Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1853-07-30
r4E pI7R11c LANDS.


vor of a division of the public lands The following
from the Wilmington Journal viii put the matter at
rest Judge Douglas, it will be seen by the extract
from his speech of 22d January, 1852 is decidedly
opposed to distribution of the public lands either
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, ready to admit and even
go farther, and also to admit that the distribution
policy has numbered among its advocates some of
the ablest and most distinguished which the
country has produced-of 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 fiat impossiblity to show any respectable Demo
cratic authority in favor of distribution We
the word respectable purely in party as imply
ing distinguished ability, extensive recognized
party influence 1t is fiat impossibiity from the
fact that such authorities exist in its favorthey
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
pressed himself in favor of grant of land for the
construction of canal round the Falls of Sault ST.
Marie claimed as necessary in military point of
view for the defence of the country, and as 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 Lana Bill, QcnVereQ IN the
Senate of the United States, on the 22d January,
1952-COng Globe, p $50:
" With regard to the bill granting lands to the
State of Illinois the last session. have also word
to saw 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-
tions special fyors, and partial distribution of the
lands to the new States has the slightest foundation
in the bill before u.s. 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 II 1t a0ere
either should be opposed to it, opposed to the
distribution Of the public lands, either by partial
system or general system. am opposed to aiding
a State By giving lands as a donation. The friends
of this bill do not rest it upon any such grounds
We ask the opponents of the bill to meet 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 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 thir
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 them?
What advantage will they be to the Government
while they thus held? The difficulty in the way
of the sale does not arise from the fact that the lands
not fertile and susceptible of cultivation but that
they distant from market and in many cases des
titute of timber. No matter how fertile and produc
tive they may be, still they vaueless, unless the
produce will bear the expense of the transportation
market and absence of timber you cannot sell the
lands, and cannot have them brought under cultiva
ton.
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 own? What would you do if you were
the landowners yourselves? Suppose you owned
three hundred miles square of land which you could
not SELL and that you found often the case 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 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 interests? 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
structed? That is the simple question; and viewing
it such, satisfied that there is not a single
Senator on this floor who would not gladly make the
arrangement if he the individual landowner.
And if this would be good arrangement for any
Senator here why would it not be good policy for
the country, and for the government of the United
States to adopt as landowners? Mr.. President, we
insist that these grants in aid of the construction of
railroads, enhance the value of the land fund In
stead of diminishing the revenue that will be derv-
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 depriving
you of anything which is really valuable to you, we
show you way whereby you can make that valua-
ble which under your present policy is entirely val
ueess. This is the ground on which we defend this
policy; and if it is not defendable this ground,
there be no justification of the grant"
This is precisely the same policy with that sane
toned by Gen. Cass Mr.: Calhoun and others. 1t IS
the only policy under which lands have been grant
ed and as set forth by Mr.. Douglas is in perfect
accordance with Democratic principles although OBJ
jectonabe, we: think i'll practice from the avenues
which it opens for abuse. Just look at the extract
we have made and abserve the part have italicized
and you will notice that Mr.. Douglas expressly and
positively expresses his disapproval of and opposi
ton either to the general partial distribution. Do
not be deceived no respectable party authority
be brought forward for this distribution hobby.
few may have changed. The party has not
moved the tenth part of an inch"
The RAILROAD CONVENTION, which met at Clarks-
vile, Va, the 18th instant appointed committee
to employ an engineer to survey the route for the
proposed extension of the Roanoke Valley Railroad
to Milton N. c. and from thence to Leaksville
committee also appointed to use every effort to
procure from the legislatures of North Carolina and
Virginia charter for the same. The following re-
solution adopted by the convention:
"HesoJUed That we deem it of great Importance to
the interests of GAINESVILLE Milton Norfolk Balt
more Petersburg and Wilmington, and of the up
country generally, that the Roanoke Valley Railroad
be extended to Milton, N. c., and from thence to
Leaksvile."