Hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1843-1845, 1844-02-29

QUOT and destitute? Suns nostility 10 lne
West The people can answer.
But, sa Is the Gazette, to distribute the
proceeds Of the public lands-to give away
the public revenue, is unconstitutional, and
most unjust and corruptng in principle
How stands the case then with Gen. JACK
SON, lie indicated this very policy in his
Mesa &c Of 1892 How stands it with Mr.
BENTON. and the locofocos, who supported
his bill to cede the public lands. to the
States in which they lie How staEds IT
with MIR CALHOUN, who in a speech at
Charleston, South Carolina, in 1887, en-
phutically proclaimed that "interest, patr'-
otism and every good principle, ,couM unite
to carry it into effect :" And especially,
how stands it with MARTIN VAN buren,
| Mr. Van Buren, he never advanced any
such proposition, it is impossible. Is it: we'll
turn with US to a speech Of his in the Sen
ate, on the 18th of May, 1926, and out of his
own mouth shall you condemn him. Hear
what he says: ''Mr Van Buren, said, the
subject OF the public lands was becoming
daily more and more Interesting, and would
occupy much time in legislation. No man
could render the country a greater service,
than he ,oho should deuise some plan by which
the United States might be rehered Of the
ownership Of this property, by some equita-
| Bile mode. He would vote FOR proposition
to vest the lands in the States in which
they stood, on some just and equitable
terms, as related to the other States OF the
Ccnfederacy. He hoped, that after having
full information on the subject, they would
be able to effect shat great object. He be-
Iered that if those lands ,cere disposed Of al
once, to the seperal States, 1t ,coutd be salts.
| factory to ALL" And who is the man, that
has rendered the country such great ser
vice !? Who, but HENRY CLAY, the father
of the distribution policy.
But has Mr. Van Buren,, been the friend o.
the settlers, has he by jealous and con
sistent support of the presumption princ'
pl e, proved himself worthy of their favor
# so where and on what occasion, is he to be
fourd in such an attitude? Was it in the
Senate? Not at all. He not only voted
against bill to grant pre- emption rights
aad graduate the price of the public
ands. but against a resolution Of MIR TAz
WELL Of Virginia, ccding the lands that
had been in market for two years, to the
States in which they lie, for educational
and other purposes. See Senate Journal OF
1928, pages BOG. 3O7 and 800. Yet, he is
held up to this people, and to the sommu.
nifty at urge, as the great advocate OF pre-
emption laws and graduation bills. Is any
thing more preposterous, can anything be
more disngenuous 1t is true he recon-
mended the passage Of a presumption law,
in his Message of 1897. and gave his assent
to the act Of 1898, and the supplemental
WY rfUssuge vi
1887, for which he is so highly lauded. his
advocacy Of the proc mption principle, is
coupled with the declaration, that intru.
sions upon the public lands should be pre-
vented in future Yes the immac ulate
Martin Van Buren,, with all his boosted
friendship for the pre-emptionist, is willing,
if it be necessary, to remove the intruders
frem the public domain BY FORCE.
To show that we neither misrepresent,
nor mistake the meaning Of that message
we quote its language at length.
Extract from Mr. Van Buren's message TO
Congress Of December, 1897.
"a modification Of the existing laws
in respec. 10 the prices of the public
lands, might also have favorable in
fluence on the legislation Of congress,
in relation to another branch of the
subject. Many who have not the abil-
i.y to buy at present prices, settle on
those lands, with the hope of ae9uir-
ing from their cultivation the means Of
purchasing under pre.emption laws,
from time to time passed by congress.
For this encroachn,ent on the rights
of the United States, they excuse them
selves under the plea of their own ne
cessities; the fact that they disposesss
nobody, and only enter upon the waste
domain; that they give additional value
TO the public lands in their vicinity,
and their intention ultimately to pay
the government price. So much weight
has, from time TO time been attached
to these considerations, that congress
have passed laws giving actual settlers
on the public lands right of pre.emp.
ton TO the tracts occupied by them at
the minimum price. These la,Ds haze
IN all instances been retrospective in
their operation; but IN a fe'o gears af-
ter their passage. crowds Of new set
tiers haze been found on the public
lands, for similar reasons. and under
like expectations. ,oho haze been iadulg-
ed,oitht the same privileges. 1hiscourse
of Legislation tends to impair public
respect for the laDs Of the country.
Either the laws to prevent intrusion
upon the public lands should be execu'
ted, or if that should be impracticabIe
or inexpedient, they should be modified
or repealed. If the public lands are to
be considered as open to be occupied