Delaware State journal and statesman., 1862-12-05

any other property. 1t is no less true for hay
ing been oiteu said that the people Of the Soul
are not more respons BILE for the original intro
ductior Of this property tnl are the people o
the North and when it is remembered hoy
unhesitaiugly We all use oottnn and sugar, ant
share the profits of dealing 10 them, it may no
he quite safe to say that the South has beer
more responsible than the North for its contu
uance. II, then, for n common object, this pro
pery is to be sacrificed, is it not just that il be
done at Il common charge? And ii With less
money, or money more easily paid, We can
preserve the benefits OF the Union by this
means than we can by the war alone, is it not
also economical to do it? Let us consider it
! then Let US ascertain the sum we have
expended in the war since compensate emanci
patton was proposed last March, and consider
whether if that measure had been promptly
accepted by even some OF the Slave States the
same sum would not have done mere 20 close
the war than has been otherwise done. II 81,
The measure would save money, aud in that view
would he prudent and economical measure -
Certainly it is mot so easy to pay something as ii
is To pay nothing, but it il easier to pay large
sum than it is to pay n larger one. And it is
ea Ter TO lay any sum when we are able than il
is TO pay it before we are able The war
requires large sums, and reqnires them at once.
The aggregate sum necessary for compensated
emancipation Of course would be large, but it
would require no ready cash, the bonds
even, any faster than the emancipation pro-
gresses. This might not, and probably would
not, close before the end of the thirty seven
years. AT that time we shall probably have
hundred millions of people to share the burden
instead of thirty-one millions as now. And not
only so, but the increase Of our population may
be expected to continue for long time after
that period as rapidly as BEFORE because our
territory will not have become full. | do not
state this inconsiderately. At the same ratio
OF increase, which we have maintained on
average from our first national census, in 1890
until lhat of 1860, we should in 1900, have a
population Of l03, ,20s,4 AIS; and why may w0
not continue that ratio far beyond that period
Our abundant room, our broad national home
stead, Is our ample resource.
Were our territory as limited as are the British
Isles, very certainly our population could not
expand as stated. Instead Of receiving the
toreign-born us now, We should be compelled to
send part Of the natlve-born away. But such is
not our condition. We have 2,963, 900 square
miles. Europe has $500. 000 with population
averaging 73t persons to the square mile. Why
may not our country, at some time, average as
many Is it less fertile Has il more waste
surface by mountains, rivers, lakes, deserts, or
other causes Is it inferior to Europe in any
natural adVantages If, then, we are at some
time to be as populous as Europe, how soon ?
AS to when this may be we can judge by the
past and the present. AS to when this will be,
if ever, depends much on whether we maintain
the Union.
Several of our States are above the average
of Earope, I3! TO the square mile. NIassachu-
setts has 1857, Rhode island 1888, Connecticut
%, New York and New Jersey each 80. Also,
the two other great States of Pennsy ylyania and
Ohio are not far below, the former having 63
and the latter SO.
The States already above the Europ ON aver
age, except New York, have increased in us
rapid ratio since passing that point as ever
before, while no one of them is equal to some
other parts of our country in natural capacity
for sustaining IL dense population. Taking the
nation in the aggregate, we find the population
aud ratio of increase for the several decennial
periods to be as follows:
l790-3929, 1877.