The daily union., 1852-03-17

grounds 10 favor OF this bll-that feel unwilling al this
hour, and while the Senate actually waits to vote on the
question, TO occupy time by further dwelling upon H.
| return to it.
sion cannot fobear 10 ask your attention the amend
men OF the senator from Kentucky, Mr. UNDERwooD.l
This amendment when addressed 10 the senators o.
The favored States, Is OF most plausible character. II
proposes TO give to the original thirteen States, together
with Vermont, Maine, Tennessee, and Kentucky, for
purposes oi education and internal Improvement, por-
tons OF the pnplc domain al the rate OF each
inhabant, according 10 The recent census. This is
mended by the declared objeet-educaion and internal
Improvement Still further, IN ills discrimination OF the
The old States, assumes guse we'll calculated TO tempt
them TO It's support IL holds the attraction OF seeming
! though unsubsianal, setnieres 1t oilers a lure, a
bait TO be unjust. | object 10 II on several grounds:
! l. But put il 10 the fore front, my iIst objection,
It's clear indubtabe. and radical injustice, written on
its very lace The amendment confines lis donations 10
the old States and so doing makes Inc lulable dis
discrimination in their favor Ii taci,ly assumes that
by the bill in question, IN other way, the and
States have received their proper dsrbuve portion, 80
a. to lose all title TO share with the old States in the pro
posed distribution But II there be any force in the
gument, much considered in this debate that these
railroad grants actually enhance The neighborng lands OF
the United States, and constitute proper mode OF bring
ing them into the Market or il there he any force in the
other arument which have presented. drawn from the
equitable claims OF the land States, comparison with
the other States the bounty of the great unared pro.
prieor, then this assumption is unfounded- There is no
basis for the discrimination made by the amendment II
the Iowa land bill be proper TO be passed. without this
amendment, as submit il is then the amendment intro
dncing new discrimination, IS improper 10 be added 10
i. Nor do well see how any one prepared to sustain
the original bill sustain this amendment The sena-
tor from Kentucky who leads to expect his for
the bill, to confess the injustice of his attempted
addition.
q object to il as ont OF place The amendment pro.
poses 10 ingIaft upon special railroad grant TO single
State novel system of distribution of the national domain
Now, there place and time for all things and moth
| ing TO me more important in legislation than to
keep all things in their proper place. and treat them
al their proper time. The distribution of The public lands
70 ,E anI
question whenever arises legiiimatey for conside-
ration; but object 10 considering il merely rider to
the Iowa land bill.
The amendment would be less Objectionable If pro-
posed as rider to general system of railroad grants
as tor instance to bill embracing grants TO all the land
States but Is specially Objectionable as graft upon
single bill The senator who introduced doubtless
sumed that other bills already introduced, would pass
but, his amendment be founded This assumption.
should await the action oil Congress all hes. bulls.
II adopted, the amendment would endanger. if did
not occasion the defea, Of the Iowa land bill This
certain Having this measure at heart, believing il
founded in essential justice, am unwilling TO place in
this jeopardy
/ l. II prepares The way for States of this Uoon TO be-
come andhoders in other States subject Of the
Legislation OF those Slaes-an expedient which, though
not strictly Objectionable grounds OF law, under the
constitution is not agreeable 10 national policy 1t
should not be promoted vii without strong and special
ator from illinois, Mr. SHIELDs bestowing lands for
The benefit of the insane in different Stales this objection
has been partially obvaied BY providing that the States
portion in the Territories OF the United States and not in
other States But, since in short time these very Terri
tories may become States, this objection is rather ad-
journed Than entirely removed
S. But the lands held under this amendment, though in
the hands OF States, will be liable TO taxation, the
lands of other resident propretos, and this
count will be comparatively vaueess For this reason
said that the amendment held out the attraction of
ing. though unsubstanal, self interest That the lands
will be liable 10 taxation be doubted The amend
ment does no, propose in any way relieve them from
this burden nor am aware that they be relieved
,tfpt ,h.,h
long the United States Now there believe
that, from lack of agencies and other familiar
the United States, the lands distributed by this amend
meni would find prompt market those still in
The hands OF the Great Landloder But howsoever this
may be, is entirely clear from the recorded experience
oi the national domain, that these lands il sold
minimum price of the public lands and only as rapidly
those OF the United States, and If meanwhile they
subject TO the same burdens the lands OF other
residents WILL before the sales are closed, be eaten up
by the The taxes will amount 10 than the
entire receipts from the sales oi the lands and thus the
grant. while unjust 10 the land States, will be worthless
10 the old Saies the pretended benehcares In the Ro.
man law an insolvent inheritance was known by ex.
pressve phrase, damnosa hered,tas A grant under
this amendm, nj would be dtmnosa donatio.
i For these good and sufficient reasons, opposed
TO this amendment
MIR BELL | wish to test the sense OF the Senate by
an amendment TO the amendment Of The senator from
Kentucky, Mr. USDERwooDl in The shape of the follow
ing pIUiso 10 the first section OF his amendment:
"Propidsd That the lands be selected for the States,
under the provisions Of this secton shall be located
wih. the limits any s,se, but shall bc selected whn
the Territories already oganzed be hereafter organ
lied, east Of the Rocky Mountans'
| do not to occupy the attention OF the Senate
long have listened TO the of those honora.
be senators who have opposed this amendments and ii
seems TO that there IS great pausby in the objec-
ton which has been made regard 10 these lands being
selected and held by State within another | say
plausible for really when you to look at in a
legal and constitutional point OF vew there is but little
difference whether the land is held by States ndivdu-
ais who residents Our States not foreign to
each Other, and though this government is not consol.
dated gt vernmen, still In many respects II is like great
State the citizens OF each single Safe have equal priv
eges with the citizens OF the other States, there being
no prohibition OF intercourse and trade between The
States. Nevertheless II rs objection which can be
prevented, because II can be misunderstood and
greater amount OF prejudice be raised against such
proposition upon that ground than any other upon the
audboIders within the sovereign jurisdiction OF other
States That is the reason offer this amendment; and
without say ing anything nore will permit the question
10 be taken upon my amendment
Tue question being then taken upon the amendment 10
the amendment, IL was agreed to-
MIR. RHETT called for the reading OF the amendment
Of Mr. UNDERWOOD as amended aud il accordng y
read
Mr.. II then proceeded to say | am not going 10
debate this question; but as am the only senator
from the Stale which represeni-bat is the only one
now preseni-I will olIer very few remarks show
why cannot support either The bill or the amendment
cannot support the amendment because II is distinct
assertion upon the part OF this government that we can
appropriate the public lands-9aa money-for the pur.
pose OF internal improvements in the different States
think this is contrary what the tuition requires
contrary to the whole that have pursued since
have been in public life, And the same objection