Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1853-07-29
ne MOI. Docclyeds

BE rot Deceived.
That the question of distribution of the pubic
lands or Of their proceeds has been mooted polns
between the two great parties Of the country we are
ready to admit and even go farther and also 70 au
NIT, that the distribution policy has numbered among
It's advocates some of the ablest and most distln-
puished men which the country has produceo-y
the Wing party But spite of all the attempts tnas
have been made by the newly awakened champions
of distribution among those who formerly acted with
the Democratic party, it is fat imposs'bihty 10
show any respectable Democratic authority In favor
of distribution. We the word respectable purely
in party sense as implying distinguished ability or
extensive recognized party influence 1t Is nat
mpossbity from the fact that no such authorizes
exist in its favor-they all the other way ana
all those which have been quoted IN Its faVor nave
a direct tendency to make against 1t when larry
and fuIy given. Let us take, for instance MT.
Douglas who is quoted expressing himself IN ia
vor of distribution because he expressed himself IN
favor of a grant of land for the construction OF
canal round the FAILS of Sault St Marie, claimed as
necessary in military point of view for the defence
of the country, and as tending to enhance the re-
naming 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 fol-
lowing rather lengthy extract from his speech on
| the Iowa Land Bill, delivered in the Senate of the
United States on the Cad January, 1852.-Cong.
Globe, p. $780,
With regard the bill granting lands to the State of Hi
nois the last session, have also word to say That
eraton Hence it was perfectly fair to refer to that bill
illustration of this But deny that what has been said in
ef the lands to the States has the slightest foundation
in the bill before the act of the last session. granting
OF public lands among the States it not question OF
donation oere either Ishoa Be opposed to , At: am
partial system general system am opposed to AIDING
State by g,rng lands doaatio" The friends of this
ponents of the bill to meet in the grounds
which to arguments in favor of it, and
ground upon which we place The Government
the United States land owner she has vast bodies
of land which she has had in market for thirty forty
and experience that she sell them Shall she
keep them thirty forty longer and then not be able
while they thus hed The difficulty in the way of
the sale does net arise from the fact that the lands not
from market, and in many destitute of timber
matter how fertile and productive they De- still they
and absence of timber you cannot sell the lands
The question: then, is, what are you to do to remedy
evil enable you sell your lands and get the
cultivation % ask each Senator
would do the his own? What would dc
three hundred miles square Of land which you could not sell
and that found often the that the land
owned the consequence of the
ment of taxes these ands and suppose that would
to you ,Gve alternate sections of six miles through
those lands condition that willmake railroad through
hem and enable to sell the remaining lands for double
price which experience had you could
the whole would you not gladly adopt the proposition,
being good arrangement for your personal interests =
Would not the half of the lands thus remaining bt
worth after the road made than the whole would b
before it consructed That the simple question
viewing it such satisfied that there is not single
. Senator floor would gladly ma
the arrangement if he the individual landown
And this would be good arrangement for any Senator
here why would it not be good policy for the country
owners! Mr.. President, insist that these grants in a
of the construction of railroads enhance the value of tn
land fund. Instead of diminishing the will
derivabe from the public lands contend that will in
crease instead of diminishing your fund by this
increase ITS value instead of deprving of anything
you make that valuable which under your present polio
entirely vaueles This the ground which deen
II this policy and if it is not defendable this ground Their
Y can be no justification of the grant.
This is precisely the policy with that sanction
20 ed by General Cass, MIR. Calhoun and others 1t
the only policy under which lands have been granted
and as set forth by Mr. Douglas is in perfect accor
dance with Democratic principles, although objection
h able, we think in practice from the avenues which
or opens for abuse Just look at the we hav
- made and observe the part we have italicized and 20
At will that Mr. Douglas expressly and posvel
N expresses his disapproval of and opposition either
n general partial distribution Do not be decev ed n
e. respectable party authority be brought forwar
m for this distribution hobby A few men may hav
changed. The party has not moved the tenth part {
lie an inch.