Hannibal journal and western union. (Hannibal, Mo.) 1851-1852, 1852-01-29


Gus class Of cur citizens who are scattered ali
over the Union.
WHAT'S the extent Of the grant ask2 ann
able to answer this question from official docu-
ments. The whole amount Of public lands with \
in six miles OF each side Of the proposed route
Of the Hannibal and ST. Joseph railroad was. on
the llth day OF April, l847, 6d0, ,362 acres. A |
portion Of these lands has passed into private
hands since that time. Al Of them have been
subject 10 private entry for 1D1ny years4-rust
of them sixteen years and upyards--so tli;I.
they have been called over and over again, and
;reieote5 as worth less than one dollar and twen-
lty-hve cents per acre. The most that Missouri
can receive by the grant asks 800, 0,lSl acres
Ct refuse land. She would not probably receive !
more than 250,oo0 acres If the grant should pass
to-day. And in return for that, she not only
engages to construct a railroad which will en-
hance your public domain two or three times as
much as this grant will amount to- but to carry
your troops and munitions of war over the road
free of all chage forever, and to transport your
mails at such prices as you shall lssprescribe
| When Missouri came into the Union, the Fed
eral Government required her to promise not to
tax the public lands within her limits for the
term of FIVE years from and after the day of SALE
In consideration Of This promise, the United
States agreed to pay to the State Of Missouri
five per cent. Of the net proceeds of the sale Of
Lands lying within her limits, OF which three
ilfths was to be applied to purposes of internal
improvements By her Legislature; and @the
other two ffths in defraying, under the direction
of Congress, the expenses TO be incurred in the
making of a road or roads, canal OF canals,
leading to the said State" In order to discharge
a public debt, the United States have granted
some 30,000,000 or 40, 100000 acres Of land 10
those who have been in our military service in
a time Of war. A large amount of those lands
has been located there still. Those lands not
being disposed Of by this Government for money,
the State of Missouri receives nothing for ex-
empting them from taxation. The strict letteriof
the compact does not, perhaps, entitle her 10
anything. But surely fair and liberal spirit
on the part of the United States will give Mis-
souri some equivalent for not taxing the lands
within her limits which have been and will be
located by military warrants. Missouri sup
posed that she was TO receive = valuable consid-
era.ion for iie ai cement - t. .s,c
lands "for the term of five years from and after
the day of SALE" The United States so under
stood it. Now, suppose all the public domain
, in Missouri should be absorbed by land war
rants, what would she receive for not taxing the
lands Of this Government? Nothing, absolute
ly nothing. And would that be fair and bona
tde execution of her compact with the United
States on the part of the latter? On the con-
itrary, would not the United States be obnoxicus
TO the charge Of ''palterng in double sense?''
lof keeping ''the word of promise to our ear and
, breaking it to our hope?''
Missouri does not ask that the land given to
soldiers should be treated absolutely as land sold
/ for cash. All she asks is, that inasmuch as the
policy of granting bounty land is for the benefit
of citizens Of every State, each State shall bear
, its proportion of whatever expense and burden
that policy costs. Missouri is willing to give
} up part of her three per cent, but she does
| mot think she should be required TO reiinqlisil
$ all. And it appears to me that this Govern
: ment cannot discharge the equitable demands of
Missouri on better terms to the nation than By
/ making the grant am urging.
When Missouri makes road through the
Q land of her citizens, the landed propretors
benefited by the work are compelledto pay their
( share towards its construction, in the form OF
; taxes. As the value Of their land is increased
c their taxes are increased also. Now, this Co
/ vernment is a great landed proprietor, and owns
t large domains in the State of Missouri. Is il
/ right, is il just, is it fair, under these eircu.
: stances, that while private individuals are com
$ PEELED to pay for improvements which adj to the
value of their estates, the Federal Government
( should receive precisely the same benefits an,
It the old States revolye this matter in their minds
e and l am sure they will dismiss some of the op
: position which they manifest towards donations
II of lands 10 the new States
e 1t should be borne in mind that all the ney
States receive FIVE per cent. of the net proceed
e of the sales of the public lands within their linn
&c its, for the purposes of internal improvements
: except Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio
e They receive but three per cent. Cor that objec
1t the other two per cent. being retained in til
t. Treasury for constructing, under the direction
1t Congress, road or roads, canal OF canals leaC
4, ing towards the limits Of the enumerated State
l. 1t should also be remembered, that this porto
of the public lands is not given to the new State
IN as gratuity. 1t is given in return for the noi
taxation of the public domain for term of tiN
g years from and after the day of sale.n This al
n rangement has never been favOTite with Ii
It. new States. Ii originated with Congress, ar
Mt was forced upon the Western States as cond
c. ton to their admission into the Union. Fro
re the statement Just made, Il will be perceived tn
a Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, stand {
96 precisely the same grounds, so far as their con
st, paeis with the United States are concerns
RS But how different, how widely different, is Il
en- treatment which Congress has meted out 20 ther
lac In Ohio $i2, Sl2,034 u have been expended (
is. the Cumberland road. In Indiana 81 l2S, p
he 80 have been spent on the same work. In Nh
ms lsouri not one single cent has been expended
m. his Government on any ike enterprise, q
III sides this, ohle has received upwarlS Of eley
all hundred thousand acres Of public land for /
purpose Of insernal improvements. Indiana
he lrecsi9ea upwards Of three millions OF acres 4
be canals and railroads.. Missouri hasreeeiyedr
~. thing. Why this difference in the policy
10 Congress towards these -four S,AtosS Is .
'sn Missouri faithful In the discharge Of her duli
10 a, the IJnionp i, a she NOT ttnrioht IN her Z