The Evansville journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1834-184?, 1844-12-26
From the Louisville Journal.
Tue BILL / n CONGRESS- PRoros1Ne t


certain portions of our vast National domain.
tits provided by this bill that all lands th at
have been liable TO entry for FIVE years may
be entered at one dollar an acre; those which
have been in the market Cor fifteen years at
fifty cents; and those which have remained
unsold for twenty years at twenty-five cents
per acre, for any quantity not exceeding half
a section, or three hundred and twenty acres.
We see no necessity for the enactment of
any such law. The public good does notre-
quire it. The plea advanced in favor ofsuch
redu ction of the price of the public lands,
namely that it will favor the poor, is both de-
magogic and fallacious. The proposed law
would not benefit the poor man; on the con-
trary its advantages would go TO the benefit
OF spectators. Itwould make the rich rich
er, and the poor poorer.
Ii is true that the bin provides that those
who avail themselves of its provisions shall
make oath that the lands they enter are for
their own use; that is TO say, for actual set
clement and cultivation. Some few would
be deferred, by the s~anctity of an oath from
purchasing the lands indicated in the bill, IN
less they intended to locate themselves on
them. But the oath would not prevent spec
ulation. There are thousands of ~rascals,
who, tempted by the low price of land.
would take the oath, get titles, and hold the
land for speculation. We are opposed both
TO c~heapening the lands and to cheapening
oaths. There is perjury enough in the land
and there is no reason why the Government
should offer a premium for it.
The lands described in this bill are every
day coming into reqnisition. Settlements
are taking place in their vicinity, and they are
constantly advancing in value. The history
of our public lands proves that vast quanti-
ties of soil, which were rejected by early
purchasers for various reasons, have SUISSE
quently been sold at the established price
Ii the Government continue its proprietor
ship over these lands, il will eventually reap
all the advantages which will result from the
proximity of settlements aud cultivation. II
is the duty of the Government TO retain its
proprietorship. Ills the agent of the people,
and should not be made TO swerve from its
I'D 'lity to their Interests to subserve the in
teresis of Spectators on our public domain.
II the Government were pecuniarly, as it is
politically, hard run-if it were in the con-
dillon of those unfortunate persons whose ex-
penses have transcended their ready means,
then there would be some show of reason in
making the proposed reduction, for, in such
event, The sacrifice of interest would be par
doned for the sake of the-credit ii tended TO
sustain. But the Government is not on The
verge of bankruptcy. 1t can as we'll afford
10 wait for The rising of those tides
switch taken at their cbb, lead Oh to fortune :,
as individual spectators can, and we consid-
er that lis duty is TO 'spossess its soul in pa
tience" until such periods arise.
We loatfe and deiest the demagoguism
that sneaks in The disguise Of philanthropy
at the bottom of this measure. The apology
for the bin is that it viii enable poor people
to possess themselves Of farms and thus min
lister TO their comforts and happiness. What
a mercltul provision. Just glance at it one
moment, and see if the angel of mercy
which seems 10 be lowering with ontstretch
ed wings over this measure of National be.
nightly is not Transformed by a single beam
of daylight into a ehuckiing fend that mecks
at genuine mercy. The only reasons why
public lands are not salabie are that their sit.
natlon is unhealthy. that they are remote
from market, or that they are sterile. Is il
the object of the advocates of this bill te
locate the poor, for whom they profess to
cherish SO much affection, ON lands where
disease forever fingers and where the scis
sors of Atropos will quickly sever the silve
cord of life? Do they wish to exile the poo
far be yond the haunts of civilization, where
they would be deprived of the BILE ssings o
a market and social Intercourse? Or do they
desire to consign these they love to land.
where they will feelthe burden of the origi
nal curse press with crushing weight upo1
their shoulders? The bill, if il become
law, will not benefit the poor. The reject
ed lands in the vicinity of settlements art
every day advancing in value, and the Law
: would prove a blessing 10 the speculaiot ant
not 10 the poor man.
We hope our hearts are as kind toward
the poor as those of any othermen; and WI
thiak that genuine kindness towards then
does not approve the provisions of this pro
posed law. What the poor man wants is
small farm in the vicinity of a market wher
his industry can meet with its due reward
lie would much prefer few acres contie
uous to a market to a vast farm in deser
Sixty acres of such land can now be pun
Ch1roA E,r o11I4v l.1t,.- - -s, 80,