The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-03-27
THE PUBLIC LANDS.

tirely different from ou' "@a'"S' ~
seems to us different from the fair import oil our
language. We allude TO the article headed
.rbe Public Lands-Abolition" which we
cave the resolution introduced into The Leglsla-
iure of Illinois proposing meeting OF delegates
from some of the Western States 10 take into
consideration the subject of the Public Lands
and the means Of preventing the deserlion OF
slaves from their masters. We then gave
statement of the various propositions In relation
10 the public domain which had been presented
by prominent individuals in Congress. Our OBJ
iect was rather TO exhibit, in contrast with each
other, the different projects for spelling tie Uni
ted States of their property, than TO express any
opinions of our own, except that, with regard to
MIR. Cost Johnson's plan Of distributing stock
of two hundred millions among the States and
Territories, which we intended to show was
most unequal and most unjust to the new
States.
In respect to the Public Lands, the ground ia
ken by President Tyler and his Administration
is well known. 1t is, that these lands are now,
as they ever have been, subject to the disposition
of Congress under the deeds OF cesslon, Tor the
equal benefit of allthe States that the proceeds OF
their sale, after re-imbursing all expenses, should
be applied to defray the expenses OF Government
and to maintain the public credit; and that while
the Treasury is embarrassed or the revenue IN
certain, their application TO any other purpose
would not only be impolitic and injurious, but
utterly ndefensible. An increase OF the duties
on imports beyond the amount necessary to an
economical administration OF the Government,
produced by the withdrawal from the Treasury
of the proceeds Of domain acquired by the
united efforts and means of all the States, would
be in the highest degree censurable, and well
calculated to produce dissatisfaction and dis
content.
These have ever been our sentiments and
were avowed and maintained by us on the occa-
sion of the Presidents vetoes Of the Little
Tariff bill" and the big Tariff bip' OF the last
session Of Congress, which contained provi ION,
,anctioning distribution of the sales Of public
lands, when the duties exceeded twenty per
cent.
These views are directly antagonist TO the
propositions of Mr.. Clay, of Mr. Calhoun, and
of Mr.. Cost Johnson, all Of which contemplate
diversion of this fund, to a greater or less ex-
tent from the United States Treasury TO the coi-
fers of the States And we fad Mr.. Calhoun's
project is liable to the additional objection,
that, in transferring to the States in which the
the sales, with an accountability to the United
States for sixty five per cent. of the amount oil
such sales, the very dangerous relation Of debtor
and creditor is created between the Confederacy
and its members, without any practical mode OF
enforcing the obligations Of those members, but
an appeal to force; in other words-cvil war.
We are very unwilling to be misunderstood on
a subject of such vital Importance. Seeds oil
discord between the States, and between them
and the General Government, already exist to
sufficient extent, without any new additions
And we are unwilling that The United States
should be Invested Of the management of its
own property, and Of the authority TO apply the
proceeds of any disposition of tina, property, in
such manner as shall be for the common inte-
rest of the whole.
In our article of Friday, we stated one ground
Of claim by the States in which the public lands
are situated TO be that Of the eminent domain,
which it is alleged places the rightto all pacanf
lands in the State, by virtue Of its sovereignty
as an independent State" We should not
have suffered this claim to pass without express
ing our entire dissent from the ground assumed.
The term vacant lands," as used by writers
and the courts when treating Of the rights Of
sovereignty, means those lands in which no one
has any right Of property-which are derelict,
like waits, without owners. Nothing can be
more unfoupded than the idea that the Ultimate
right of the sovereign supersedcs and abolishes
the individual ownership of the subject in lands
or other property. II is only in cases where
there can be no individual ownership, OF where
ii has ceased from defect OF heirs, that the ulri-
mate right Of the sovereign attaches. The Uni
ted States are the owners in fee of the public
lands in the new States, in the same way and
with as perfect rights, as they are owners of the
sites Of forts, magazines, dock-yards &c. in the
Other States; and the claim from eminent do
main is applicable to the one class as 10 the
other.
Again, we protest against, being understood
as sanctionipg the idea that any treaty of ces-
sion of any of the public lands, is to be, or can
be rightfuly so construed as to vest the fe,
of any OF those lands in any Of the separate
States.
In making these remarks our object is not TO
preclude discussion, but to place ourselves right
before our readers and prevent misconstructions
which may hereafter be brought up against us.
THE COMMERCIAL AND THE MASS MEET
ING.
So much for the numbers. Now for the charac-
ter Of the meeting Judging from personal observa-
tion--for at times in almost every part of
the house--we say what we sincerely believe to be
true. that there were not more than two hundrca