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

"Tha, Congress has IL" power to appropriate, d
rcctly indirectly. tho proceeds Of the sales ot the
publ" lands, to grant, directly indirectly, tho
public lands To purposes ni internal Improvement.
Aud asks, will any man deny that the following
prccrins) provision Of the substitute to the Home
stead Rl, docr conflict with the above resolution ??
Shall we confess our stupidity! and that We are
bolr. enough, despite the tcrrors Of Hector, 70
MAKE such denial What, to withdraw
from market the twelve sections of land along the
line "f railroad is to discriminate in favor Of the
road And this is all that the section quoted directs
II tie Il stupped here, it would be discrimination
| WI 10. such reservation is any discrimination ut
all II !ill more whether 1t is ian unjust and uncon'
sti,utiN'st discrimination" depends entirely upon
what is ie be- done with the lands reserved. And
that s wnt the next section would hnve told us, had
it plea-s9:hc Examiner to quote it. Most renders
would expect. after such dcnuncaton, to hear that
they were circn to the railroads. and they will be
surprised to find that, the contrary, they are sold
TO the States. Is this unconstitutional unjust! II
we get our price, it not fair that the new States
should have whatever additional value impaired to
these lands by their enterprise True, the States are
allowed to purchase these lands, in some cases at
rather ess than other lands; but, us we showed in
our former article this slight difference IL more than
made up to Government 10y tho otEcr c"nd'tlonS oi
the sale In short, to re-quotc Mr.. Hunters speech,
made more than two years since, and which the
Examiner says "eR Of or P9rty cndo'Se1:'
81 am willing to sell 10 the States the lands on the
line of the railroads ct the Government prceat such
| hrin her
Aud if there be additional value gwen by the con.
struction of the railroads, am willing the States shall
have il. That would bc tair. Nay, Sir, might be
| ds,,osed 10 20 somewhat further. There might bc
PORTIONS of those lands not worth the full Government
lrice. should be willing then 10 take such price 's
they would bring without ;!ic railroad
Here again tho Examiner says that it cannot be
shown that any Of list Il" eminent men. ii repeats
after u.s. sanctioned this Sd 1--WE presume it means, sd
nud ,tbl section OF the Hunter Bill. Perhaps their
sanction ia less important, SINCE have proved from
the Examiner that .our party" itsclf in dcdl zen
dorscd" its principles in 1852. But Mr. Calhoun the
first OH the list was well known to be i'll favor OF the
alternate section system. which goes mach farther,
and which we had supposed the Examiner would re-
| gard as "a discrimination in favor of railroads. 80
that il Mr. Hunters bill contains such discrimination,
as the Examiner SAYS it does, then Mr.. Calhoun did
sanction the sections i'll question. But We repeat
our denul tha: they make an "uniust and unconsti-
tutional discrimuatiua,' and consider thcu iu!i;
within the old Virginia landmarks.
Next and last the Exuminc. objects 20 what Il calls,
"III Discrimination in favor Of actun! settlers in
| preference to the old States
| II is not very plain how h, discrimination ia 'i
preference to tho old States. Tor it could hardly be
expected that the old States should be incitci 10 set
tie bodily within the And il reference ia had to
the citizens Of the old States il must be remembered
that "he actual settlers" whom the Examiner else
where terms "pGurers and vagabonds Of every cline
apd degree" may be citizens of the old Stntes as well
as any others.
An entire column Of former article was de-
voted TO an examination of this branch of the quc5
ton. although the Examiner asserts that we avoided
il; and we can only repent the arguments and facts
then adduccd, which the Examiner docs not deisn 10
notice Bv the WAY, i'll all It's four columns, IL re-
pea,s lis former objections and leaves our argumcn'
not onlv unanswered, but not even touched. Let lis
remind it, that il It's great prototype, Hector
had thus fought with Patroclus, he would never Lave
,triupcd him OF his defence" much less ''kiei him
and mutilatcd his body"
We cannot repeat all that we said before, but con-
tent ourselves with saying that in whatever reapccts
the Homestead bill, that passed the House. is "D)ec
tonable the discrimination III favor ot actual settlers
in the Hunter hill can be shown 10 be less so even II
considered apart from the rest o the bill. Dut we
have sad that the question before tho Senate was re-
duced 10 n choice between the two, and Mr.. Hunter
md his Democratic brethren were right To choose tie
l.ss, obiec,ionablc We quoted the National ln,cll-
repcer a strong opponent OF the Hunter bill, and,
naturally, well informed such point, to show that
at was the only measure by which he, tMr. H.,
could avert the passage OF the prodigal liomcscad
Bill" And further showed that 5" soon as ana
whenever the I'd section of thc Hunter land bill goes
into etIuct-the section the Examiner calls dsr'
n,nation in favor Of the new States,-the homestead
sections are pso cto annuel, unless the new states
choose especially 10 recuact thcm which it then be-
comes their strong pecuuisry interest not 10 do
Thus by n mastery stroke Of policy, the present pow
erful advocatcs of the Homestead bill converted
into its natural opponents.
AZ for the cous,itutonuy Of any discrimination
in favor of actual settlers, we repeat, thu" some dis
elimination has been the established policy oi our
Government from its foundation; what the amount
of the discrimination shall be, is question OF degree
that must always be settod by circumstances.
We have thus hastily reviewed the E1aniner's last
edition Of objections. Before We conclude let us cor
rect few Of its facts, aud iutcrcnccs
!. 1t charges that the Hunter hill cells the alternate
sections heretofore reserved fov:double price along
the rail rouds, at shilling On Acre. 1t says: 1--WE
have exposed the policy of selling the reserved sec
tons on rail roads, for instance, on the great Illinois
rail road which are worth S90,GOoSo, for shilling
an acre."
lin, the Examiner, in all lis two momths lnhor.
never rot so far in reading the bill it nssaiS, as the
7tL section, which provides, shat his act shdH NJ no
ran opy 10 rescrrcd sections rail road grants, or
mineral lands &c.
We before suspected ha, its attacks were directed
against some phantom-Patroclus, which its fertile
imagination had conured up 10 exercise is wrath up
on. Let US beg it 10 lay this ghost by reading the
real bill, land may we add, our argument y and, per-
chance "sober second thought" will be 10 mercy
| side.
- 1t quotes the recent vote Cobb's bill, to prove
that the Virginia delegation is opposed To Hun
,cr's What the sentiments Of those gentlemen are,
will be seen mex, winter; meantime, s.spcct no
one is authorized to speak for them But, i the bills
are the sarle Cobb's has bceu before Congress sncc
April, and why were friends scn; al. lint time
Why did they not, faithful senmcls, warn the poo
pie OF their danger1
We eau well understand, that while the Virginia
members oppose Cobb's bill, which is neither more
nor less than graduation in favor of the actual settler
only yet they might vote for similar discrimination,
when presented IA the only ,reGus of defeating the
original Homestead bill, aud when combined with
such a comprehensive measure Of reform as Mr.
Hunters. Ard, here let it be remembered. tbat
Cobbs bill has already made law "f that par: OF M-
Hunters, which is iilost objected to.
The Examiner maunirs that it has proved ,ha; Mr..