Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-10-05
From the Valley tya) Democrat.

- ~~-~sSAc 1s~4H AtkA1s
We think our democratic contenporsries,
who oppose Mr.. Hunters laDd bill, are doing
wat gentleman great injustice by thdir great
que and cry about nothing It is probable
mat bill never would have been presented had
Il not been Tor the purpose Of defeating the in
lquitous Homestead bill, which proposed to
give away the public domain Although his
substitute may not embody strictly the rigid
doctrines OF Virginia upon the land question,
yet 1t comes nearer TO the State rights creed
than any other that could possibly have sue
ceeded. Under his bill, the general govern
nent retains the power over the lands, and re-
ceiyes the reyenpe derived from their sales
while IN the Homestead bill the general gov
eminent receives not a. cent for the occupation
ana surrender OF the lands. Mr.. Hunter, there
lore, acted the part OF q wise statesman and as
ne could not get whole loaf he preferred
taking half Loaf, rather than none at all. If
Mr. Hunter is wrong, then every democratic
senator in the United States is wrong, for all
voted for 1t without exception. We prefer the
Judgment OF all the State rights democrats of
the Senate to that of few professedalg in
Virginia. The people cannot be made to be-
iieve by lew quasi arguments, that so many
OF our prominent leaders would sacrifice the
principles OF the democratic party and sell its
honor for mess of pottage- .s5a
Ii Mr.. Hunter is 10 be condemned, then all
those who voted for il must be condemned also.
But we imagine that the people of Virginia
Will be much more liable to trust to Hunter
Mason, Butler, and other State rights senator's
than to join in the cry Of Htiet, thief, raised by
the Richmond Examiner and several other sat
elites. Etg Ng stEa
One of the reasons urged against the bill by
the opposition is, that it favors almost entirely
the new States to the detriment of the old. If
this assertion be correct, it is passing strange
that members from the new States did not
favor the bill. Quite the contrary is the fact.
Few, fany, urged this bill, but voted for every
scheme that had tendency to settle the ques-
ton by giving to the new States the lands
within their limits. The original land system
required two dollars per acre, but after consid-
cradle time the price was reduced to one dollar
and twenty-five cents. According to the oppo-
sition, who make the quantum Of price prin-
ciple, we suppose this was also surrender of
principle and a Reputation of State rights.
For several years past the reduced price has
been considered too high-as retarding the
growth and progress of the west--and schemes
have frequently been on foot to give it away,
SA~N sho NtoetiDutiOui DCuuCltS lhNu Dill anu
vote yourself farm bill. Every session of
Congress the public domain has been the sub
ject of wrangling and scrambling-western
members vieing with each other as to who
should fitch the most land from the govern
ment. Two-thirds at least of the time Of Con-
gress is consumed in discussing railroad grants
and other land frauds. Our readers will re-
member how manfully our representative fought
the land grabbers and jobbers in the last Con-
gress.
The public interest, therefore, actually re-
quires some system that will take the subject
out of Congress and the hands of corrupt dema-
gogues, who use it as hobby for personal ag-
grandizement, and throw the management in
the hands of the States where they lie, SO that
the federal government receives the revenue
from the public lands. These objects are at.
tanned by the Hunter land bill, and it, there.
fore, strongly recommends itself to every demo
crat in the land