The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-01-25

stant NOW, slr, II the principle is rght-f the line OF
lne foau conforms TO lhe wants and interests OF The gov
eminent and The connyf the government is 10 derive
more advantage than injury by aiding n its eons,re.
tonthe TACT that The State is also TO be greatly bene
nsea = no afgumen against The passage OF the bill But
US nave already remarked, will Judge of The hills
lor other States when those bills up for cons,dera
ION, SO lar as have examined them, think the Com
ni'lee on Public Lands have exercised wise discretion
ln preparing and reporting them have not examined
them all but so lar as have been able to the
subject they have exercised sound discretion both with
regard TO the lines themselves and the benefit to be de-
nyed by the government Of the United States.
But the whole difficulty in the way OF these bills this
While we have not the slightest trouble in demonstrating
that the government OF the United States is TO be the
gamer by these grants still il is said that the States also
are TO be gamers. Gentlemen do not seem to be able TO
comprehend how i is that two parties make con-
tract by which both parties will be benefited Why sir
s only upon that principle that the world is benefited
by the exchange OF different productions. The whole
system OF exchanges and OF commerce predcaed upon
he principle that the exchange is beneficial both par
ucs III one party must necessarily be cheated while the
other is benefited, il would do away with all trade and
commerce at once 1t true that while these grants are
beneficial to the United States by enhancing the public
domain and bringing larger amount oil money into the
treasury, they do al the same time immensely bene-
fit the States 10 which they are made Ia II any
objection that while the general government pro-
notes its interest, thereby confers peculiar benefits
upon the new States. We do receive advantages, PEI
cuar advantages, which the balance of the Union
DO noi participate IN TO the same extent But is that
valid ground of obectionl The objection would
apply TO the millions expended at Norfolk and Old Point
Comfort TO all large public works, 10 the navy yards
and forthcaons throughout the country, wherever the
pubic money is expended for public These for
hcalons and navy yards constructed for the public
beneht Yet the immediate localities OF these works
and expenditures derive peculiar benefit which is not
common 10 the other portions of the country Is it any
argument against the establishment OF navy yard that
II conters local benefit in addition the public interests
which were the objects of lis establishments The same
argument may be urged against all cumtomhouses and
public buildings which have been erected for national
purposes different q The anda avpn
against the location of the capital of the Union here
Would It be sound argument for the remote and border
States 10 say that because the national capital located
upon the banks of the Potomac where millions of money
are annually spent and squandered and because the peo
pie all around are receiving peculiar advantages which
40 not extend to the Pacific to the valley of the
Mississippi nor TO the great lakes the ST Lawrence
therefore the capital must be removed for no other reason
than that It's location necessarily confers local and pecu
llar advantages upon few its immediate vicinity
which cannot be participated by all portions OF the
Union Or will you pull down your public buildings
and destroy all the public works which have been erected
Tor great national uses upon the same eyelng principle
1t is impossible 10 construct public works for purely
national objects without producing local benefits.
so II is with those grants of land in behalf OF railroads
The national pecuniary benefit results from the speedy
sale OF these lands al price which could not otherwise
be obtained The States receiving the grants not only
participate equally in this national advantage with their
sister Siaes but IN addition derive peculiar and special
benefit as consideration Tor making the roads which
produce all the advantages both national and local Il
is on this principle that the friends of this policy justify
and defend IT,. We are firmly convinced that IL there
were no local benefits resulting from the passage Of these
blis II their merits depended solely upon the fact that
they enhanced the value of the public domain and in
creased the revenues, we would have difficulty in de-
tending them.
now Tor the reason that my State has longer any Pc
cuila or special interest in this system Illinois has
been well served she asks no III you make any
more grants 10 Illinois tor railroads, you will do il on the
application OF delegations em other Sates for the pur-
pose OF connecting the great lines of roads the east
and the Of u.s. and not as special favor TO iii
he asad
advocacy OF this bill No delegation can be more unbias.
ed by local and selfish interests We have seen the
practical workings OF the SYSTEM and desire 10 see ex
tended TO other States because approve OF its appca
ton TO our own. We wish repay the federal govern
meni the service which she has rendered u.s. as well as
herself by extending the system to Iowa. Missouri Ar
kansas and every other State where The same PRINCIPLES
and reasons will apply. 01 =
!, Mr. DAWSON I would ask the senator question.
How much has Illinois been provided for2 How many
acres OF The public lands has she receivedl
Mr. DOUGLAS. The grant last year, according to my
recollection although the precise amount has been
ascerained because the lands not definitely located.
amounted 10 about two and half millions OF acres in
round numbers That is the whole grant. will remark
therefore, that Illinois has been benefited 10 that extent
The from Georgia wishes il TO be unders,ood thai
because we have got two and halt millions of OF
the public lands and thus have been benefited therefore
The government has been cheated 10 that extent have
shown the argument 10 be unsound. We admit that we
have been benefited, but that does prove that the
government has been cheated. We prove that the gov
ernment has been benefited by the same operation. 1
would like TO see him that position instead OF re-
peating the objection that party have been the
loser, merely because the other was the gamer.
In regard 10 this policy would say that do not wish
to carry II TO any eXtfavagant extent only wish 10
apply II where we can show that IT fairly within
the principle which have so often stated But gentle
men say we must have general system and the sena
tor from Georgia Mr. DAwsosl system TO reach
his State II he complains OF this being partial. and
wants that will apply TO Georgia. will make him a
proposition. We will extend the same principle precisely
hac uerba OF this bill Georgia. and enact ha, all the
lands belonging 10 the government of the United States
within fifteen miles Of all the lines OF the Georgia rail-
road are hereby granted to the Stale OF Georgia.
Mr.. DAWSON II the senator WILL then, allow me TO
introduce bill like the he did yesterday, that where
there lands belonging the United States
railroads may go all the public lands and locate,
will accept the proposition
MIR. DOUGLAS. | win adhere to my proposition, and
give him the benefit OF the bill TO which he refers The
blu which passed yesterday granted lands the State
Of Illinois in lieu oil those which sou had taken from the
State after having previously granted them in aid of the
construction Of canal which have completed af a
cost of nine millions OF dollars. Whenever Won will
which they granted 10 the State and afterwards took nos
session OF and sold part OF them for the benefit OF the
United States, we will pass OF Congress 10 make
up the deficiency from lands elsewhere, according TO the
bill OF Yesterday
Mr DAWSON. Very well.
Mr. DOUGLAS, Therefore think the senator from
Georgia and myself will come to an amcable adjust
ment OF the question. The fact is, the senator from
Georgia and gentlemen from other States where there
no public lands forget that they bad proprietary
right 10 The use OF every of the lands within the limits
OF their respective States. We do not complain of that
II was their legal right, and we were willing that they
~