The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-06-21
WASHIN GTON:

MORNING, JUNE 81, 1853.


distribute their proceeds amongst the several
States.
The Democratic press contends that such
disposition of the common domain is unlawful.
and, further, that an application for such an
appropriation or apportionment upon the
part of the old States would be unavailing.
Ii is useless to argue the proposition that all
the States are entitled to an equal division of
the public lands, or their proceeds 1t is in
dlsPutably true that the present system bestows
a partial advancement upon some States to the
positive prejudice of others. 1t is obvious that
the eighty millions of gift land now IN market
will superSede the sale Of an equal quantity of
land offered by the Government. 1t is equally
obvious that the mammoth grants to Pacific and
other rallroads-the coded swamp lands-the
military land warrants for past or future wars
the graduation law, and the homestead system
threaten to absorb the demand for public lands
tor years to come, until the revenue from the
land offices being unequal to the expenses, a
general REIMBURSEMENT to the land States will
terminate eftectually the connection between
The Government and the public domain.
These are results too obvious to be doubtful
We have never been able to comprehend why
those who contend for an application of the
land fund according to the proportionate contri-
buttons OF the several States, should be content
with any application 50 papably partial as the
present. If the original plan Of sale and APP
Phcatlon had been pursued, it would have been
at least just, though perhaps not so judicious as
a more liberal system of alienation. But when
the distribution is so unequal, we should have
thought that the old States would have either
demanded return to the old PLAN or the esta-
bllshment of new one, founded in some regard
to equality. We know no more deplorable
consequence Of party obligations than the
position taken by the Democratic party of
North Carolina in opposing the distribution of
the proceeds of the public land amongst all the
States, in preference to the unequal system of
which we complain. They allege it to involve
departure from the terms OF the deeds Of cession.
Very well. The present system bestows the
public lands upon canals, railroads, mad-h houses,
and colleges. Thus it necessarily happens that
these donations enure to the benefit of partic-
ular States There is no justice, then, in such
policy. 1t lacks the vital principle of the
deeds of cession-equality. Now, if the South
'ern Democrats oppose distribution because it is
departure from the conditions of the ceded
lands, why do they not protest against the pre-
sent system as glaring departure from the same
pFinclple2 Why do they not say to Congress,
''lf you will not sell these lands and pay the
proceeds into the common treasury, at least
divide them and assign us our portion. We
may then have something to protect us from
any future liabilities that may fall upon US
in consequence of your fagitious waste of
trust fund.-" Yet the Democratic press Of
North Carolina denounce those who would
demand an equal partition of the trust, subject
as Gland beggars." 1t may be very well to
stigmatize with contumelious epithet patri
otto declaration of right. 1t is the method of
the partisan to enlist all the odium possible
against the acts of his antagonist. But let us
consider the question in a comparative point
of view.
Suppose the Federal Government enacts
revenue law which requires the South to con-
tribute more than its proper proportion into the
common treasury.
Suppose the Federal Government enaets an
appropriation law which bestows upon the
North larger share out of the common trea
sury than 1t is properly entitled to:
A party is organized which protests violent
iy against this departure from the terms of the
constitutional compact. 1t demands an equal
imposition of the burdens, and an equal appor-
tionment of the advantages Of the common Gov
eminent.
Is this party stigmatised as revenue beg
CARS 2" On the contrary, are they not regarded
as patriots-too sensitive, perhaps-but still
vigilant and meritorious in the motive SO to
regulate the common Government as that it
shall show neither partiality nor prejudice in
its legislation.
Now another party IN like manner protests
against the misapplication Of the land fund. 1t
says 'seither dispose of this fund as you have
been accustomed originally to do, or divide it
amongst US, or set apart our several shares Of
the subject, that we may apply it to our own
purposes"
This party goes further. 1t says: 'There is
great sectional contest. North Carolina is
endeavoring to hold out as great inducements
to population as Illinois; yet you have taken
twenty millions acres of public lands in which
North Carolina holds an undivided interest,
and bestowed it upon Illinois. With this
land Illinois builds railroads and establishes
schools, by which the value of her property
Z is 80 far enhanced as that her bonds have
been thereby advanced greatly in value.
ssNorth Carolina wishes also to organize
similar Improvements that she may meet IL
linois in peaceful competition. She wishes
to offer to the citizens of a common country
the highest inducements which her position
will permit. North Carolina Esust tax hel
citizens, she must exhOrt them to take money
from other investments. She must create {
State debt TO effect that which Illinois ha:
done by the munihcent aid of the Fedora
Government. We demand an equal ad
yancement on behalf Of North Carolina"
And yet such party is stigmatzed as ''lanC