Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-09-13

A
men as Atherton Of New Hampshire, Dickin
son of New York, and Penny hacker of Virginia
from the old States, TO say nothing of good
men and true, from the new In the House Of
Representatives, this bill, after a slight amend
ment received the votes of nearly the whole
Democratic party, including every Virginia
Democrat, Except Taylor, who seems TO have
been absent.) Among these were Bayly, Bed
niger, Brown, Augustus A. Chapman, Drom,
goole, George w. Hopkins, r. M. r. Hunter,
johnson, Jour present governor,) Leake, (now
lieutenant governor,) Mcdowell, Seldom, and
Tredway.
These men, to say nothing Of Randolph of
Roanoke, and his compeers Tazewell Macon,
and Hayne, all approved of graduation, and
were all acknowledged as good State rights
Democrats, until they faded before the 9aeao
lights Of the present day.
The rate and scale of graduation is, Of
course, question of mere detail. Amongst
the many bills proposed, some have graduated
more rapidly, others more slowly. Calhoun
once proposed q graduation of all lands that
had been in market and remained unsold for
ten years, to 81 per acre, with successive re-
auctions of price through periods of five years
down to twenty-five cents, and an absolute ces.
sion to the States of all that remained unsold
more than 30 years. When the same bill was
proposed in the House, Mr.. Dromgoole objected
to an absolute cession to the States, but was
willing to sell the last class of lands to them
at nominal price of FIVE cents per acre. A
bill, graduating all lands remaining unsold for
ten years to 81, and afterwards through sue.
cessive periods of three years to rs, to SO, and
ultimately to 70 cents per acre, as we before
noticed, passed the Senate, and in the House
received the votes of most of the Virginians
Others, who did not object to the principle,
thought the reduction to rapid, and voted for
rather slower scale.
The bill, offered by Mr.. Hunter, graduated
lands remaining unsold for ten years to 81, and
thence, by successive periods Of five years and
corresponding reductions, to 70 and SO cents,
until the price of lands offered and left unsold
for twenty-five years is graduated to twenty-five
cents. His bill, as it passed the Senate, makes
the FIRST reduction at five years, and thence
graduates down to twelve-and-a half cents in
thirty years. But it is useless to notice these
differences in detail They must depend in
great part upon the circumstances under which
each bill is proposed or passed. The principle
is the same in all.
There is yet one more question connected
with the public lands, which must be consider
ed in any arrangement that pretends to be
final settlement of the conflicting interests in
volved: How far is it constitutional and Just
for the general government to aid in the con-
struction OF roads and canals, passing through
its landsf
Here the principle is easy; the difficulty is
in its application. 1t has always been acknow-
lodged that the federal government has right
to dispose Of portion of its lands, even to give
thop, in nrdar To Al 4
the remainder. This power is a necessary in
cident Of its character as proprietor. 1t is, in
deed, not an absolute proprietor, but rather a
trustee for the States. AS such, it can apply
the revenue from the lands only to the objects
specified in the Constitution, and can admins
ter them only with the same restrictions. AS
such, it must dispose of the lands to the best
advantage, and may and should adopt any reg
ulations, not inconsistent with the Constitution,
which are fairly, prudently, and honestly, de-
signed to increase their value
This principle has been recognized by our
government from the foundation of the land
system. Every sixteenth section is giren to
schools, In order TO induce settlers to purchase
the remaining sections. For like reasons, FIVE
per cent OF the gross amount of sales is set
apart for the construction of roads, &C., and
numerous instances might be cited, under
nearly all our Presidents Of donations of land,
for internal improvements, with a
view of promoting the sale of other lands.
Doubtless, In very many of these cases, this
reason was a mere pretext for an unconstitu-
tional appropriation; but in others, the intent
was honest, and the design prudent Yet such
was the danger Of abuse, that these appropria-
lions have usually and Justly been opposed by
strict constructionists. The latest and most
plausible form, in which they have been carried,
Is the alternate section system. In this case, i
government gives to the parties, who engage
to build a railroad through its lands, every
other section along its line, and doubles the
minimum price of the reserved sections. Mr..
Calhoun thought that this practice was clearly
constitutional. He said, the question of inter.
nal improvements is not involved, only that of
whether when anything was
done TO enhance the value Of their lands, in the
vicinity of the works, they were not called on, \
and bound in good faith, to contribute some.
thing as proprietors." We win further admit
that, in some instances, it has worked well in |
practice, and increased our revenue But the
system is liable to great and growing abuses |
The lobbes of Congress are now crowded with |
railroad officers, and spectators, and, not con.
ent with the alternate sections along the road, !
Iney nave someuIneS OBTAINED lands distant /
rom the line, where there can be no pretence |
Of increasing the value Of the reserved sections
Yet all these schemes of spoliation are sup
ported by the new States for their people are |
Eager for roads and improvements, and they
prefer any owners for the lands, to the mort |
main of the federal government
Struck with these evils, Mr.. Hunter has
provided double remedy. He not only makes
{ the interest Of the new States TO protect |
hese lands from plumber as we have before
'een, but he turns all these railroad and canal
,laimants away from Congress, and refers
hem to the States themselves, where, by the
yenius of our Constitution, such applications
properly belong. In the speech made Feb.
nary 18th, 1852, to which we have more than
'nce referred, he argued against the alternate
lection system, not on constitutional grounds,
,ut on considerations of expediency, and then
announced the principle Of the present bill.
lie said
think see rule by which we may accom-
fish all the purposes Of justice, as between the
United States and the new States They say that
he difference between these railroads and any
tber is this that by the construction of these
Dads, you give an additional value TO the lands
nd therefore il would be hard if the United