Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1854-02-01
THE PUBLIC LANDS.

Mr.. Benefits Distribution bill now be-
fore the Land Committee of the House of
Representatives, seems to be more in con-
forrnity to the objects Of the cesson Of the
public lands made both by New York and
Virginia than any measure heretofore propo-
sed.
The deed Of cession from the State of New
York was made on the LIST of March, 1881,
and was accepted by Congress the 10Th Of
October, 1882. One Of the conditions was,
that the lands coded to the United States,
ssshall be and enure for the use and benefit OF
such OF the United States as shall become
members Of the federal alliance Of the said
States, and for no other use Or benefit what.
eper"
The Virginia deed of cession was executed
and accepted on the LIST day Of March, I784.
One of the conditions Of this cession is as fol-
lows
ssThat all the lands within the territory so
ceded to the United States, and not reserved
for or appointed 10 any of the before men,
toned purposes, or disposed ofin bounties to
the officers and soldiers Of the American ar
my, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS A COMMON
FUND, for the use and benefit Of such Of the
United States as have become or shall become
members Of the United States, Virginia in
elusive, according to their usual respective
proportions in the general charge and expen-
diture, and shall be faithfully and bona fide
disposed Of for that purpose, and for no other
use or purpose arhatsoerer
Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Coro-
lima, South Carolina and Georgia afterwards
coded their public lands on terms almost pre-
.ciscly similar.
There is disposition on the part of many
politicians to recur frequently to what are
called the Jackson doctrines upon this and
other subjects In his celebrated Land Bill
Veto Message, President jackson quotes these
ana other authorities to show that the public
lands can only be disposed of for the common
benefit Of all the States. How this distiu-
guished man would act on the subject at this
day, if living and in authority. is not for Ms to
say but the positions above quoted would
certainly put him in opposition to any partial
distribution of either the lands or their pro-
cceds.
In his objection to the Land Bill Of 1882,
President jackson took the ground that the
distribution was unequal, because II and
half per centum of the proceeds was to be
given to the new States, before anything was
to be given to Virginia and other States which
had ceded the lands, and therefore that the
bill proposed violation ofthe compacts,w (which
he declared to be ssinvaluablc monuments of
an age of virtue, patriotism, and disinterest-
edness.o
The difference between the Land Bill of
1882 and that now pending is, that the first
proposed to dispose of all the proceeds in the
unequal manner objected to by the then
President, whilst the latter proposes more
equal distribution Of a portion of the lands.
President Jackson seemed to have high
opinion of the Western people in reference to
this matter Of distribution He said
"With the just men who inhabit the new
States it is a sufficient reason to reject this
system that it is in violation of the fundamcn-
tai laws of the Republic and its Constitution"
If this position be impregnable, what can
be said of a system, which is daily gaining
strength, of making donations of land 'sfor
objects of a local character within the States1"
The Western people do not conceive it to be
at all in conflict with their ideas of Justice.
On the contrary, they are daily asking for
grants for ''local purposes" and ifthey wanted
any precedent as to the best method of ma
king any work national, they would resort to
the Jacksonian era for notable examples
Nat Int -