses incurred in the process of It's being
collected from you, kept awhile, and then returned to
Won by the Federal Government
But il is said the distribution is for the benefit OF me
States, some Of which very much IN debt. But,
what then2 What is State 2 The argument I'M
plies that State is 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 1t not be more
direct cheaper and better for the people OF the States
to pay these taxes at into their own State irea-
sury I Or, on the other hand what reason 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
whole1 Why not give up State taxes altogether
and centraze 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 reinqulshing the present system OF TAI
ation collection and disbursement for any OBJECT under
the separate hori,y Of the individual States Ger
tain it is that citizen of lndivdual otate can
thing IN taxes by TINS rounu aoout PIooes'
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, to the citizen OF any one OF the
indebted States and still less to any citizen OF either
of the unndebled States is it easy to see how any pc
cuniary profit should accrue by the distribution OF the
proceeds of the sales of the public lands, 'oh'st '
Federal Treasury is in deficient and impoverished
condition.
Tables are published in the newspapers showing
how much money each county and each State, &c.
would be entitled to receive under the Distributor
act. With surplus treasure hand 10 distribute th
is very WE'LL but wih deficient and impoverished lrea
sury, the table of what each State would receive
under the act ought to be accompanied with table
IF what each State had to contribute in taxes In OF
der to make up the sum distributed and it would