The Arkansas advocate., 1836-07-01

Will the Gazette answer us one or two questions hon. esty2 Suppose Daniel Webster had introduced bill into Congress- providing that nothing but gold and silver should be received payment for the public ands would you have cried out against 1t measure intended expressly nure the West and oppress tie poor setter Why do you say the when Benton introducedit You say you want bank here. What will the bank be to the poor settler he has pay gold and silver for his land! Why did not Benton attempt to make gold and silver receivable in the custom houses! The merchants have more specie than the farmers.
 Governor Fulton says his late speech that internal improvements by tic General Government uneonst tntonal and the ground work of high tariff Most We all remember the joy felt through the whole southern country when Gen. Jackson vetoed the MaysvIlle Road bill. But how does this apply to Ian Buren! He has been favor of internal Improvements lie voted m a- Vor under the sanction of Congress- of establishing Fe deral toll gates on the Cumberland Road, and leYyng tolls thereon to be collected by United States toll gather in the several States through winch 1t passed A who would vote for that measure has certainly strong leaning towards consolidaton and would hard- ly have vetoed the laysVe Road bills Besides this, Martin Van Buren voted for the tariff of 1924 the wool lens bill of ls27 and the tariff bill of i828 The bills of 1921 and 1928 levied heavy contributions the growers of cotton, and conferred corresponding benefits the manufacturers in the north.
 It is very singular that while the Jacobin presses revling Judge White for his vote the Land Bill, they do not bestew little of their abuse General Jackson for recommending precisely similar. In his second annual message he not only recommended it, but went into labored yindicaton of the principle, and wered sundry objections against the plan proposedby him. The following is extract from that messages upon that subject:
 "Fhe ratio of representation presented itself to my mind, and il still does, as one of obvious equity be- of its being the ratio of contribution, whether the lnnds 10 be distributed be derived from the customs from direct taxation. It does not follow, however, that its adoption is indispensable the establishment of the system proposed. may be considerations appertaining to the subject which would render de- parure, to extent from the rule of contribution, proper. Nor is it absolutely necessary that the basis of distribution be confined to ground It may, if, in the jud gmen of those whose right is fix it, be deemed polite and just to give it that characters have regard to several"
 s'i may sometimes happen that the interests of par
 cula states would not be deemed coincide with the general interest in relation to improvement within such States. But, if the danger to be apprebended from this IS sufficient to require it, discretion might be reserved to Congress to direct, to such improve ments of general character the states concerned might not be disposed to unite n the application of the quotas o those staes under the restriction of
 nng to each state the expenditure of it's appropriate quota. 1t may, however be assumed safe gener- al rule, that such improvements serve to increase the prosperity o the respective states in which they are made, by giving facilities to trade, and thereby augmentlng the wealth and comfort of their inhabitants constitute the surest mode of conerng permanent and substantial advantages upon the whole. The strength, as we'll the true glory of the conederacy, is mainly founded on the prosperity and power of the several independent soYereigntes of which ii is composed, and the certainty with which they can be brought into sue cessfu active cooperation, through the agency of the federal government"
 ln respect to the last objection it's probable effect upon the dignity and independence of the state govern ments, it appears to me- only necessary to state the case is, and 1t would be the measure propos ed were adopted, to show that tbe operation is most
 likely to be the very of that which the objection supposes. In the case, the State would receive It's quota of the national revenue for domestic use up- on fixed principle matter of right, and from a fund 10 the creation of which it had itself contributed its fair proportion Surely there could be nothing derogatory in that. As matters stand, the States themselves, in thelr sovereign character are not un
 frequently petitioners at the bar of the federal legsla- lure for such allowances out of the national treasury as It may compor with their pleasure or sense of duty to bestow upon them It cannot require argument to prove which of the two is compatible with the efficiency or responsibility of the State Govern ment'
 The pretended confidence of opponents in the ult- mate success of their hardy attempts at forcing Presi- dent upon the American people, and the continuous zeal yvhi Ia