Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1857-08-01
utterIv nl.taken in supposing that ! sn con-

49,
General Government and are controlled ~ one
legislative hand ; the liBd system being the
sane all over the Union. and giving the beneht
Of the most accurate surveys and The mGSt per-
feet titles. They are brought into market Just
az fast az necessary for the purpose Of settle
ment and cultivation, and at graduating prices,
ranging from l2l cents per acre up 70 81 %
per acre; thus placing the Homestead within
the reach Of any industrious man la the Uhloni
and when he sees proper to be;ome The owner
Of the Homestead, be pays into the Treasury
the price at which the land Is beid, and the
funi is used first in deFrsying expenses OF adj
ministeriug the lands, and il there ls any bal
ance left, It is used IN defraying the genera
expenditures Of the Government, and thereby
relieves every MAJ ia the Union from taxation
to that extent. SOFT will be seen that under
this system the lands are administered for The
sgzal benefit Of al The people being held sub
ject to the purchase Of all and al prices 50 Tow
that L is withln the reach Of every man who
wishes TO become the owner OF a homestead;
and when sales are made the fund Is used Tor
the equal benefit Of all.
But, said Gen. H., suppose you unGertake TO
divide the lands. lustesd OF one land-holdef
you have t~hirty-one instead Of one land sys-
ten Won have thiTty-one-all acting In compe-
titon and to some extent Ia conflict with each
other. Il will impose, too, the necessity Of
making one STATE The owner o. millions Of acres
Of land within the corporate limits OF Q sister
State-one being the owner Of the soil, while
the other viii have exclusive jurisdiction over
it. No man can fail TO see numerous difficult
ties growing out OF such a system, dangerous,
X not fatal 10 the peace OF the country.
How long would Louisiana and Massachu-
sets get along haTmoniously together IL Mas
saehusetts owned thirty or forty millions Of
acres or land In Louisiana? Massachusetts
might determine that her lands should not be
-
oliiionists, and woald Louisiana consent TO be
abolitionized In this wsyY
In addition TO this, you would The
work OF division by taxing the people 10 the
extent Of 500 000, 600, as 1t would cost the
Federal Government about that amount to sur
vey and make titles to the States Of the va
rious lots of land to which they would be enti-
tied uHceT this system, and the old States would
be under the necessity Of establishing and keep
ing up laud Cfices and all the machinery neces-
sary TO the administration Of the lands, at a
distance Of from three to five hundred miles
from them until the lands were sold and they
cannot be sold until demanded BY the popula-
ton, and this may be a quarter OF a half cen
turv in the future, Hnless The lands should be
forced upon the market and if forced sales
we're made, thsy would 20 into the hands Of
the Spectator and at a runOus sacrifice in
price.
But, continued Gen. H., the proposition to
divide the lands themselves, is too absurd to be
seriously entertained. So we will enquire to
what extent the people will be benefited by a
distribution Of tie proceeds OF s1les. The
sales have averaged, from the beginning Of the
Government TO this time, about two and a half
millions Of dollars per annum. l. has cost the
Government about one million a year to admin
lister the lands, which leaves a net proceed of
one and a half millions for distribution /; and
according to Mr.. Bells bill you distribute ae-
cording TO population. Now, divide one and a
half millions Of dollars between thirty millions
of people, aud it gives TO each individual only
about five cents per year, and when you have
received this dividend you are pecuniarily in
iared BY it, for all governments have 10 be sup
portei BY taxation from the people. The peo-
pie Of Tennessee have their State government
to support, and they have also to contribute
their proportion to the support Of the Federal
government While the proceeds Of the sales
OF the lands 20 into the Federal treasury, they
are used 10 paying the expenses of the Govern
ment and relieve you from taxation Just to that
extent, and If you take the land fun4 out Of the
treasury, the deficiency must be supplied BY
taxation. Then would il be good policy 70 in
cur the expense Of transporting the money from
Washington to Nashville, when the next day
you would have to raise the money by taxation
and pay the expense of transportation back tc
Washington?
And The fund you get out Of the distribution
poiicg l. b. the constitution Of the State con-
fined to common schools and to works Of inter-
nal improvements-snd not a dollar Of it car
be applied in paying The general expenses Of
the State government.
But, said Gen. H., you would be greatly in
jured in another way by distribution. You
Federal revenues are raised BY q tax OF from
20 10 30 per cent. upon the imported articles Of
conmo consumption, such as domestic calico
blankets, f~anneis, shoes, boots, bats, axes
t~rsce-cbai8s, hoes, &c, and under that system
Of taxation, he aye that costs YOU 81 % to-
day, would only cost yen 81 but for the Ia,
that - put upon it the nat that costs 50
would only cost 50 50 if it was not taxed tht
trass-shain that you now pay 81 for, y0y
would buy for 70 cents, but for the tax-ant
so on through the entire list Of almost ever
article that is used and consumed By The pool
as well as the rich in this country.
Now, If you take from the Federal treasury
say sig millions Of dollars, and divide it be
iveen tbs Stalss, you divide it according t.
! popula.ion, sHd tEe North being more popu
ious than the South sHs West, would get abou
two-thirds, say four millions e. the SIX
while the South and West E-Huld ehiy go agou
ope-third. or about tro niWons Sat Ehss
you come 70 pay the money back into the ga
sury, .he North being a manufacturing neoDie.
manufacturing lmost everything they use, and
to some extent manufacturing for us, they buy
very few imported goods, while the farmers OF
the South and West are the chief consumers Of
these articles upon which the Federal tax is
levied, and therefore they pay much the larger
proportion Of the Federal revenues. Thus il
viii be seen that when we 60 to make NJ the
deficiency In the treasury. the neople Of the
South would pay about four Of the six millions,
while the North would only pay two-but when
we 90 to divide, the North gets four. while We
only get two, which is a gradual transfer Of
the wealth Of the agricultural South and West
into the pockets Of the manufacturing North.
Rather an expensive mode Of increasing a
school fund, OF an internal improvement fund.
Is 1t not better for the people Of each county
to determine for themselves first, whether they
viii be taxed to increase their common school
fund, and If so, to what extent. and then thew
will get the benefit OF every dollar they paw?
But II you increase your school fund bv dis
tribution Of the land fund, you have no option /:
you are compelled to Be taxed to supply the
deficiency in the Federal Treasury, and taxed,
too, under a system that compels you 10 paw
about two dollars into the treasury for every
dollar that you get ont.
But, said Gen. II, nv competitor SAYS that
the present tariff will raise money enough
to support the Government without the land
fund. Col. Hatton forgets that about the last
thing the recent Congress did was to reduce the
tarnt to what is supposed to be tie low revenue
standard. But If it is found to raise more
money than necessary to support the Govern
ment, the policy Of the Democratic party il To
reduce It lower and lower, until they have
reached the lowest revenue standard ; holding
Il to be UNI ist and unWise to tax the people a
cent more than necessary to support the Gov
eminent. So the difference between nv COM
petiior and myself is this He says the pres
eut tariff will produce more money than is
necessary TO support the Government, but is
opposed to reducing it, and Insists upon keen
ing it up high enough to make the proceeds Of
the laids d surplus for distribution. This
policy results in raising By taxation the fund
that he proposes to distribute ; for in principle
there IS no difference between raising a fund
for distribution by keeping the taxes up IN
necessarily high, and levying a tax for the
purpose Of raising a fund to distribute. Each
results IN drawing from the pockets Of the
people, by taxation, a fund to distribute and
when you distribute it according to this plan.
you have taken two-thirds Of it from the peck
cts OF the South and West and given two
thirds Of it to the Golfers Of the mahufac 'urers
OF the North; which results in forcibIv taking
the money from one set OF pockets and return
ing It to others, a policy unjust and unwise.
But II Il was 70 be returned to The same pock-
cts from which &c was taken, IL would still be
unwise, for the reason that you would have in
CURED me expense OF collecting it and return
ing II, and the loss OF interest while the nancy
is making the necessary circuit.
Gen. II. said, according to the opinions Of
Clay aad Webster, and indeed all the great
lights OF both the old parties, there is not, nor
can mere be Tor many years, any land funds TO
be distributed. For Clay and Webster both
held that Congress could only distribute 4 nett
surplus proceeds Of the lands. In 1886 there
was a surplus in the Treasury, composed, in
part, Of the proceeds OF the sales Of the lands;
but they held they could not distribute that sur
plus, because they denied the power TO distri-
butte a fund raised by taxation, and that the
proceeds OF the sales Of the lands were not a
NETT, tor tie reason that the lands were at
mat time IN debt to TIE Treasury, they having
cost more money than they had paid back into
the Treasury. Hence they advocated the poll
ey OF deposIting with the States the surplus
IN the Treasury, to be returned to the General
Government on demand.
Ihe lands are at pTesent in debt TO The Treas
ury some seventy millions Of dollars, having
cost that much H1nrp rnnnnv fhan fhow hava