Hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1843-1845, 1844-04-11
The Inadyerfenco

The Inadyertence.
The Gazette owns I'D that !, IA.
record in stating that Mr. Clay voted :.
an amendment TO the Distribuliop !
granting 100000 acres of land ia II.
States, but says it was --inadrert,ntl, !,
If this be the case, we must exprc,, =,
constituent al it; for it is mos, as,,,.a
to US, that such gross and material.
ration should have beenI inadv.,,.
made. The more so, since the ,m.,.-
Of Mr. BENTON, to the amendm.n, :,
McRoBERTs, does not mention .pv a..
number of acres, but the same ouans,
had been granted to Ono. We ,h,r
this plea of this Gazette 60 for whit
worth: We leave it with the pebble Vi,
Judge for themselves. or ONE ,ti,,
are certain, that if we had not charge
Gazette with having slurred the recoa
should never have seen the error co-,..,
It would have gore forth among ii. ]
pie, and every locofoco editor, abdh,
stump-speaker in Iowa would have =.
lishcd and reiterated the false st,,,-.
And for aught we know, they will 4
still. We therefore protes. aesins, i,
er such IN advertence, and sincenlr /,
The editor Of the Gazette will not hsrs
be put to the strait Of acknowedeu
with the record before him, he va, NJ
OF the grosscst negligence.
But to the vote itself: we ce-.epli
Mr. CLAY having voted against III. INN
ment of McRoBEnrs to 9Th section i
bill, as modified by Mr. BENTON, dossts
the Gazette alleges, convict him d, MI
ity toward the new States and The Ten
rles. The Sth section of the bill, rna
20 each Of the nep States, and sud
States as should thereafter become mtrs
81 the Federal Union, 500, OOJ aersdE
Tor the purposes Of internal improves
with this proviso; that no ncu State II
receire any larger quantity of land aa
phich together rih the quantity ahah
ee'red, could make up 500 600 acres
Now, when the fact is considsnd,
Ono had previous TO the passage i
Distribution Act, received 100000 \
more for the purposes aforesaid, az
all the new States would rcceiu
or more under the LIST section than Or
cannot be denied, that the Senate wuH
IN rejecting Mr. McRoBERTs' amensH
by the LIST section of the act there byS
ed TO each Of the NEW STATES 10 per
upon the nett proceeds OF the public "
over and above what they receivsg
compacts entered into between then
the United States, upon their admlsh
t the Union. o. course the new "
would thereby get much moro than
because there is less public land wIlhi'
limits, than within the limits Of ngp
new State. The 9Th section c1lshS
additional ten per cent. granted unaa
LIST section, to any ep State OF y
which shall be hereafter admitted lfa
Union. Hence, it will be seen, thai
Distribution Law is no. repealed ~
Wings will nerer reieal il,) low
when she becomes State, get l5pap
ipon the nett proceeds of the publf y
hereafter sold within ncr limits, %
'oo acres of land for the purpsa
crnal improvement
Let any candid man Invested off,
udlcc against HENRY CLAY, take
non sense view Of these facts, andp
not and will not but admit, thai I'll
lot actuated by any hostility to our NV
n voting against the much lauded W
nent Of Mr. McRoBrRrs. He will "
The grants to the new States are H'1
Is Justly as they could well be, o
when he considers that the public W
Ohio have averaged 81 67.lQO rE
while those in Illinois and the oM
States, have not averaged over vi
per acre. ..M
The Distribution Act spporsIonp
leeds Of the public lands among 'n'
states and Territories, according
edernl representative population :,
aimed By The census Of lsio.
however, ON reference 10 the proee'
he Senate, Wednesday, August !"
he following; I'm
MIR FuLros (locofocol then ~
mend the biii, so that The distrie.
Ell proceeds of the pablic lcnas ~. A
ccordaace NTH the rspressnia''e'V
raj States in Congress.
II was advocated By TAeH'ss "