Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

States consented to accept them as lands of cession, it was virtually acknowledging the claims to be just, and bringing themselves under an obligation rigidly to comply with any conditions attached to the articles of cession. Secondly, the principles of justice, and the letter and spirit of the constitution require, that the public property should be appropriated for the equal benefit of all the states. Thirdly, the system followed in disposing of the western lands has not operated equally, but has favored some states more than others. Fourthly, it is not only a constitutional right, but the duty of the states, which have thus been neglected, to petition Congress for an equal extension of privileges.

To some of the positions, which we have attempted to establish, objections have been made, especially in the Report of the committee of public lands in the Senate of the United States, and in the Report respecting the Maryland resolutions in the Legislature of New York. To these objections we now proceed briefly to reply.

It has been said, that the other states have actually received an adequate consideration for the lands appropriated for schools in the west. The money, which has accrued to the national treasury, by the increased value of the public lands, is thought to be a compensation. This was stated in the Report to the Senate of the United States, and more at large by Mr. Verplanck in the New York Report. He speaks as follows.

"Reservations of school and college lots are upon a large scale, what the reservations of public squares and walks, of lots for churches, markets, and public edifices are in the plans of cities and villages. They are not gratuitously bestowed upon the inhabitants;

nor is their value lost. But on the contrary, they tend to increase their aggregate value far beyond their own proportion, and their price is far more than paid in part of the purchase money of every private sale."

Such, Mr. Verplanck thinks, has been the effect of the western grants.

"They have induced a readier sale, a higher price, and from the character of those settlers, who would be most attracted by these prospects, a more prompt payment. The reservations complained of ought, therefore, to be regarded, not as a partial donation for local objects, entitling every state to similar ones on principles of strict justice, but as a judicious arrangement, calculated and intended to increase the value of that 'common fund, held for the use and benefit of the several states,' and made not for state, but for national purposes.

This argument had already been anticipated by Mr. Maxcy, and answered in a manner so lucid, forcible, and conclusive, that we are surprised to find it repeat ed by the New York committee, without any reply to the reasonings contained in the Maryland Report.

"Your committee are aware," says Mr. Maxcy, "that it has been said, that the appropriation of a part of the public lands to the purposes of education, for the benefit of the states formed out of them, has had the effect of raising the value of the residue, by inducing emigrants to settle upon them. Although in the preambles of such of the acts on this subject, as have preambles, the promotion of religion, morality, and knowledge, as necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, have been assigned as the reason for passing them, and no mention has been made of the consequent increase in the value of the lands, that

would remain, as a motive for the appropriation, yet the knowledge, that provision had been made for the education of children in the west, though other motives usually influence emigrants, might have had its weight in inducing some to leave their native homes. If such has been the effect, the value of the residue of the lands has no doubt been increased by it. This increase of value, however, has not been an exclusive benefit to the Atlantic states, but a benefit common to all the states, eastern and western; while the latter still enjoy exclusively the advantage, derived from the appropriations of land for literary purposes. The incidental advantage of the increase in value of the public lands, in consequence of emigration, if it is to be considered in the light of a compensation to the old states, must be shown to be an advantage exclusively enjoyed by them. That this however is not the case is perfectly obvious, because the proceeds of the lands, thus raised in value by emigration, when sold, go into the United States treasury, and are applied, like other revenues, to the general benefit; in other words, to naTIONAL and not to STATE purposes.

"It is moreover most clear, that this increase of the value of lands in consequence of emigration, produces a peculiar benefit to the inhabitants of the new states, in which the inhabitants of the other states, unless owners of land in the new, have no participation. This benefit consists in the increase of the value of their own private property.

"On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true, that emigration is injurious to the Atlantic states, and to them alone. While it has had the effect of raising the price of lands in the west, it has, in an equal ratio at least and probably in a much greater, prevented the in

crease of the value of lands in the states which the emigrants have left. It is an indisputable principle in political economy, that the price of every object of purchase, whether land or personal property, depends upon the relation, which supply bears to demand. The demand for land would have been the same, or very nearly so, for the same number of people, as are contained within the present limits of the United States, if they had been confined within the limits of the Atlantic states. But the supply in that case would have been most materially different. It must have been so small in proportion to the demand, as to occasion a great rise in the value of land in the Atlantic states; for it cannot be doubted, that it is the inexhaustible supply of cheap and good land in the west, which has kept down the price of land on the eastern side of the Allegany. If the Atlantic states had been governed by an exclusive, local, and selfish policy, every impediment would have been thrown in the way of emigration, which has constantly and uniformly operated to prevent the growth of their numbers, wealth, and power; for which disadvantage the appreciation of their interest in the public lands, consequent upon emigration, can afford no adequate compensation. It appearing then perfectly clear to your committee, that emigration is exclusively advantageous to the new states, whose population, wealth, and power are thereby increased at the expense of those states, which the emigrants abandon, the inducement to emigration furnished by the appropriation of public lands for the purposes of education in the west, instead of affording reason for confining such appropriations to that quarter of the union, offers the most weighty considerations of

both justice and policy, in favor of extending them to the states, which have not yet obtained them."

This reasoning seems to us legitimate and unanswerable. The argument itself, which proves the United States to have received a benefit by reason of the inducements held out in the west to emigration, is as powerful evidence as can be had of the unequal operation of the system. The value of the lands has been increased, it is true, and the national treasury has become richer. But how has this been done? By exhausting the Atlantic states. Just in proportion as extraordinary encouragements have been offered to induce the people of these states to emigrate to the west, -just in this proportion, have the states suffered, by losing a part of their population and wealth, and by being made to hold a lower comparative rank in the union. This consideration strengthens the claims of these states. If they had been in no manner affected by the donations in the west, they would still be entitled to similar donations. And since it appears that this enhanced value of the public lands, which, as a national benefit, is thought to be a balance to the privileges enjoyed in the west, has actually been produced at their expense, it is certainly a very strange mode of reasoning to argue, not only that their claim is annulled, but that they have been compensated for their loss. Such compensation as they have received, has been taken from their own pockets.

If the Atlantic states were becoming overburdened with inhabitants, it might be considered a just and benevolent act in the general government to offer extraordinary inducements to allure some of them away. A national good might thus be realized, without injury to any state. But a century at least would elapse, before

« НазадПродовжити »