Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1857-04-25

for the benefit Of the States in which the
lands lie, if it was q gratuitoas grant in any
degree, whence is the power obtained TO
authorize Congress to give away the public
lands ? Well, the answer to this question
might be, that the proposition is not to
make gift OF it, as certain returns were to
be made to Congress by the new States -
Now, by the Constitution of the country the
trust, the disposition of the public lands was
conferred ON Congress and ! ask, is it pos
sible that any man can maintain the propo-
sition that as they were placed in their
hands. as belonging to tie whole people of
the United States, they could transfer the
general disposition Of them 1t appears to
me that they might just as well entertain
this proposition as to farm cut the CUSTOM
house III New York on certain terms.
Nor do know that Congress has any
more authority to yiee a~aythe PHdlic ianuis,
than the proceeds Of u custom house on par
ticular stipulations ; nor can they surrender
the control Of it any more than they can as
sign to others the power of collecting the
revenue Of the custom house in Boston, or
elsewhere. | see, therefore, objections in
surmountable, whether they assume the
shape Of grat9itoaS cession or trust. In
either case it transcends the power of Con
gress. Il IS 10 n,ahs the paJ1ic lands q
common t'aad for the benefit of the whole
people Of the Union. The great object is to
sell it, the public lands, gradually; and
whilst it is in state Of ownership, | have
always held that Congress might make it
more rafaolle BY the creation Of raH,'oads,
canafs, aisd OTHER Improvements Of this sort.
| have felt no difficulty, therefore, in sup
porting grants to accomplish these objects F.;
because it was very efficient mode of IN
ereasng the value Of the public domain =
Eftlact from Speech Of Daniel lycbster,
IN 1887
Bzse Before Mr Stuart makes lis great
speech on Distribution Oh Monday, we sug-
gest the propFiety ofhis reading the above
extract from speech of Mr. Webster, as
also an extract from his own reports, while
Secretary of the Interior, showing that
grants Of public lands for 'ethe creation of
railroads, &C., made to the new States was
& very efficient mode Of iacreasistq the value
Of the public domain, and that such grants
did not operate TO the prejudice of the cid
States. Another important feature which
Mr.. Stuart ought 10 discuss is, the ayaia-
bic amount Of money to be derived from dis
trlbutioa after acdactfng the amount of ex-
penses attending the surveys, sales, &c
The opposition papers repreSen. The number
OF acres at ttoasona millions and Virgin
las share at thirty millions, and estimate
each acre as bringing the government price
Of a dollar and a quarter Such result is
impossible. L is unreasonable to suppose
chat the sales under distribution act would
amount TO Il greater sum than they do I'M
der the present system--and the widest
distrlbutionist wou,d hardly state that they
Would amount 10 IA much, or that the lands
would even bring the government price
Indeed, there is every reason to believe that
when thirty-two competing owners come
into market with their distributige shares,
they would rot bring one-half the govern
ment price, and then after dedecting the
expenses of sale there would be but frac-
ton to b. divided among the people.
II is matter of no importance what De-
mocrat has advocated dstribatoa-that is
nof the question to be discnssed-but the
effect distribution is to have upon the policy
of the country in increasing Or diminishing
observation-disclosures it is better to pay au in
creased tariff, upon sugar, coffee aud salt,
molasses, iron, steel, cotton, &c, in order
TO support the general government, so that
the State taxes laight, pcrchancc, be slight
" reduced.
But there is another view of this subject
which is important to the landowner in the
old States--it is emigration, about which so
much has recently been said, aud which the
opposition say, distribution is to prevent
The following, from the Richmond Eramii-
ner, in reply to an article in that cid foey
print, tie National Intelligencer, it would
he we'll for the distributionists to reflect
upon
"Emigrants go West 10 share he benefits
Of Land Distributionn What unworthy
saphistry. What shallow demagoguism
They go to buy lands at government prices.
when are higher than Distribution prices
would be, ten to one. The government,