Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1844-09-13
No. 4s--WHOLE No. sIA


States as well as free. This would be sim.
pie 10 berry"
"Suy pose this is true, what then1 IL
people prefer the free States, as no doubt
a great majority do, and come and bpy
land, settle and make farms among us, they
add to our numbers, improve our social
condition AID Increase our relative political
power We do not complain Of this. But
the money they pay for the land is distribute
ed to it, former owners, part Of whom held
slaves, and that, our neighbor says, ''is
simple robbery" 1t is not the produce Of
the land, but the purchase money that is
distributed, and it cannot be robbery to
give this to those for whose use the land
was sOd, be they Shareholders or not.
But the Herald says the citizens Of the
free States and foreign enigranta ''have
been the largest purchasers in the free ter-
rtory," and they are not benefited by 81
tribudon out Of the State Of their residence.
Does it follow that they should not pay for
the land, and the former owner have the
price he sold ii forl
Again we are told that the lands ceded by
the Slave States were not the most Valua-
bic in themselves, and have only been most
productive, Lecause freed from the curse
Of Slavery, which the Slave States main-
/ tai ed to our hurt as " | as their own: be-
sides the Virginia title to the North Western
Territory was doubtful.
/ Admit that more lands have been sold,
and will continue to he sold, in the free
than in the Slave States, shall we not pay
the owners for the land We buy! As to the
title it does not become us to question it,
since we ia0ied the grant, and accepted 1t
coupled with the trust Of paying the dehts
of the country, and of holding the residue
for the common benefit of those States then
in the Union, and those to be admitted.
The Herald would do all it can "to abate
the evils Of the country, retaining the pro-
ceeds Of the public lands in the national
treasury for national purposes, as the most
equitable thing that can be done, under
the circumstances" until Slavery is abolish
ed. We do not see any good reason, why
the proceeds of the sales Of the lands should
be kept from the rightful owner, on account
of the existence Of slavery in the country.
We have never claimed that the land in
Louisiana and Florida, purchased by the
, United States, were other than the common
property Of the nation. But it has not ap-
peared to us, and it does not appear to us
now, that it was right to refuse distribution
to the owners Of these lands, because a
C plan of distribution perfectly just could not
f be agreed upon. We do not look for per-
g fection, and would do as near right as we
can.
l. But there is one consideration connected
l. with the question of distribution which has
e great weight with us, independent Of all
other considerations. We desire stability
for our commercial, agricultural, and manu-
7' featuring interests-the great business ope'
o ralio4s OF lie country. While the proceeds
II Of the land sales are retained in the Ma
- tional Treasury, it becomes bone of con-
tention for political agitators. All indu
trial pursuits are affected by it. The Tariff
is affected by it, and uctuations-ruinous
huctuatons-in trade follow. If the re-
cepts into the Treasury from land sales are
y u large, less is required from imposts. Pros
u porous business will increase the sales OF
u land, and the land fund. This will induce
IS a reduction of the Tariff of duties. Thai
It in its efectw will derange business, and les
sen the ability to purchase land. This will
/ reduce the income from lands, and compe
a resort to increased impost duties. Under
Il such circumstances, all is uncertainty, and
business cannot steadily prosper. We
, want stability in all business departments
y and would remove these disturbing causes
e and we think the distribution of the land
e fund will go far to produce this stability
u We would, therefore, make it, even if no
e to be done on perfectly equal terms.