Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-05-26

THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
~~~~~>~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by RITCHIE & DUNSAYANT.
TUESDAY MORNING, MAY 20. 1851
OUR POSITION ON THE PUBLIC LANDS

OUR POSITION ON THE PUBLIC LANDS.
In an appeal TO the patriotism and pride Of The peo.
pie of Virginia, on Friday, urging them to repudatr
again and, if possible, with increased emphasis the
distribution proposition, which has been so eagerly
ana PlauSoiy pressed upon them by the opposition
during Tie last TWO months more, took occasion
to avow the opinion, that notwithstanding our repro
batinn OF the allowance of lands to the North. West
ern States, for The urherance Of their own separate
purposes and interests, We considered it the least dan
gerous disposition as we'll a. much more in accord
ance with sound national sentiment, to allow the
ands 10 'hose States in which they lie rather than to
parcel Them among all the States, in consonance
with the doctrine of the distributionists And
on Saturday morning our contemporary Of the
Wing, quoting from that portion of our ar
ticle, with emphasis upon every word; with
al mir of amazsment, says "thsre is tho Ian.
gdage Of the Rchmoud Enquirer upon this grave
subject. And doesit not strike the minds of South.
ern men with utter astonshmentl" The Wing may
see something morsrous in such an avowa but we
doubt exceedingly that it presents itself in the same
awful aspect 10 he minds of a very large majority Of
Southern men. It's asked by our neighbor "where
fore, and how, would the ceding of these lands to the
new States be less dangerous disposition Of them
than dislrbutionl How is it that the policy thus
preferred by the Enquirer would be more in accord.
ance with sound national sentiment" The frat
question fret. To grant to each State of the Union
those public lands lying within its borders. while it
would be an nfraction of the Constitution,
a usurpation Of power by the Federal govern
ment and subordnatiOn of State sovereign.
ty. neither necessary nor justfable, on the
part Of those States assentng to acceptance
Of the fund 30 uuwsrantably applied. it would still
be attended with the palliative pret-xt Of emp,ion
and on the ground, that when these lands. which
were intended for the common expenditures of all
the States together, as al united nation, are not en-
puyed for that purpose but by an abuse Of the trust
snd violation of the Constitution by the Federal
Government. they ara applied i'll one Instance as if
thsre was no Union and no General Government;
upon the plea, we say that 80 far as the public lands
are concerned tho Constitution i. imperative, aud,
consequently the interests of the States are not den
tilted each with the other, one and ALL those States in
which these lands lie may profess to quiet their Con-
stitutional scuples with the reflection that State
rights and State sovereignty are supreme over even
Federal property within the limits Of the State,
when the C0nGiLution Of the United States, under the
Interpretation aud subject tothe General Government
no longer exercises over it the authority with which
il was invested lust in the event of dissolution
Of the Union, the State of Virginia would claim Old
Point Comfort and the public property at the Cos
port Navy Yad or, if Congress should determine to
convert fortress Monroe into factories for the bene
fit Of Maryland or Massachusetts, while the people
of the State within which it lies, would denounce tho
act as an abuse authority prostitution OF powert
would not be unnatural that they should oonsder
their own claim above all Others after the General
Government; and, if it must be appropriated to the
private purposes of one State instead Of to the pub
lie benefit of all would it be unreasonable 10 suppose
that und.r such circumstances sven Virginia should
say to the Federal Government, "that property is
yours first, mine next"
We nesn to make 10 argument in vindicaton Of
that course, which have censured and still con
dcml nth references to the allowance OF portions ot
the public lands to the new States. But we mean to
maintain that such disposition of them is less dan
perous than "dis,ribution," for the simple reason,
that the one would find only few State', IN an al
titude of antagonism to the Constitution connVing
al and participating in the perverslon OF the powers
of Congress, and rendering their own subservient 10
the sovereignty Of the Federal Government; whereas
the other would include oil the States in this mighty
movement towards Capitalization, against the negri
ty of the several States and in violation of the ge
MUS of government And the grouna upon
which we have suggested the States might stand
In attempting to vndcate their COURSE s' we '''"h
not altogether unlike that which has been mol uisle'
auently occupied by the distroutlonlsts themselves
during the canvass in Virginia, now about 10
closs. Unless We much mistake, It has neen heIu oy
the advocates of distribution as an rresisne reasoh
thai the ueople of Virginia should consent to demand
their portion OF the public lands, that congress na7
granted, and will continue to grant them 10 tne lie"
States. And as they are not applied TO the cohloh'
;nsress of all the States, Virginia s unjust to her
.,f in refusing to present her claims. II the new
s,, teks This same view Of the subject in relation
., ho,,sa,ves. if Illinois says Iowa is receiving
,h ben.6t of the public lands within her oorders,
and since the Government is abusing lie au'horty'
and giving to Wisconsin also what belongs 70 the
whole Union will not refuse TO accept that portion
,b;cb ia within my territory because, II the Con-
.,;,rt;on cannot control Congress in its improper
exercise of authority, my sovereignty Is next
IT. We say, the new States argue thus the'r po
s;tion not somewhat similar to that OF Inc oiSI'ou
tion,ts in Virginia. And s II not na'ura' t'a' 'ne
riobt Of occupancy and possession SHOULD DO urged
when all other law on the subject Is set aside' AZ
lon, 90 tbe nublio land trust is abused, so tar as tlst
:; o,.ornad there ia no Const,tution, and the Union
80, .nd And in the event of a separation OF
49, S,.,o. in form and in fact, would the South ex
pect to claim territory lying within the borders OF
the Northl Would Virginia surrender to Mas'achu-
,s,,s a proportion of the public property at old
Pointl
R,t Az we have raid, it is not our object TO vindl
onto the unconstitu,onal course of Congress In grant
no Iand or to sustain the States that have compro
misod their own independence, and faith TO their
,ovarnment by receiving them. The Federal Gov
oroment has not the right to apportion the public
,s,ds among the States; and the States have no right
to accept them when they are oi1e9ed' ou' "h'''
there are two evils, one ID usually more o"hoh'ou-
than the other 1t thing to dsma't ship' ana
quite another to sink her,
That policy preferred by the Enquirer would
bs more in accordance with sound na'p'n' sen'''
msnt." ia explained easily as tnat lne on'h was
;,,snded for the promotion and protection o' ths
;o,s-es,. Of all the States embraced under II al
ia organization, as well as those thereafter
.a,,;,,sd under i.s expansive sgs. As long as
,h, ooptederacy exists the people of the United
S,0.o. ara one nation, acknowledging allegiance
~ 81. constitution common to them ALL And if all
sts.es and all sections with that unlmpared ana uh-
sFo,ed faith, which every people should feel towards
tho Government, which they profess to foster ana
hold dear, would look not with an enVious' ou' an ao
mring eye upon the advancement and prosperity oil
each part and all PORTIONS of their common country
there would be- grateful glow of pride in Virginia or
in Alabama, to see that the Union Is extending 10,
ward. the North or West as well as the South And
Nav Hampshire or lows would welcome the advent
Of every new Southern State with american, not nj
N,r,bern feelings. And hence, We think, that ths
of the two evils in relation to the disposition OF