Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1854-09-12
Mr.. Hunters Defence.

Along and labored effort occupying more than five
columns Of an editorial in tho Enquirer appears in
that paper in defence Of the Hunter land bill. We
shall not undertake to notice Mt length. furnishes
rich food for comment but that duty will be perform
ed, no doubt, promptly and with hearty good will
by many able and influential Democratic Journals
opposed to the Hunter land bll-whose forcibe argu-
ments against have called forth this tremendous
effort at defence, but who, from reasons We do not
pretend to account for not noticed, by name in
the reply.
This stupendous defence undertakes to Justify Mr.
Hunter and his bill by reteratng the argument that
IL was choice Of evils-that it was devised with
view to prevent Congress from squanderiug the pub
lands among Western land pirates railroad comps
MES and land jobbers generally and more than all to
defeat that "odious measure" the Homestead BILL
We might proceed here to show the inconsistency of
that position by pointing the obstinate resistance
OF the friends Of this bill to fair and equitable dis
trbuton Of the public lands all along while precisely
similar reasons existed. But let that pass Repent.
ance late is perhaps better than never They only
take an infinitely worse plan for remedyng the evil
than the they have battled against with all their
might since the origin of the Democratic party. 1t
may not be amiss to inquire however how it is that,
with an overwhelming majority in both branches OF
Congress, the party cannot take care of the public
lands according to the creed they protest. Where is
the resolution Of the Baltimore platform upon the land
question, we'll that of the Virginia Democratic
State Conventionp Are they to be cast aside and
tramped upon by q Democratic Senate and Demo.
cratic Congress- and Democratic President, without
even the tribute to their memory of decent burial
But says Mr.. Hunters Justification "ths abominable
Homestead bill" has "a second time passed the House
of Representatives by increased VOTE and became
apparent, after obstinate struggle in the Senate
and repeated failures Of motions lay on the table
and to postpone that it would pass that body Also
Admit all that but what has become Of the kxecu-
tive veto? Was that not enough to arrest it, or have
the Virginia Democracy thus far lost confidence in
the Brigadier? Has it come to this at lastG
There is but one point more in this defence of the
Hunter Land Bill that We propose to notice now, and
that is the memorable speech of Mr.. Hunter on the
Iowa Land Bill, February 1852. This is hard point
10 get the writer of this defence seems to have
been perfectly conscious throughout 1t charges that
"those who have attacked the speaker violently
have quoted from it to prove his inconsistency but
their quotations begin and stop just where an extern
sion would have shown the utter groundlessness OF
the charge" Well, additional extracts are given and
they to this effect that in that speech Mr.. Hunter
said he would be willing to advertise the lands at the
present price for ertain number Of years. and after
that time he would diminish the price. We think il
we'll for Mr.. Hunter that further extracts were not
given for they only convict him Of other inconsistent
ces. If the latter extracts to be quoted to prove
the consistency Of his position ito put the lands
down to mere nominal price, we see him advoca-
ting two directly antagonists positions in the same
speech, for he said in the speech Of February 1852
chat propositions to put the lands down to mere
nominal price" were schemes that would most infal.
bly, lead to agrai ian agitations stres between the
different sections Of the Conederacy and warfare in
the very bosom Of society amongs: it various classes
coutendng with each other for plumber under the
forms of Legislation" Is not the present Hunter
Land Bill just such scheme Of putting down the
public lands to mere nominal price as he then de.
scribed? Let him take either horn of the dilemma
But we leave our Democratic contemporaries to set
tie this family quarrel among themselves-wish
them very good time Of it. 1t is for men to say
whether Il ey will abandon their conscientious scru.
Piles" so far as to 60 for land distribution with "a
mere nominal price" attached, whether they will
stick to the long worshped principle of the party to
hold the public lands and the proceeds thereof as
sacred fund for the Federal Government by going
against the distribution of the in any shape or
form whstever. We only beg to know where the
once great and harmonious Democratic party of yir-
ginis nov stand on this important question That is
all ask