Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1853-06-18

who were sent there to watch and guard the inter
ests of their constituency! 1t could not receive
respectable vote and even fit should pass, General
Pierce by resolution of the late Baltimore Con-
vention is pledged to veto it. Then this is not
practical question and should have weight in
the election lit was brought forward to make cap
ita and unless have over estimated the lntelll-
gence of our people, will signally fail.
Charlotte Democrat.
THE PUBLIC LANDS-BENNETTS BILL.
Below we publish, from the Goldsborough Re
publican and Patriot, an able article on the sub
iect of the Public Lands. We bes peak for it a
careful perus.l:
The public land question presents itself in two
shapes-the distribution of the proceeds OF their
sales or the distribution of the lands themselves.
The first formed a part of Mr.. Ciay's American
system, and in that connection was designed to
create a necessity for increased taXes,-in other
| words for additional duties imports. The es-
tabshment of Tariff based on revenue principles,
and the aban donment of the protective system, set
tied for time the question of distribution also,
but it has recently been raised from the dead, and
clothed with new habments.
The power of Congress over the public lands
is found in the following clause of the Constitu
ton:
Congress shall have power to dispose of, and
make all needful rules and regulations respecting
United States.'
The public lands now amount to about AGO.,
900, 900 acres, and are held by the General Gov
ernment in trust for the benefit of all the States.
The Democratic party has always denied both the
constitutonalty and expediency of either partial
general system of dstr buting the lands, or the
proceeds of their sales it holds that the benefits
rising therefrom would be most equally distributed
by applying them to the payment of the debts and
expenses of the Government. Should a surplus be
collected in the Treasury apply them to a reduc-
ton of taxation and in this way the benefits would
1e equally and fairly distributed to all. This we
regard as the only safe policy for the Government
to pursue.
In executing the trust coL6ded to it by the
States, Congress has made appropriations to the
new States and Territories, of every sixteenth sec
ton for purposes ofeducation, ofswamp lands unfit
for cultivation and entirely worthless until i'm
proved, and also occasionally for works of improve
ment as railroads and canals. In making the last
named appropriations, the rule has been laid down,
and generally adhered to, to donate land only
within six miles of the work of improvement in
alternate sections the price of the reserved sections
being fixed at twice the minimum value of other
Government lands. Even such strict construction
lists as Mr. Calhoun admitted the power of Congress
to make such-douations of land, which really cost
the General Government not a cent.
| The fact that Congress has donated to the Yves
tern States considerable quantities of land, is
made the preext for the revival of the defunct dis
trbution question, but under new shape-that
of distributing the lands themselves. 1t is aledged
that the land are being squandered on the new
States, and the old States urged to strike for
their share, and to demand of Congress donations
for their benefit The advocates of this scheme say
that the revenues are amply sufficient to support
the Government without the proceeds of the pub
lie lands, that the old States in debt and that
| T. l. ! -. L Al.
should demaad it. This project is advocated by the
Wing party and is embodied in Benefits land bill.
The allegation that Congress is squandering the
lands upon the new States is destitute of founda-
ton. To the appropriation made for educational
purposes, we have never heard any objection they
! facilitate the settlement of the States, and
therel create demand for the Government lands;
the swamp lands are worthless to the Government;
and up to the the 30th of June, 1851, not quite
nine millions of acres had been appropriated for
Internal improvement purposes-a mere drop OF
the immense domain belonging to the United
States. Thirty-one schemes asking for donations
ofland were presented to the last Congress, of
which only two became laws: The lands are not
squandcrcd in making small grants for internal i'm
provement purposes, but they would have been if
such schemes asBennetts land bill and the Homes
tead bill had received the sanction of Congress
the first of which forms the one principle upon which
the Wing party stakes its existence.
We can see little or no difference in principle
between the distribution of the proceeds and the
distribution of the lands themselves. The former
divides the money of the United States, the latter
the property-the effect, ole and the same thing.
Objections to one are good against the other. If
there is any difference it is in favor Of the old dis
tribution scheme. The States would then receive
the money after the lands had been sold by the
General Government; something would be real
lied in the other case the lands would be given
directly to the States and squandered by them
sold to spectators and landsharks for absolutely
nothing, as We will show directly.
Justice to the old States is the plea of the land
beggers, and they hold up Benefits bill as meas
ure to accomplish this end. 1t provides that GER
tain quantities of land be given to the land or new
States for railroad purposes, and 10000 acres for
each member Of Congress, and United States SEN
ator to the other States, Texas excepted for edu-
cational purposes is as shown in the following ia
bles:
Land States. Acres.
Iowa, 100000
Michigan. 100000
Wisconsin, 100000
Missouri 100000
! Q O00 0OO