The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1852-03-17
THE REGISTER.
MARCH II. 1852.
The Public Lands.

II We arc rightly informed, there are now
before Congress thiriy-one different appli-
cation, for grants Of public land TO mid in
the construction Of Railroads in the Western
aud Southern States. AT the last session, VIC
see il stated, there were more than eighty
similar applications some OF which (how
many we are not now able TO say were
granted. No measure, during the present
session, has been the occasion OF more speech>
90. or-we think il cafe to say-has cons
sumed more tine, in the Senate, than the
bill making such grant to the State OF To-
wa. Az this debate has brought up the
fundamental question Of the justice and ex.
pcdien.y Of Ill such donations of the pub
lie lands OF the United States, We may hope
that, before it terminates, the country nj
large will become duly enlightened on the
merits Of the casc and that members OF the
two Houses, in particular will be able 10 act
deliberately and ad,isedly, in this impor-
fant matter.
This construction o, Railroads BY private
enterprise has, in nine cascs out of tcn,prov-
ed a losing businc~-in many instances
almost an entire loss-,o those contributing
capital. Tney are, too, works of which the
benefit is pre>cmincntly public and general.
There is scarcely an individual in this State,
for example, who has rot derived advan-
iase, in oae way or another. from the Rails
roads, which only a f,c citizens have aided
to construct. We have sometimes wished
that all ouch works, OF manifest public utility,
could be constructed by the State, out of
the common treasury. The State Of New
York acted on this plan, in the case of The E.
rie Canal. So far as n State has public reve-
nues, we think il perfectly just and proper
III at portion Of them should be nppropria-
ted for such uses.
The propriety. however, OF giving away
lands that were acquired by the old Stutcs,-
and which would seem 10 belong 10 them
for the benefit OF iome one. or more. oil the
new States, is no, to US so evident. No plea
tina, has ye, been offered satisfies us of The
justice Of such measure. An equal dis
uibution among all the States, would have
more equitable look, yet tho justice Of even
such distribution is open 10 question. Why
then should lands, in which Vermont had an
equal share with only thirteen or fourteen
other States, be given outright to the new
State Of Iowa, while Verm 'ut receives moth.
ing? This is a plain case which no faa.
eies Az to exemption from taxation, or as 10
the benefi; 10 all the stntes Of road in
particular one (Which, to rery limited ex.
tent, is true), can possibly meet or evade.
But how stands the case with those ar.
dent Democrats with whom the distribution
Of the proceeds Of the public lands, equally
among the States 10 which they actually be.
longed, was so great crime? By what
transformation have they suddenly become
'tnunch suppofters-somc of ihcm-of
measure that contemplates an unequal dis
tribuion among the new states, which never
had Just claim to any portion of them D.?
CerIainly, for some time past. "a change has
Wv" Soh"S w. 40 result OF winch, The
great Democratic party is in danger Of To-
sing its identity.
What becomes Of the public land, i,, we
admit, of far less consequence. since our do
main was morigaged to support the Mexican
war. We shall not be very cumorous for
distribution" so long as the nation is
deeply in debt. Yet, ia division Of the
public lands must Re made, we want Yer,
mont should have her sliare--if moi equally
with the Old States alone, with whom she
was once joint proprie'or-ai least US e
qulisble portion as her sisters at The South
and West. From present appearances she
seems likely 10 get nothing.