The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-09-12
The Pablo Lands and Internal Improve


In the House of Representatives upon a propo-
sition to appropriate alternate sections of public
land TO the construction of railroad. The de-
bate was interesting, because it illustrated in
petto the radical difference which separated two
great varieties of political opinon-the practi
cal and the abstract. The advocates of the
measure maintained the importance Of the pro
posed improvement to the States through which
il was to be constructed, and TO the Federal
Government as proprietor, whose property
would be greatly enhanced by its construction.
They commented upon the unwise policy of
holding large bodies of lands at price much
above their value; they demonstrated against
the illiberality of expecting the States. to i'm
prove the value Of the Federal domain.
The bill was assailed with great vehemence
by Mr.. VENABLE, as violation Of the pledged
faith Of the Government. He alleged that the
public lands were pledged for the payment Of
the public debt; and that their proceeds should
not be perverted to any other purpose. He at
frned that it was an evasion of the principle,
that the Federal Government had no right TO
appropriate money to the construction Of works
of internal improvement, because the land was
money: there was no difference. The advo-
Gates of the bill rejoined, that the public lands
could not be relied on to pay the public debt,
inasmuch as the nett income arising from the
sales would not pay the interest upon the ma
tional debt, and itwoud of course be inadequate
to discharge the interest and extinguish the
principal. Mr.. VENABLE was reminded that in
voting for the Civil and Diplomatic bill he
would inevitably violate his own principle
since the land fund was not kept separate, but
paid into the treasury-minged with the other
resources of the Government, applied to the cur
rent expenditures, and not to the exclusive pay
ment Of the public debt. 1t had been affirmed
that grant of land was grant of money; there
was this obvious difference: grant of lands
enhanced the value of the remainder, whilst
the grant Of money out of the treasury had no
such effect upon the money remaining in it.
A gentleman here innocently interposed an
inquiry, whether 50 1t was a fact that the
construction Of works Of internal improvement
did add TO the value Of the lands through
which they passed?' The advocates of the
bill stated instances in which an immense adj
vance in the value of lands had resulted from
the construction of improvements.
The discussion was carried on amid much con-
fusion, and was only attended to by those who
felt an interest in its result. We could barely
distinguish the points of argument and reply;
but we were struck with the immense advan-
tagc which those who have no constitutional
scruples, rs TO the power Of the Federal Gov
eminent, possess over those who deny that it
possesses any such power, in the application of
the direct and incidental advantages which
It's administration affords. The one party re-
CARDS the Union as common government,
to which 1t has contributed its support and
from which it may demand protection or assist
ance. The other looks upon any exercise Of
such a power with jealousy, or resents any
proposal 10 participate in these advantages as
an outrage upon its independence or an insult
70 its integrity.
That two such opposite systems of policy
should result in rendering the advocates of the
one more powerful than the other, could occa
sion us no surprise, nor could we avoid the re-
Elections that il would be much more for the adj
VI AhONN W iip bPpOot lubtiiidl plbNt-
ments or a system of domestic manufactures, if
they would abandon doctrines which deny
them a practical participation in many legti-
mate and substantial advantages Of the Union.
We have just compromised most exciting
question of sectional interest. The question.
as stated by the South, was. whether it should
participate in the common acquisition? The
question owed its importance to the relative in
lluence which it was to give 10 the one or the
other section Of the Union. The Southern
remedy was transfer of the persons and pro-
perry OF the Southern Atlantic States 10 the
Southern Pacific States. Would il not have
strengthened the Southern interests 10 have de
manded participation in the acquisitions of
public land! Would il not have been more ef-
iicicnt to build up these domestic manufactures
under the shadow Of n uniform system Of pro
lection!
Such a plan Of participation would, we
think, increase greatly the political power of
the South. system Of railroads, opening the
inaccessible public domain Of Alabama and
Mississippi, encouraging immigration into Ten
ncssee, Kentucky, and Virginia, and develop
ing the great interests of commerce, manufac-
lures, and agriculture, would create political
influence which no proviso could affect
In regard, however, TO the particular subject
Of the debate, we cannot sec why any opponent
Of the distribution of public lands should oppose
their appropriation 10 the benefit of the old
States. The principle Of that opposition was.
that the proceeds of those lands should be dis
tributed in the most equal manner, by applying
them to discharge the debt or defray the ex
pcnses Of the common government II these
lands had been reserved for that purpose, and
scupulously applied to it, the opponents Of APP
preparation would have obtained their object of
equal participation. But this has not been
done. nor will il be done in future The pub
lie lands have been applied TO the endowment
Of colleges and TO the construction Of roads.
The Bounty Land bill will make scrip as plenty
as the leaves Of the Forest graduation bills will
reduce the price; homes will be voted to the
houseless emigrant; every motive will be Of
fered to induce the citizens Of the old States to
carry their wealth and energies 10 the new.