Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1854-09-22
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER II, 1854.

E.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER II, 1854.
MIR. WILLIAM W. DUNSAvAET having purchased
the interest of the late THOMAS RiTcRIE, JR in tho
Enquirer establishment, the paper will hencetorth be
published in the nsme Of "RIrcHIE, PRYOR l. Dun
SAvAsr." For many years Mr. DuSKArAsr has been
connected with the publication Of the Enquirer, and
his known industry, fidelity and capacity for business
justify his partners in the opinion that he will intro
duce additional energy and punctuality i'll the man
ageinent Of the affairs Of the office.
THE LAND QUESrION.-THE EXAMINER.
Our recent article on the Hunter Land Bill war
defence, MS we'll against its Wing assailans, as the
Examiner newspaper but the latter whose kind sent''
meu,s We reciprocate, and with whom we regret the
necessity Of any controversy seems to think Itself
singled out, and begins reply by comparing US to
Achilles aud the bill to Patroclus, "dcad mutilased,
and stripped by mighty Hector, 10 whom it lkens
itself. We cannot admit the fitness OF this modest
sinile even for the sake of compliment to ourselves
For we neither claim the power nor have the lncna'
tiou to slay the Examiner, as Achilles did hector
that paper has in former times fought well in the De-
mocratic ranks and hope it may yet tsurrive to do
the like again.
Still less do we agree that the bill is utterly muii-
lated, stripped and disfgurod," even by the mighty
prowess of this new "prop of Troy We think liec.
tor himself begins to suspect that his victim is not
quite dead, for though he exultngly assured Ills Il
month or more ago that the murder was accomplish
ed vet We have seen, week after week, that he re.
| turned to the charge:
| Fought all his battles DER acsin,
And thrice he routed all his and thrice he slew the
slain
Sav, our new Hector complained bitterly that none
opposed him, and yet, when hapless we have ven
tured in modest way TO make defence, he seems
even more offended than by our previous inactivity
The Examiner next gives Il column 10 complaints oi
our asscro that majority Of the Virginia pemocra-
~ approved Of the principles OF the Hunter land BILL
1t thinks differently; very well-thcn we dii'er on
this question of fact and think thet our opinion Is
at least us good authority on this pcut as the E1a'
miners II claims that the Augusta Democracy has
pronounced agains, the bill. New we not only sup
nor, the l but cordially cndorse the Augusta reso-
lutious, so iar as they refer TO the land question:.
They rcatfrn the opposition of Virginia to dstThu'
tion and deprecate any departure from our former
policy of applying the lad revenues 10 Tighten taxa
ticn. We support the Hunter bill: berause 1t is new
guarantee for this very cnd it Increases and secures
our revenues aud arrays the States 'cth us in
stead of against us, on all land questions.
The Examiner then complains that we devoted five
columns to a defence of graduation which nobody
attacked and evaded the true points OF olJection.-
We irer the hot weather prevented our friend from
iyipe us an attentive reading or is his vision blind
cd by hi, Hectorcan triumph For, Of our entire FIVE
columns, not quite ono touched Oh graduation; the
others are occupied with a vindcntion OF the rest OF
rho bi!l-r v;ndca,ion, certainly elaborate even If It
should be aceuled unsuccessful.
The Examiner admits that graduation is ro"sf""-
t,oyoL and we notch down that admission: but 1t
seems much at loss whether to oppose II or not
We could wish it Lad pronounced distinctly on this
MINI: and, if opposed answered our arguments III it.
favor. And if this be the issue, we again quote the
authority of Randolph, Tazewell, Macon, Hayne.
jackson, Polk, and host of other good Democrats.
both among the living uud the dead; for all these
gentlemen supported schemes Of graduation not ma
teriay different from the graduation part of Mr.,
Hunters BILL
Here let us say that do not this authority or
any other, as conclusive such question, nor do
we, as the Examiner seems 10 fancy, quote the vote
in the Senate, the opnons Of the Democratic press,
either in Virginia out of it, all cstoppal of argu.
,nen;s against the bill We take pride in the belief
that Virginia forms her political opinions on pr!are,
aud not on authority. But meantime we submit that
tho endorsement Of the entire Democratic party IN
the Senate is tolerably sufficient set-o TO the bed
opinion even Of the Examiner.
pl,, ie nr m
be made to graduation, that is to selling poor ands
for less than RICH and that when our ands have in vain
sought purchasers at the maximum price for ten or
twenty years. it cannot well be denied that il is better
to sell them for less, than to hold them up dead
stock. But the Examiner says II mainly objects TO
three other points, which it twice repeats
/. DISCRIMINATION in .faror Of the ncr States"
Now what is this discrimination Simply this, tina,
whereas the General Government has heretofore sold
the lands ITSELF it now proposes to make the several
States agents for the sale OF the lands within their re-
spcc,iyc limits and allows them, for remuneration, all
they can get over the regular government price.
This Injuries nobody. The federal treasury receives
lust the same price it would receive if there were no
such agency, aud the land States acquire interest
in those lands, which will hereafter make them con-
stead of enemies. Its political advantages are Utmost
ipcalculable as we have formerly shown at length.
The Examiner complains that tho new States take
them at nominal prices. We answer, it takes them at
cxucv the same prices that every else has to pay
r. those prices are considered nominal theu it is
discrimination turor Of the ncr States, but simply
the defect of the scale OF graduation But we have
s,oyn TINT such graduation is in itself reasonable
and the settled policy OF the Democratic parv
the Examiner admits it to DO cops,i'u.ona says that
is such tub as is likely TO attract the State Rights
prtv TINT it is sugar coating Of the drug, and that
i; is not III issue.
But the Examiner Gays that it has shown chow
wise" was ",he policy Of Mr.. Cahouns graduation
bill" Now murk the consequence. Mr.. Calhoun
proposed ,hree such bills. all graduated the
prco of the lands according to the length Of
time they had remained uusod in market, as does Mr.
Hunters and all other graduation bills. But they al
so proposed to sell the States the lands within
their lmits and fixed the sum to be pnd the Federal
Government, according to one bill, ut 60 Fer cent
according to another at half, and by the other at
third only Of the regular graduated price Here then,
the pow S.cs got the lands at from one 70 two thirds
lrss than either tue old States individuals could
while Mf. Hunter not only e1acts from thcn tho full
price bu, requires them to give up the five per cent
Of saes 20 which they entitled by long establish
ed laws. Yet the Examiner thinks the former bill rise,
and object, to the latter as "silly" and uuconsu-
tional Discrimination in favor o; the States Can
inconsistency so farther!
Yes for in the face Of these facts, il usserts
that Calhoun and Ta1ewcll have not directly or ind-
rec:y, sanctioned tho second section OF the Hunter
bT-thc very section which disro'es ct the lands to
.hc States in which they liewaen Calhoun repeated
X urged ,ha, policy on terms ;ar more favorable to
the new States aut declared that he was not raf'icu.
l.r about llov large share was given 10 them: ana