Hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1843-1845, 1844-04-04
HI A w K d..
Burlington:
Thursday, April 4, 1S44.
An Old Story Re.tOld.


1t becomes our duty to show once
more how puerile are the attempts OF
the loco focos Of Iowa, to prove that
Mr. Clay is hostile to the great west,
her Territories and their settlers. We
have more than once exposed the fall
sity and injustice of the statement; yet
we shall not on this account, forbear
noticing the repetition Of it by the Ga
zette. The las. number, but one, Of
that paper, has long article OH the
subject, which is after all, specific &C.
count Of its hitherto broad and gener-
al assertions. We shall examine it, as
briefly as we can, and if we do not con-
vince every unprejudiced mind, of its
no!hingness and insignilicance, then
we know no. the force Of evidence, nor
the value of truth.
TO so much of it, as refers to the fact
that Mr. Clay voted to exclude foreign
ers who had not filed their declaration
of intention TO become citizens, from
the benefits of the pre-emption law of
1871, and to restrict the right of pre-
emption, to such lands only as were
Surveyed, we have little to say. We
have already shown, that in this, for
eigners are done no injustice,-that in
fact it reminds them of the necessity Of
swearing fealty to our Government,
and inci.es them in the strongest man
ner, to appreciate. that which they too
often underrate, the honor of being an
American citizen. And now we bold
ly and fearlessly defend it, for we
know that the foreigners, are net so
blind to reason, nor SO dishonest in
principle, as TO deny either the justice,
or efficacy of such provision. But if
having voted to exclude them, and to
restrict the RICH, of emp.ion to sur
veyed lands, be evidence Of hostility to-
wards the settlers, then are the most
distinguished Of the loco focos, as deep
in guilt as Henry Clay. That is inev-
table, for Benton and Calhoun, Cuth-
bert and Walker, Niles and Norvell
Morris and King, and Wall and
Wright, the very pillars Of modern de-
mocracy, mot to mention stars of lesser
lighD have all of them voted for similar
exclusions and restrictions. The Sem
ate's Journal of 1896. 81, fixes the
question, beyond cavil or doubt.
These disposed Of, we shall proceed
to the more important speciications.-
The first, is that Mr. Clay voted on the
9th of August lS4l, against an amend.
ment Of Mr. McRoberts Of Illinois, the
object Of which was, to give to the Ter
ritories of Wisconsin, Iowa and Flori.
da, proporsionate share of the pro-
ceeds of the public lands, under the dis
trbution law. So be it, and what does
it prove! Does il prove that he is hostile
to the Territories Not at all. What
were his reasons, and the reasons gov
erning those, who voted with him
against the amendment That the
Government paid their civil expenses,
erected all their public buildings,
made their roads and canals and con.
structed all their other works Of
improvement. These were their reas-
ons, for voting as they did at that stage
of the proceedings but how we ask
was that identical amendment engrafted
on the bill! How did it come to pass
that by the second Section of the Dis
tribution act, the Territory of Iowa, Of
the number, do receive their proportion.
ate share of the proceeds of the public
lands Was it put there by loco foco
votes! if so, show US the public rec
rd,-give US proof of the fact. Tell
us how and when that provision was
fixed in the law, for which Henry
Clay, and against which. every loco TO-
co Senator voted.
The second specification against Mr.
Clay is, that he voted against the sever.
al amendments 10 the distribution bill,
intended to graduate the price Of the