Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1843-04-06


greater portion of these lands. No dis.
elimination is made IN the constitution
and none can be made. We lay down
| then. as fact which cannot De denied
that congress can constitutionaIly appro.
pirate no money for any purpose not emu
merated under the. powers delegated in
the 9th section OF the federal constitution.
or to the purposes enumerated in the
| compact with the states to which refer
ence is made in the exception referred
to. that the constitution shall nat be SO
construed as to prejudice any czssa.s Of
the u. s. or aay particular stots.' If,
then.the power to distribute the proceeds
OF the public lands is no where to be
found in the constitution, as a substan.
rse, independent power, land ! assert
positively it is not to be found therein
under what clause is it pretended the
power is conferred I? | presume the gen.
eral aOeJfare is the strongest, as that ex-
preston covers a multitude of political
sins. Ask the friends of distribution,
and they tell you congress may dispose
Of, and make all necessary rules and re-
gulations concerning the same. THEN
the very doctrine which the wings sd
much denounce. is also true; mean that
congress may also cede these lands to
the states in which they lie, as gratuity.
II to dispose OF, means to give them a.
way, why, then, congress can give them
away TOR any purpose whatever. 1t is
too absurd a proposition to be dweit up.
on. What, then, is the true and proper
Interpretation TO the powers Of congress
over the subject? 1t is, that no dispo-
siticn can be made Of these lands for
which the money arising from imposts or
direct taxation could not be appropriated
and that there is no difference between
the lands bought aud those cede,l. |
have, then, clearly shown, that if the U.
States claim to act as trustee. the terms
of the trust have been violated; and il
the distribution is made under the const
tuition, that no clause of that instrument
can be even tortured to sustain the pow
err claimed. Congress, then, having no
right to pass such law, it is clearly and
palpahlv Unconstitutional. And if So,
no state legislature can be justified in re-
ceiving it. The difference between vo.
ting for such law and voting to receive
the money under it, is difference with
out distinction, and to my mind, one and
the same thing.
Having shown that this distribution is
inexpedient inpoii:ic and unjust, and that
it alike violates the deeds Of cession and
the constitution, shall briefly advert to
some of the reasons assigned why it
should not be received, tits sravely urs-
ed that By receiving it, it would reduce our
taxes, now burdensome and onefous. l
admit that so far as the thirty. seven thou
sand dollars are concerned, to that ex
tent it would have prevented for the pre-
sent year the raising Of that sum to re-
ileye the pressing demands against the
treasury of Virginia. But to the same
extent that you receive. you create de-
ficency in the treasury Of the United
States, except with this important dife-
renee. that the amount taken from the fe-
deral treasury must be replaced in some
other way. The fact is therefore appa-
rent, that If you receive the thirty-seven
thousand dollars into the state treasury
you would pay into the United States
treasury the same amount at least, with
the costs Of collection, even if Virginia, q
consuming State, paid in proportion to her
federal population. So far then as the
mere matter Of dollars and cents are con-
cerned, the reception or rejection amounts
to the same thing. 1t is robbing Peter
to pay Paul. If then no advantage is
gained by reception, but it is sacrah cling
principles held sacred by the democratic
party, and so held at least since the veto
of Gen. Jackson in 1888, we should re-
ject the prolfered bride without moments
hesitation. But we are gravely told that
as ether states have received, Virginia
might as well do the same thing. Or in
other words, your political principles must
be hushed when money is concerned.
:. Better take half loaf than NO d.ead.''
i" find if other states haze received the BE-
nsft. and cannot be compelled to refund.
Virginia might as sceH take her share y
If such reasoning be correct, then is the
charge we'll founded. that there is no ho-
nesty in politics5 and that democracy is
only true i'll theory. but in practice must
give way to interest, or in other words;
touch mans parse and has democracy IS
gone. Suppose our. forefathers had set
and quietly submitted to the right claim
ed by Great Britain to tax the colonies,
and had said we had better pay this small
tax rather incur heavy pecunlary losses,
would our revolutionary struggle. cover
ing its actors with glory, and eyentuating
in freedom-w would it ever have taken
piace7-Never. 1t was principle that in
spired their bosoms with ardor and pa
triotsm. Would the civil revolution Of
1900 ever have been effected il. princa-
Pile had not governed those who achieved
that victory. And now when Congress
has done wrong in passing distribution
law, and most Of the states done likewise
=, rocaivinr@ xya VironianS muSt de-