Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-08-25

The domestic quarrel among the sapient ex
Founders of the Simon Pure Yirginan Democrat
ic States Rights. faith which has sprung up upon
the occasion of Senator Hunters Land Bill, is
calculated TO teach Virginians lesson. The
Democratic party Of this State, practically sur
rendering in this bill the reservations of the grant
by which Virginia coded her North Western do
main to the confederation. and those of the Con-
stitution which expressly saves to the States
any claims they might have upon the common
territory. have uniformly denied to Virginia
benefit which accrued TO all the other members Il
the confederacy arising from this scarce. Mark
the principle upon which this self denying purity
professed to proceed. These laaa-, they said
were ceded to the whole people ef the United
States, became national property. and 10 permit
the distribution Of the surplus proceeds Of their
sale. would be to allow The Federal to buy mp
aud corrupt the Stnte Governments. IL the po-
sition assumed by the Virginia senator, aud by
those Democratic papers which attempe ius'jfy
Mr.. Hunters bill, we see an effart-not tQ al
minister this trust upon the principles So long
sticked for. of a common and equal hrroGt by
national direct expenditure Of ell the money
rased-but an indirect an1 covert attempt "a de-
fraud the old States # their rights ny selling the
lands at Nominal prices. giving Is the pew >tStoe
prescriptions rights, coupled with the homestead
principle and the very antdomocrHic doctruo
of internal improvements aided by T.derli leg
islatian.
Hear the Virginia Democracy speaking in IL
Convention of -:
Congress ha. no power 10 appropriate d.
ree.it er indirectly the proceeds ct the sales Of
the public lands. 81 Ia grunt directly or indirect
the public lnnas 10 purposes 81 internal i'm
rroyement.'
Yet Mr Hunters Bill IN effect, lsetty doas
bon Whore, Ne ak AS tho Richmond Eaomi-
ner ms esked. witheut being answered--is the
difference in principle or effect, between giving
away aud selling at nominal prices Low shall
the distinction. finer than tue hair Of n comets
tail be drawn between the right 10 give TIE
proceeds Of the sales Of pubic lo.. and the
right 10 give lor soil far ninepenee per acrG> the
lands themselves
But Senators Hunter anA Mason have sS.id thut
this Is distncton-theY have affirmed the right
of Congress to do the one while they deny it,
power to do the other; aud Senators Il unter aud
Mason are very wise aud experienced men-thcy
nave always oeen very trae >tnte- rghts Demo
Gratis, rgo the thing is right anu we 20 for it
So argue the Richmond Enquirer the Wheeling
Argus, the Norfolk Argus the Charleston Muir
curry, and many other influential Democratic
journals.
Consider the defence good, whether upen the
groand Of authority ar eNpediency, and we sub
nit to every candid men whether the Senatorial
and editorial leaders Of tho Democracy in Nir-
ginia, have not conceded morc-far 4nore thar
we ever eantended Ion, when tho rights Of Viz
gina in the proceeds Of the public lands were de
handed Wings argued that this was common
fund, and ths1t the States were entitled 20 the
benefits u i.--fimt in doi,ayiug the expenses Of
the general government, and then in the surplus
to an extent measured by the rule Of Fcderel
Representa- ton. The Enquirer, following the
conclusions Of Mr. Hunter, practically regards
the public land the absolute property Of the
Federal government which may, at its pleasure
release those '.claims Of the respective State
guaranteed by the Constitution ard 80 Sedul2usly
sought to be preserved. not only by that mstru-
ment.but by the Virginia act Of cession by that
instrument it was provided that these lands
should be "common fund for the use and benefit
of such of the United States rs have become or
shall become members of the confederation. Nir.
gnlla INCLUSIVE, hcSoiuhs ~ hlrlI uNuhl respect
i've proportions the general charge and cxpen-
ditore, and shall be faithfully aud Jonafdc dis
posed of for that purpose and fox no other use
or purpose iehdfsoercr' Here Virginia reserved
a ''cainl' IN her own behalf and in behalf of her
then and future sisters; and such "clams" the
Constitution of the United States guarantee ~
the Bird section of the 18th article.
1t is not, at present car, object borrower, 10
show the uneonstitutionality of Mr.. Hunter
bill, or to exhibit the odioss Textures with which
il abounds. We leave that office for the present
at least, to the Richmond Examiner the South
Side Democrat and ether democratic cxpoupdors
The point to which we wish to call the atten-
ton of our readers is this-tbat the author of
this bill, who is considered the embodiment Of
Yirginian Democracy, and his colleague in the
Senate, with all the Democratic prints which
essay the defence of the measure, not only
copcede to Congress a power over the public
lands far greater than the advocates Of disuibu-
ticn ever allowed it to possess-but affirm that
power to be plenary. The concession j. Rstruc-
tive. Let it henceforth be received as Demo
cratic doctrine that Congress may legislate away
the public lands-n any way it 6t--as by
affecting TO sell them for consideration, viz
nine-penee (or one milD per acre, especially in
favor of particular States lin whose limits they
chance to lie )-and in favor of Internal Improve
ments which possess the accidental advantage
OF running through the same. In the name of
common sense we ask again, if this can he done,
why might not Virginia have received the $40
600, her share of the surplus Of the proceeds Of