Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1853-11-09

all Time declared that Congress should have power
ito dispose of and make all needful rules and regu-
ations respecting the to distribute their
proceeds, divide the lands themselves among the
States, for if the lands divided among the States
IF final distribution made of them in this
way, then that portion of the clause which author-
needful rules and regulations would be mean
ingless and of none efectl Is not this SO? And if
| not, viii Mr. Venable enlghten us to the contrary ?
But it will be argued to edispose Of" signifies
among other things to gire; and it is claimed that
Congress ought give the lands to the States But
this argument be it remembered, is urged by those
who contend that the lands already belong to the
States; and how the States receive as a gift
what they, according to this argument ow hold as
a right? But is it not better, it is further argued
to divide them among all the States than to have
them squandered on a few new States? It is better
according to our humble Judgment to do neither
Wings certainly have right to complain of this
so-caied system of squanderng for their President
Mr.. Fillmore signed bills which are supposed to have
been highly favorable to new and unjust to the old
States; and Democrats cannot be seriously damaged
we apprehend, in the number of acres of land they
hope to receive when the plumber begins, by repos-
ing little generous confidence in Gen. Pierce He
is himself the of an old State and the friend of
all and he just in his purposes and true to the
platform on which he elected, he viii see to it.
by the of the veto if necessary that the lands
are disposed of" the Constitution intended they
should be- for the advantage and benefit of ALL But
say the friends of land distribution, admit it is
unconstitutional to divide the proceeds yet the lands
may be divided, and why not? The States are in
debt it is further argued and portion of the lands
would not only free them of debt, but enable them
to go forward with internal improvements and Com
IN han A. a.
tutonal question involved in proposition to divide
the lands, and look at the proposition as one of ex
pediency: The ]ands in the first place. are in debt
to the general government forty OF fifty mil
lions of dollars will it not be the duty of the States
to free the lands of this debt to the common govern
ment before taking them in charge as separate own
ers? In the second place. the lands, in the hands
of one agent, yield only about two millions per an
mum would they yield one-half, or one-fourth as
much if under the control of the separate States
with thirtyone offices and thirty-one agents where
we now have one? Again, what is to prevent the |
price from falling from dollar and quarter to
ten or twenty cents per acre, if each State with its
millions of acres should enter the market? And T
who, in this event, would become the purchasers? I
Capitalists, who would buy for trife to sell again
at an advance-foreigners, who would import thou
sands of tenants, who would rapidly form free States
to oppose and circumscribe slavery and hardy sons
of the old States, who would flock to the lands
to be purchased for shilling acre. and thus drain
US of our best and most useful population. You'd
North Carolina gain by such policy as this? And
how much would she elevate herself in the scale of
Intelligence and wealth, by internal improvements or
BY Common Schools based upon the pittance OBJ
aimed from these lands if at the same time she held
Up to her citizens perpetual invitation to abandon
nd
ands to be had almost for the asking? But say the
and distrbutonists would take the land warrants
md hold them up for ten twenty years, and in
hat time we should be sure of good price for our
hare. Would not other States do the same? But
not, what would be gained by it? Why, a loss
# the lands, and consequent fraud upon the pur-
haser of the warrant. In ten years every warrant
would be practically superseded by squatter, the
ands would be taxed to their full value OF beyond
" the State within whose limits they might lie; and
vhat remedy would the State have in either case
the general government cannot keep intruders off
he public lands, can single State do it? AS Mr..
calhoun said in his speech in 1871 the prospec-
i've presumption bill, &C if you drive them away and =
estroy their improvements, soon the force is
7ithdrawn they will return to theirSposscssion.
ad some experience, while Secretary of War; of the
ificulty of expelling and keeping off ntruders and
ludG GLe message WHICH Drought
the withdrawal of the force Immediately fol-
owed by that which brought information that the q
ltruders had returned" Again, the public lands
ave been vested in the general government by the
Constitution, and Congress, it is provided, shall have
over to dispose of" and regulate them as well
other property of the United States; and such
eng the case what would division of them among
lie separate States amount to- but declaration be-
re all the world that the general government had
lied in one of the great purposes of its creation
lat of holding and managing, as its organic law in
nded it should do, the common property of the t
tates united? "When look Mr.. President. said Y
r. Calhoun, in his speech in 1841 on Mr.. Critten-
ems amendment to the presumption bill, ito what
duced the States and especially Virginia land he
light have added North Carolina, to make this c
agnifcent cession to the Union, and the high and
atriotic motives urged by the old Congress to in
nee them to do it and turn to what is now propos-
l. am struck with the contrast, and the great e
ton to which human affairs subject. The great
Id patriotic men of former times regarded it as II
initial to the consummation of the Union, and the q
of the public faith that the lands should
coded as common fund but now, men distin-
lished for their ability and influence and who are
'out to assume the high trust of administering the
striving with all their might to undo
cir holy work. Yes, Sir, distribution and cession