Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-03-10
THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER,
TUESDAY MORNING, MARCH 10, 1857.
EXPLANATION OF INCONSISTENCIES,
BY RITCHIR, & DUNNAyaNT.

EAtLaNAilOS OF INCONSISTENCIES
Our cotemporary Of the Mig is nordinatey ex.
srcised in regard to the results of the elections in
May, as is evidenced In the daily diatribes and earn.
est appeals OF that Journal to the people of Virginia,
irrespective OF party, on the subject Of the public
lands ltS elaborate leader Of Saturday was devoted
to an explosion Of the "inconsisences advanced In
our article OF Friday, In which we endeayored, as
cOncsely and sentehtiously as the merits of the sub.
ect would admit to expose to the public gaze and ex.
plain to the popular mind, the unconslitutionality
the lmpolicy and the impractcabity of partitionng
the pubic lands among the several States. To-day
purpose to answer the nterrogatores of the IVhtc
fairly aud frankly and We trust satisfactorily In the
first place, the Wing asks:
VT it be 30 heinous crime, az the Enqursr thinks
for Congress 10 resolve to parcel out the public do
main to each OF the States in egua proportions what
must be its opinion of the policy which now prevails
| and which It would ace porpetuated-a policy which
parcels ont to very Jen Of the States such Iii.
n0is Iowa and Wisconsin the lands which belong in
common to dHf We repeat tho question-if, as the
En9n'rcn maintains Il Ia unjust and
to distribute the public lands equally among all the
States, Is 1t not gross and fagrant outrage Con.
greas to do what it is every day doing-that is, 10
distribute them partially and uneQuelly among few
! OF the NOrthw Western States ~
an outrage, at the solicitation and for the benefit OF
few States would it render that wrong right, if all
the States would enter into the arrangement and
connive at this wanton abuse and usurpaion Of gu.
thorlty, in order that each of them might receive
its share of the ii.gotten gan7 Let Ms suupos.
that the Legislature OF Virginia assumes the pre-.
rogatve Of distributing among the people Of the
States every cent that couea into the golfers; and
while engaged in giving it out to the citizens Of
two or three towns counties, who consent 10 40.
cept it, every other town and county in the State,
by unanimous voice agrees also TO receive its share
of the public property as 1t is being squandered.
Would this united action Of all the counties justify
the Legislature in its high handed outrage upon tho
rights, and insult to ths sense of the peope1 We
ask in all candor it, upon principle the instances are
not ideaticay analogous Because Illinois, Iowa
and Wisconsin, connive at the iniquities OF Con.
gress there |, no that the escu:cheon of Vir
gins should be sullied with the same sn. As to the
votes OF the Southern Democratic Senators on the re-
cent land bill for the benefit of the territory of Mime
sofa, We have simply TO soy, that those who iniled
oppose it were guilty Of derelictiou Of duty to the
Democracy of the nation. And now 10 the next
iuterrogatory:
"But the Enquirer Is guilty Of another singular in.
consistency, will appear from the following pas
sage in ts elaborate article Of yesterday. IL ssys:-
The idea advanced by the opposition, that il FirSi
mia could be allowed TO receive her share Of the pro-
ceeds OF the pubic lands, Ler burden of taxation
would be materially lightened, and her works Of i'm.
provement more rapidly completed, is chnera with
no foundation in fsct-a delusye drearn-a deduction
without premises. The erpeses of the public lands
hare been fully equal 10 the profits, and consequently
sury.' Let the reader bear the admissions OF this
last sentence in mind, while we put simple question
or two 10 the EH9sirer. to which we would respect
fully reque,. prompt, distinct and emphatic answer.
II, as 10 here alleged the expenses OF tie public lands
are fully equal 10 the profits and that, consequently
they contribute little or rotbing uro the Treasury
we submit that the whole argumeu: against tte p.o
position to distribute them sGuslly among the States
| falls inevitably 10 ihu ground For example, /: ia
conleuded 5y Democratic party, that these lands
shord BE- invole5lv preser"eo Is fund for revenue
| purposes. Now, what il the use Vi preserving for
revenue purposes that which produces no .sTeEuo--
the expenses uf administering which are fully eQue!
to the prodts7 VII! The Enquirer tel usl'
We cordially concur With the Whig, that II the
pub bo lands contribute little or nothing utc the :rea.
sury, the argument against the proposition 10 dist
bus them equally among the States, falls inevitably
10 the ground But it s es the ahaft ss far beyond
the imaginary object al which it lie aimed. lmme.
9ately following the above paragraph in talic, the
context contained argument iE another phase be-
Ing based upon the admis5os that millions upon mil
lions were poured into the treasury from the proceeds
Of the public lauds, in which We sndeavored plainly
and practically to prove, ;ha, even then It would
| amount to nothing, to draw out with one hand ana
put back with the other We discussed the question
with reference to principle as we'll as practice, which
Is unchangeebIy the same whether the public lan5s
pay into the treasury ten dollars or ten millions Of
dollars In point OF practice there lie no use Of "pre
serving for purposes tint which produces no
revenu-" but matter OF principle, 1t lie highly
essential tina. there should be distinct and emphatic
understanding on all that Kindred class OF subjects
| which are liable to misconsruction and abuse
| and especially should il be go with reference
10 the public lands, when II ia held thrt even por
tion Of the proceeds arising iherefrom would relieve
Virginia of her burdenaoms taxation. Because the
arguments Of the opposition are founded on faaoies
there is no reason that they should not be ccrn5ated
| II sick man believed that the moon WAS made o.
| green cheese, slice Of which would cure him OF q
malady under which he was suffering, We would be
led TO convince him, not only that the moon was not
made of green cheese but that even If was, and he
could procure piece il would prove no cure for his
ailment.
"Again, if Congress so mismanages this vast and
magnificent common fund, As 10 make nothing out OF
it for the support of the Government 10 not that
conclusive reason why this trust iuno should be ia
ken out of it's hands, and turned over TO the benef
Charles of the deeds OF cession the States who can
and will SO dig about the barren hg tree as 10 make il
produce plentiful supply Of good fruit! Suppose
the editor Of the Enquirer was the owner Of an estate
and Urn fno
manage said estate as that the expenses of il were
fully equal 10 the profits, would our neiShbor, as
sensible prac,csl business man, be content TO suffer
his property 10 remain longer under our CONTROL II he
could possibly help it J.
Certainly not. But We perceive little or no analo
ey between the two cases. The federal government
is the trustee of thrtyo States in the one instance
and an Individual is the trustee OF another Individual
IN the other And while the editor ofthe Wing rs trus
tee of an estate belonging to us, would doubtless be
willing and ready without quarrel or cavil TO SUI
render the righN intact, with which We had
entrusted him, whenever we asked it, Is 1t
reasonable to suppose that the Congress
which, we charge with usurping and abusing au-
thority, would bs acceptable as an apportloner OF
property among the original owners, a large proper
tion of which it had unwsrrantaby appropriated to
imnron.r purposes as :rustes In our article OF FRI
dsy Wa eudeayored to demonstrate the impcssibi.
ty of an impartial partition Of the public lands
among the several States. Ii reclaim one delegated
right because it lie abused, why not ALL and at once
resolve the Republic into thirty one disconnected
Ststes7
"And how, again, could Virginia be termed 'asup::
nliant at the fvoi-,tool of the General Government,
nv recsiyiue her portion Of he public lands, the
Enourer says che would be, if the expenses Of these
l,nds would be fully equal to their prcatsl Would mt
it b. singular scene to see ss1 &c or u sn individual
advyent,g, 10 il or himl Aai why, then. wara the
people against the policy of dislrblion1 II 1t can
do them no good, will it likely do them any grsa.
harm7
Would itbs q singular scene to see man digging
after buried treasure which te verify believed TO be