Weekly North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1858, 1853-08-03
NUMBER ess.
THE PUBLIC LANDS.

: al'4 447
asa@ =. THE PUBLIC LANDS.
Mr.. venable, we hear, labors in his speeches to
produce the impression that Judge Douglas is in IA
Of division Of the public lands The following
from the Wilmington Journal VIII put the matter at
rest Judge Douglas, it win be seen by the extract
from his speech of 22d January, 1852 is decidedly
opposed to distribution of the public hands, "eiter
by partial or general system" The Journal says
"BE Nor DECEIVED. That the question of dis
tribution Of the public lands of their proceeds
has been mooted point between the two great par
ties of the country, we are ready to admit and even
60 farther, and also to admit that the distribution
policy has numbered among its advocates some of
the ablest and most distinguished men which the
country has produced-ef the Wing party. But
spite of all the attempts that have been made by the
newly awakened champions of distribution among
those who formerly acted with Democratic party it
is fat impossbility to show any respectable Demo
cratic authority in favor of distribution. We
the word respectable purely In party sense as imply
ing distinguished ability, extensive recognized
party influence 1t is a fiat impossibility from the
fact that such authorities exist in its favor@hey
are all the other way, and all those which have been
quoted in its favor have direct tendency to make
against it when fairly and fully given Let Us take,
for instance Mr. Douglas who is quoted as express
ing himself in favor of distribution because he ex-
pressed himself in favor Of grant of land for the
construction of canal round the Falls of Ssult St
Marie, claimed as necessary in military point of
view for the defence of the country, and tending
to enhance the remaining property of the United
States to more than the value of the lands given.
The position of Mr. Douglas is fully given in all its
bearings in the following rather lengthy extract from
his speech on the Iowa Land Bill, delivered In the
Senate of the United States, on the 22d January,
1S52.-Cong. Globe, p. 800:
with regard to the bill granting lands to the
State of Illinois at the last session. have also word
to say. That bill involved the same principle as the
one now under consideration. Hence it was perfect
ly fair to refer to that bill in illustration of this But
| deny that what has been said in regard to dona-
TONS special favors and partial distribution of the
lands to the new States has the slightest foundation
in the bill before us the act of the last session,
granting lands to Illinois. Sir it is not question
of the distribution of the public lands among the
States; it is not question of donation " 1t mere
either, should be opposed to It, am opposed to the
distribution of the public lands either By partial
| system general system am opposed to aiding
State by giUing lands as donation. The friends
of this bill do not rest it upon any such grounds
We ask the opponents of the bill to meet us In argu-
| ment upon the grounds which we assume, to answer
arguments in favor of it. and not to answer mag
| nary objections of their own The ground upon
which we place it is this: The Government of the
United States is a great land owner, she has vast
bodies of land which she has had in market for thr
ty or forty years and experience proves that she
cannot sell them. Shall she keep them thirty or for
ty years longer and then not be able to sell thems
| What advantage will they be to the Government
while they are thus heds The difficulty In the way
of the sale does not arise from the fact that the lands
are not fertile and susceptible of cultivation, but that
they distant from market and in many cases des
ttute of timber No matter how fertile and produc-
tive they may be- still they yaueless, unless the
produce will bear the expense OF the transportation
| to market. 1t is account of the distance from
| market and absence of timber you cannot sell the
lands, and cannot have them brought under cutiva-
| ton. i .'l=-s q So - 85sSs<<
The question, then, is, "What are you to do to
remedy the evil and enable you to sell your lands and
get the money for them into the Treasury and also
to bring the country into state of civilization" :"
| Let me ask each Senator what he would do If the
case were his owni What would you do If you we're
! the landowners yourselves? Suppose you owned
three hundred miles square of land which you could
not SELL and that you found as is often the that
the more land you owned, the poorer you were in
consequence of the payment of taxes these lands
and suppose that would say to you, Give me al
ternate sections of six miles through those lands
condition that will make a railroad through them,
and enable you to sell the remaining lands for double
the price which experience had proven you could not
get for the whole;" would you not gladly adopt the
proposition, as being good arrangement for your
personal interestss Would not the half of the lands
thus remaining to you be worth more after the road
was made than the whole would be before it was
structed? That is the simple question; and viewing
| it as SUCH am satisfied that there is not single
Senator on this floor who would not gladly make the
arrangement if he were the individual landowner.
| And II this would be good arrangement Tor any
Senator here, why would it not be good policy for
the country, and for the government of the United
States, to adopt as land-owners2 Mr.. President we
insist that these grants aid of the construction of
railroads, enhance the value of the land fund In
stead of diminishing the revenue that viii be deriv
able from the public lands contend that it will
increase it; instead of diminishing your fund by this
course we increase its value instead of deprivng
you of anything which is really valuable to you, we
show you a way whereby you can make that yalua-
ble which under your present policy is entirely val
ucless This is the ground on which we defend this
policy; and if it is not defendable on this ground,
there can be no justification of the grant" -
This is precisely the same policy with that sane
toned by Gen. Cass Mr. Calhoun and others. Itis
the only policy under which lands have been grant
ed and, set forth by Mr.. Douglas, is in perfect
accordance with Democratic principles, although OBJ
jectonable, think in practice from the avenues
which it opens for abuse just look at the extract
and you will notice that Mr. Douglas expressly an
positively expresses his disapproval Of and oppos
ton either to the general or partial disbution- Dc
not be deceived; no respectable party ahthprty car
be brought forward for this distribution bobby. a
+ few men may have changed. The party has moi
moved the tenth part Of an inch" -
> COLONEL WHEELER The Washington correspon
, dent of the New York Courier and Enquirer say
Colonel John H. Wheeler Of North Carolina, ha
been appointed charge to Sardinia, the place whicl
R X. Meade, of Virginia, declined. We trust thi
may prove true Colonel Wheeler is consistent an,
working democrat and deserves this mark of conf