The Arkansas advocate., 1836-10-14

ihis bill was defeated. Another bill was thoa brought forward, which proposed to dspcce of the sur us revenue py toaaRs t to the several Sates in tho ratio ot ther electoral yotes IT. did not give inc tan per cent. but t taas up for iiE inv rT,in.y State two shares for its two Senator's This bill unlike the other, was carried by large vote in bot bonses ahe appfefed by tic iTesdsft With this iatter bli the party n Arkansas appear te be eentented The Ga zette has aVerred that wus always n favor of this n1a ef efaistrhatienand with the eSeept on, tion, 1t has preserved studied silence upon the subject
 What then, were the objections to the land hil Which do not with equal greater foFce apply the deposte bHi If It was unconstitutiunal tO gipe back to tho States what belongs to them st constitutional to ioaa 1t to them If the mopey belongs to the people haye they not right 10 take l Is there anything n the Constitution which makes the General Government money lender to tae States!
 The 0neonstitationaty of the land bill was the first oeJectlon Whether teas uheenstitutional not, dc not now stop oenqnire Grant even that 1t was. Is not the deposite bill equally sol
 second objection Was that the plan of dividing the surplus revenue would create scramble at Washington among the representatives. the several Stateeor tho state shares o the money Ii would corrupt the Sato deeefnmeHts, by making them dependent on the Gene- rat Government-=bcggala its lootsteel Will not the plan of eaning the aeney the States produce the same efects Where would have been the deuendencv fhe money had been returned to the several States as tAeIr own9 Is t not making chem flr more dependent to make them borro;oarsf
 third was that il the money arising from the safes of the public lands was thus dstrbated u would tend
 
 ot loan@s the surplus Dc many way different! We do not admit that either the bills would have this effect bnt If one would, would notthe otbegi
 \ fourth was, that Arkapsaa would get but small share in comparison with New ork. Does not the same objection apply to the deposite bill
 Bnt the result of the two bills must be precisely the same Suppose the surplus had been divided. Suppose ,rAaHsas had received three hundred thousand d5ars absolutely Then suppose war had arisen. direct tax must have been levied by the United States to meet .ne increased expenditures Suppose now on the con- rafy that the same is toaled us. We invest 1t in works otlnternal Improvement. A war arises. Neare caed upon to repay the money We take the ve- ry same step direct tax, to raise it. Where then sthe difference between thetMo bls4 The difference smerc- " nominal~-the practical fesnlts the same.
 Nor IS expected that the money loaned to us will eyerbe required again. lis virtually gitt-for thefe IS no way provided by which to coerce repayment.
 Why IS t, then, that the men who were loud against the Land Bill, not equally aganst tie Heposite Bill Because the hunhug las served their turn. Ark ansas still gets her small sharathere is still danger that the hill Will tend to keep i price of iahdyet of them open their mouths. Because Andrew Jackson has approved t, and the slaves dare not murnur. Des pe the opposition of Ar Van Buren, he has dared give buck to the people that which belongs to them Is 1t possible then ,hat the people of Arkansas ll to that they have been egfegousy duped and deeeiy ed They have been led toVote against Judge Witc, because they were told that the Land Bill menaced inu " to their nterestsand yet when bill producing pres clsely the same results approved by the President, they arc kindly informed that 1t IS all right. Do they feel no indignation at having been deceived and eaoled!
 
 Penasylvaasa.-In answer to queries wbether Penn syyana would vote for Van gpren, the United States Gazette, q very cautious paper, says
 "As to the question cAaage, citizens of other siaes and many tit home appear to hlye lost sight of the fact that Pennsylvania teres n ttror gt Pai Hufes. She never gave votefo lnm many form When he stood before the nation "he great reecied of the Sem ate, with all the claims ofmariyrdom upon he sympa- thes and votes of the Jackson of Pennsy ylvanla, they said, we will do anything and everything for Gen. Jackson excepting always to vote for Martin Van Bu- ren. We will vote for any other candidate, but for him will throw away votes before we will thus misappy them ;p and they did throw them away, and plainly told their party and fhe American people, that Pennsylvania aeopld aserer uote for .Murtia Vaa Bu- ren.n s+s