The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-06-02
Tn. South and tn. Public Domain.

at Westchester.
The South and tho Public Domain.
We are somewhat perplexed in ascertaining
the correct Southern view" in regard to the
disposition of the public lands. 1t is difficult to
| ascertain the ultin,atum of the Nashville Con
ventionists on this subject. The Southern Press
declares that ''the South''--by which we are
to understand perhaps South Carolina and MIR.
RHETT-wll look upon the donation or sur
render Of her share Of the public lands as
'sioorse than the robbery of California" This
journal was the organ Of the Nashville Con-
vention. The Union on the other hand, on
behalf Of "the South" republishes without
commenta letter of Chancellor NICHOLSON in ia
vor of the proposition lately introduced into Con-
gress by Mr.. ANDREW JOHNSON, of Tennessee,
for giving to the heads of families, citizens of
the United States, one hundred and sixty acres
Of the public lands, on condition that they will
occupy and cultivate them for series of years
of the Nashville Convention. Here lies our
difficulty. We cannot tell whether the mem
bership or the organship gives the better title
to the gentlemen who claim under these sources
of authority. We do not know which of the
claimants is to be considered the correct expo
nent Of what they respectively consider the
opinion and will of "the South" in this behalf
The objections urged by the Southern Press
to the donation of the public lands to the actual
settler are briefly these, and they are, to say
the least, sufficiently plausible. They are,
that the policy in question is calculated to in
yite and concentrate European immigration to
the North, and to seduce portion of the south
ern population to the North. This the Press
describes as an outrage which 'sthe South" will
| not tolerate" Fair as these objections appear,
and forcibly as they are urged, we submit that
the Press is guilty of injustice when it alleges
that the scheme Is one Of the Northern Wings
and DEMOCRATS Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee,
comes within neither of these categories; and it
is well known that Mr.. JOHNSON is one of the
earliest and warmest advocates of the policy in
question.
But what says Chancellor NICHOLSON, in the
letter that is republished by the Union, without
a word of dissent Does he object to the poll
~ IVA itS tChuohSJ w uIdW GAuiOpcdu
grafton or southern immigration to the North?
Does he treat it as an ntolerabe outrage upon
the South, as something worse than the robbie
ry of California; Not at all. Chancellor
NICHOLSON thinks it very proper and sensible
scheme. He became convinced by Mr.. JOHN
SONS arguments ten years ago not only that
"the public land should cease to be looked
to as source of revenue, but that every
citizen who would settle permanently upon
them should be entitled to own a reasona-
BILE quantity" The Chancellor thinks that
this subject cannot be too earnestly urged
upon the attention of Congress, and COM
mends it to the keeping of Mr.. JOHNSON as
man who has long had his '.heart fixed"
upon the measure, and as one who is much bet
ter qualified ''to present the question in all its
bearings" than the writer of the letter. In
view of the Tennessee origin of the scheme,
and the publication of the argument of Chan
cellor NICHOLSON in its favor without any
remarks Of dissent, we are led inevitably to the
conclusion that the Union agrees also in the
policy, and regards the proposed measure as
one Of Southern origin or adoption, and not
as the Northern inventien.of a new aggression
and outrage.
From the emphatic and solemn manner in
which the Press gave warning to Presidential
aspirants of the light in which the proposed
measure would be viewed by ''the South" we
thought there was some prospect of bringing up
''the South" to the views Of Mr.. CLAY with re-
gard to the preservation of the public domain,
or the employment Of its proceeds for :" the
common benefit of the United States" We
thought that as the DEMocRATIc party had
gone over TO MIR. CLAY on the question of
river and harbor improvements, there was
some hope that even the Nashville Convention
lists might be coming partly over to Mr.. CLAY
In regard TO his public land policy Ii
would certainly have been a most marked
testimony to the practical and prudent character
OF MIR. CLAWS doctrines, could we have de-
monstrated that " the South" for which the
Press speaks, had abandoned Mr.. CALHoUr's
plan of ceding these lands TO the States in which
they lie, and all other plans Of general surrender
and abandonment, TO any settlers prepared or
disposed to occupy them. But it appears that
~" au'"o"y vi the iTess W speak lot the
South is discountenanced by the renewed ex-
pressions Of Mr.. JOHNSON, and of Chancellor
NICHOLSON, in favor Of the very policy which
the Press denounces as the worst possible of
aggressions." Their view of the question.
moreover, is sustained by the conserving if not
approving silence of the DEMOCRATIC organ
here, when it republishes the Chancellor's
letter. Hence, we repeat, we are in a serious