Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1844-05-04
MIR. CLAY-THE PRE-EMPTIoN SYS-
TEM-"BARGAIN AND INTRIGUE

desvored to refute the charges Of the locofoco
press sgainst Mr.. Clay, that he was opposed to
granting pre- emp.ions to poor settlers, and that
he and MI. Adams entered into ''bargain," by
which he was to use his influence to elect Mr..
Adams President, and when elected, Mr. A. was
to reward Mr.. c. by appointing him Secretary of
State IL. -.......... ...r .,-.
Mr.. Clsy's views on the subject Of pre.emp.
tons, and what he said Interference to the settle
ment Of the public lands, without the authority OF
law, are sufficiently and explicitly Sc. forth in bis
letters published in our last-and taken in con.
nection with the speeches Of which they are ex.
planatory, and with a fair construction put upon
them, Mr., Clay snd his friends are willing TO go
before the country. a. r... .e.
! In the last Democrat we find two articles from
the editor, (who is absenD an article by the sub
editor, and communication from leading loco
Of the county, all bearing on the above points,
and in answer, directly or indirectly, TO our arti.
cles on the subject, which we propose briefly to
answer with few facts, and leave the matter
where the editor Of the Democrat does-"for
candid men to draw their own conclusions"
On the subject Of pre.emptiops and the public
lands, the editors Of the Democrat and ourselves
start from the same point, but arrive at different
conclusions: they are governed by speech Of
Mr.. Clay's published in the Globe, which he has
pronounced "gross carricature in his
letters, he states what he did say. The editor OF
the Democrat says he has compared the ex-
lrac. published in his paper, with the original in
the Globe, and it is correct copy: sdmtted.--
But that does not alter the case, because the orr
giaal speech published in the Globe, ,oas the one
denounced by Mr.. Clay as "gross caricaturej''
and when this speech was referred 10 in debate in
the Senate, by Mr.. Young of Illinois, he was
corrected by Mr.. c.; Mr.. Young admitted he did
not use the language imputed to him-but that
he inferred il from what Mr.. Clay did say. If
the Democrat will do Mr.. Mr.. Clay the justice to
publish his letters, then its readers will be pre-
pared to draw fair inference as to his position.
If they are published, together with Mr. Van Blu.
ren's opinions on the same subject, it will be
found that he, Van Buren,, stands in more hos
tile attitude to re.emptioners than Mr.. Clay, and
that in reference to the settlement OF the public
lands he has gone further to denounce it than Mr.
Clay. In 1925 the bill for graduating the price
OF the public lands was before the Senate. An
attempt was made in April Of tina, year. to amend
the bill by providing for settlement and pre- emp
ton rights. and Mr.. Van Buren, VOTED AGAINST
III as will be seen by reference to Senate Journal,
1927, '2s, pages BOG, Z, and s. This, we be.
lieve, was the only time during Mr. Van Buren's
Senatorial career that the subject of pre.emptons
came directly before the Senate, and it was EN-.
braced by him to signify by his recorded vote, his
hostility to pre,emptiOns. What will pre- emp.
TONERS gain by repudiating Clay and going for
Van Buren,? After Mr.. Van Buren, became
President, he used towards pre.emptioners the
some language used by Mr.. Clay. Mr.. Clay
called not the mass, but portion Of the settlers
who had been guilty Of violent acts, intruders--
while Mr. Van Buren, styles all settlements on
the public lands, ,ntrusions. We present be.
low an extract from his first annual message, and
with that dismiss the subject. Our readers have
both sides; they can draw their own conclusions
Ertrac. from Mr.. Van Burens Message TO Con-
gress, December, 1887.
"a modification of the existing laws in re-
spect TO the prices Of the public lands ought also
TO have favorable influence on the legislation of
Congress, in relation to another branch of the
subject. Many who have not the ability to buy
at present prices, settle on those lands with the
hope of acquiring from their cultivation the means
of purchasing under presumption laws from time
to time passed by Congress. For this encroach-
msnt therights Of the United States, they excuse
themselves under the plea of their own necessi-
ties; the fact that they dspOssess nobody, and
only enter upon the waste domain; that they give
additional value 10 the public lands in their vcin.
ty; and their intention ultimately TO pay the
| Government price, So much weight has from
lime to time been attached TO these considerations
that Congress have passed laws giving actual
settlers on the public lands right Of pre-emptiop
to the tracts occupied by them at the minimum
price. These lars hare in all instances Jeen retro
spectre in their operation; but in eo years after
their passage, croaodS of neW settlers hare been
found on the public lands, for similar reasons. and
under like expectations, Uho hare been INDUCED
pith the same privilege This course oflsgislation
tends to impair public respect for the la1s of the
country Either the laws to prevent INTRUSION
Upon The public lands should be executed, or, if
hat should be imprac ticable or inexpedient, they
should be modified or repealed. If the public
lands are to be considered as open to be occupied
by any, they should, by law, be thrown open to
all. That which is intended, in all instances to
be legalized. should at once be made legal, that
those who are disposed to conform to the laws
may enjoy at least equal privileges with those
who not But IL is not believed 10 be the dispo-
sltton Of Congress 20 open the public lands 10
occupancy WITHOUT regular entry and payment Of
the Government price, as such course must tend