The true Democrat., 1857-03-17
WASHINGTON, March f, 1851.


 kansaw Traveller of the 5th inst, that our old friend Scott has :" a bee in his bonnet" on the subject of the pre-cmpton law of the last session of the General Assembly. He reminds me of blind man fighting, who as often, or oftener, strikes from the object of his wrath as towards it.
 After sundry long dissertations where he sets up sundry frames of nine pins and then knocks them down, to his apparently huge delight and no doubt to the wonder and edifcaton of his readers, he finally sums up his objections in five questions addressed to you, which he evil dently seems to regard as " clnchers."
 As, in this case, he seems to be "a gentle man in pursuit of knowledge under difficult ties," and evnces an enquirng turn of mind, permit me through your columns to file se parate answer to said interrogatories of the aforesaid Scott. He asks:
 "1st When "poor man. can buy good up lands at l2 cents an acre, would It uot De better for hm to do So, than pay 5O, and 75 cents for swamp lands, wholly unfit for cultivaton?"
 TO which, this respondent, answering says: That it depends altogether upon circumstances, for if the upland referred to in the question be of the kind described by the person who, IT. ding by ali apology for farm, remarked that the person who owned it must be poor, and was answered hy the son of the proprietor, who wts picking his morning mea! of black berries by the road side, Not 50 d-I poor you m. n. suppose. Daddy gin teller a third to Iet him 10 take another .hjrl" IL that case, op.ue the poor man had better get peee ot btiom laud Besides, lf man pre- iers IS niae-tenths of poor men do, Jo give ff- ty or seveuty-hve cents au acre fJr swamp lands, rather than pay the graduatel price for uplauds. the inference is very clear that t is better for him to do so, on the principle that every man knows lis own business even better than tho aforesaid query;us editor or this res pondeut
 Here is his second question:
 "2i. D. you call it benefit to the "poor man Y to compel the e,ttcs reclamation of a tract ol swamp lands, before he can eutar it at the above prce,?'
 l. strikes us that the purpose for which a poor man enters laud is to cultivate it. aud in order to cultivate swamp land he must recliam it. Ii the cost ot reclamation exceed. the price ol the laud the excess enures to lis bene- ht
 The third question no doubt $ considered poser. Here it is
 II. Does Y stand 10 reason" that poor mar should ln 5000 worth If work ou a piece "f swamp IaHd n order to get a cerrti- cate for Soo, ar Sl29, (the greatest amount he can possibly receive under the I.wD"
 Whether or not t stands to reason 1t is often done As the Traveller" is fond Of snPp'sitions cases, he Will permit us to state one, and we will enlcavor to lo 50 clearly. Suppose that the eas: half of a cor- t"'n section E swamp land and TWO persons wish to settle upon if; one upoa the northeast and the other The southeast quarter The first enters hi, iand, say at $50, with cash or scrip, and M order to render t ht for cultivation must reclaim 1t, which reclamation costs hin S5JO. Ills quarter section then hls cost him S5SO.- The second person commences retaining the other q'mrter section, within thirty days files hls declaration of intention to claim i; as pre- emption, which prevents aqY other pers9l from entering |, and within the year, gets hiS ccrti- hcate at the cost of d,llar, and pays for the land with such certificate and four hundred and twenty dollars in labor. Then hts quarter sec ton has cost S5Ol
 but this < an extreme case and 1t rarely hap pens that 1t would cost that amount to reclaim any quarter section of land Suppose further that poor man finds a quarter section of bot. tom land, which he can reclaim with a hun. dred days labor. The cost of the tract js eighty or one hundred and twenty dollars. which amount of filthy lucre' he has not oy cannot command. However he settles upor II, or may live near 1t, and reclaims it durino the year allotted to him. X certificate to that effect IS received in payment therefor. In this case does not the pre-emptor get pay for his : labor? But. argues the "Traveler." do vou call that giving the poor man any hing? Ger taInly it is giving him the price of the land for, in order to make it tillable this work must be done. If he first enters the land and tber reclalms It, the land thus reclaimed has cost money and labor, while under the pre-enptjon ! law he gets the land for the labor. anr the ra. : suits Of that labor are to make his own land more valuable. Why it's as clear IS mpd i The next question runs thus wise: : "fth. Does it stand to reason.r tha. mar lrL 'n HIS SeIseS' would undertake to pre-empt l5( acres III any of our bottom lands under this l law?" "'''''' ''''' Answer: Whether it stands to reason or not 1t stands upon the record that men iii thei sehsoS do. Al each of the State land office now n operation greater or less number o poor men have filed their declarations and hay,
 undertaken to preempt and to reclaim bottom . lands under this law.
 , The "Traveler'' may think such person F non ooRlpos mentis, but there Is soodlv uum . Der of them Whea a mailman was aske,
 how ne came into lunatic asylum. said lie | II was mere difference oi opinion. I sai, all the world was mad and all the world sai, was mad. They were in the majority tb
 majority ruled and here am.'' If there is any moral in this story the |" Ira r veler' IS welcome to it.
 Finally he winds up with this question: oth Would t not have been better to pa poor man for the work he may do on swan : lands without compelling the entire reclama . ton ot the tract, before he can get the pay fc ' even the value of the land-S8O, or sI20?"