Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-06-27

to purchase the necesssries and comforts Hfe q
reduced price by the reduction of re tariff TINS
course is practical distributpn, ma Ssayes ne
trouble and expense Of collecting md disbhrsing.
His reply is that unless the money from the lands
be distributed the lands will he wasted. Now does
this follow? But says be- they have been shameful
" wasted, and the old States thereby defrauded
therefore. the waste will continue. His conclusion
is illogical, however probable. But grant ,t."ii
distribution stop the wastce If the lands have
been improperly granted, Gor they cannot be vast
ed what has caused tho wrongf Is it because the
proceeds of their sale were to &C into the treasury
Of the United States at Washington, and not INTO
that of North Carolina at Raleigh My opinion OF
the matter is that the abuse If there has been ABUSE
proceeds not from the nature or character OF the
recipient, but from the ignorant, mistaken or cor
rupt purposes and practices of members ofCongress
And do not believe there is any reason to suppose
that distribution will either enlghten, correct or re-
form Congress-
If the amount be small then the grt at benefit
that Mr.. Smith claims as the result Of distribution
cannot be derived from this measure. But he here
throws himself upon his rights and demands what is
his, from sixpence to million. The principle Is
the same, and accede to its correctness But let
the amount be what j. may, we can reach all Its
benefits without its burdens. Let the general gov
eminent tax us less and then we shall be in
condition to pay literally to the State for every
useful measure of education or internal improve.
ment. This is easy, plain, practical solution OF
the whole matter. By its guidance we receive
practically our share of the lands; our works OF
improvement are kept under the eye of the people,
and utility and economy in their construction are
secured; the States are spared the humiating pos
ture of begging aims of the general government;
they maintain their independence and the people in
the end pay no more taxes. Mr.. Smith acts wisely
in not presenting any plan of distribution: No plan
can be adopted which will secure equal rights to all
the States in measure partakng of such different
traits of character. in which the lands are to be
subject the claims of the United States to pay the
national debt and at the same time belong to the
States individually, to be distributed by an act OF
Congress amongst parties claiming different modes
of representation and asking for an appropriation OF
the money for different objects in different States.
The same or similar difficulties will meet the ques-
ton as to the time when the distribution is to take
place.
There is another point in connection with this
subject which must prove barrier forever to dis
tribution. If the money-the proceeds OF the lands
belongs to the States then the lands, equitably at
least, belong to the States If so, the States should
have voice in the sales fthe lands, and have pow
to fix the price at which they are to sell. 1t is
well known that these lands are sold by government
at an arbitrary price, without reference to their val
ue. Adjoining sections are sold for the same mon
ey, and one may be and is frequently worth many
times more than the other. This is injustice to the
States. Their property, their land is worth its full
value, and the government has right to sell it for
less, because it is trustee appointed to sell. Now,
how is this question of price to be settled? 1t can
not be settled by the States individually; and Con-
gress adopt mode of pricing the lands except
by fixing uniform price for lands of certain To-
cality. Hence the whole question is at sea, and
neither Mr.. Smith, any of his independent con-
stituents can steer it into port of safety The De-
mocratic policy is plain. simple, and even Mr.. Smith
admits that if it were carried out it would be exact
y just. His plan is complex, indefinite, beset with
many and grave questions incapable of adjustment
and altogether impracticable upon any principle of
justice. The is correct, but liable to abuse the
other cannot be reduced to impartial justice, and
any attempt to carry it out will inevitably result in
abuse, at least in the opinion of large portion of
the country
Mr.. Smith was equally unfortunate in attempting
to conciliate the Know Nothings of many of whose
practices if not principles, he is avowcdly an oppo-
nent. He made the bold assertion, if I understood
him rightly, (and made the enquiry afterwards Of
Others who understood him as did, that to Henry
NJ Fuller, the Know Nothing candidate for the
Speaker of the last House of Representatives, be-
longs the honor of having first avowed the doctrine
that Southern men were equally entitled with Nor
them men to remove with their property into the
Territories of the United States and enjoy the pro-
lection of the laws over them and their property
Whether Mr.. Smith made this statement through
mistake or ignorance know not but it was very
unfortunate statement. never heard of H. NJ Full.
Ter until the last Congress. 1 then heard Of him
very frequently and his political features were made
familiar to the whole country by the pencil of Mr.
Caruthers, of Missouri. That picture did not look
very pleasing to Southern men, although in a very
few days he did travel South faster than any North.
ern man ever heard Of. At least, his professions
travelled South but his votes took the back track
and always brought up in the garrison of Seward.
Fuller was elected to Congress over Mr. Wright a
Democrat, who in the thickest of the fight upon the
Nebraska question remained firm to the rights of the
South, and the preservation of the Constitution
But he was overcome for a season, and Fuller was
put in his place upon the very ISSUE that Southern
men should not be allowed to carry their slaves to
the Territories and be allowed to keep them
Mr.. Fuller. suppose, fully endorsed that article
in the platform of the Know Nothing Convention
which denounced the repeal of the Missouri Com
promise as unwise and reckless" But that line
to certainty, excluded Southern men from large
portion Of the Territories. How, then, could Mr.
Fuller, with any pretension of honesty, support the
Democratic issue of perfect freedom of the Terrific
ries to all the citizens of the United States? The
fact is, Mr. Smith here fell iLto gross error and in
admiration of the principle he very far mistook it's
author Let tell him that that principle of equal
ity was contended for by the Democratic party be.
fore the Missouri restriction was enacted It was
acknowledged in the Compromise acts of 1850. The
attempt to practically enforce it in the Nebraska
Kansas bill originated the excitement out of which
d. M. Fuller and his confreres were born and upon
which they were nourished it was for the determn.
ed advocacy Of that principle by Northern Demo-
Gratis that the storm of treason which desoated the
North for the last two three years. Frustrated in
that section for time the Democratic party and ev-
cry sound principle and it that principle which
the Democrats hailed their bannercry in the last
Presidential election. Mr.. Smith ought to know
these plain facts of history, and be more cautious III
dealing in such reckless assertions. He may have
ho6 rAlsn,v H. mi ~