The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-07-28
RITCHIE'S REPLY TO THE BALTI-
MORE EDITORS.

We are glad to find the following in the Rich
mond Enquirer We intended to refer to the
subject, but it has been disposed of by far
better pen:
The Baltimore American INDUCES in long cri-
ticism Of our article upon the charge of inconss-
ency against Mr. Tyler for having vetoed the Little
Tariff bill. He quotes at length the famous passage
from MIR. rs speech in 1889, with which the Rich
mond Wing has lately dosed his readers at least a
dozen times. This passage is brought up to show,
that Mr. L. at that time repudated any connexion
between the Compromise act and the Distribution of
the public lands. Now, we have taken the pains to
read over that speech, and in the paragraph we
hnd the following remarkable passage:
at is said that if we are instrumental in procur
ing distribution of the sales of the public lands
such distribution may lead to disturbance of the
Compromise act, and to increase of the Tariff of
duties. declare to you, Mr. Speaker, that if could
in the slightest degree anticipate such a result, l
would be among the very first to oppose myself to
the measure now under consideration | should be
the last man to disturb that great and sauary
sure, the Compromise act-How is there any danger
of its being disturbed? Can any believe that
Mr. Clay could be SO regardless of his future fame
to remove from under him the broad pedestal, on
which that fame must mainly resti"
Then follows the extract relied by the Wing
and "American," with this additional remark in con-
clusion: "The fears upon this subject the dis
turbmg the Compromise act are ideal--so at least
they appear to me-" Taking the whole context to-
gether, arrive at no other conclusion than that at
that time Mr.. Tyler believed that under the Com
promise act there would be no danger of deficiency
of revenue-that in that he was in favor of Dis
rlbutlonande conrerso, if the revenue could not be
supported without the aid of the land fund, he would
be "among the very first to oppose the Distribution"
Is there, then, any inconsistency between his present
action and his declared principles of 1892 Has not
MI L. clearly seen, that in case of Distribution Of
the lands, the revenue will fall short in proporonate
degree and the Compromise violated in the same de-
gree-and therefore, in strict accordance with his
speech of 1889, he will not sanction Distribution
which tends to break that compact? Experience has
taught him. that we must sacrifice either the Com
promise or Distributon-and, to be consistent, he
must give up Distribution and preserve the other
But admit this Interpretation of his speech to be fatal
what stronger evidence of his principles we find
than in the resolution, prepared by Mr.. t. and adopt
ed by large majority of the Virginia Legislature
soon after his speech, which declares that the Com
promise act should be held sacred and inpioate 2? Is it
not fair presumption, that, in preparing solemn
resolution, to be recorded among the public acts of
great State, Mr. Tyler concentrated all his thoughts
upon the peculiar subject matter of such resolution
Are not his opinions of the great subject under dis
cussion to be regarded calmly and firmly i'm
bodied in such paper, than in the hurried express
slons OF Speech touching upon numberless minor
details bearing more or less the general subject
Let him, then, be judged by that resolution, and he
Will be Justhed Tor his present action. Let him even
be judged by his speech sef-taken in all its parts
and conneXions-and to what other conclusion can
any impartial man fairly arrive Indeed the above
passage is conclusive. Mr. Il. here declares, that if
he could in the slightest degree anticipate such result
he would be the very first to oppose hineo The n,ea-
sure under consideration, (he Distrbution.)
The "American" makes bungling effort to explain
away Mr. It's letter to Mr. Robinson of Pittsburg.
That letter. which says that, ain conneron 10Th the
Compromise, he was in favor of the Distribution of
the lands" stoo clear to be mysted by the sophisms
of the American The 'American'' charges that
either Mr. Tyler ourselves must have changed SO
as now to agree. We will merely say in reply that
as we have shown Mr. Tyler to have been always OPP
posed to Distribution, when the Compromise would
be violated, and as 10 that erte have always been
of the same opinion, The charge falls the ground
The last hit of the "American," of the "Robin-
son Letters" auson to the 'leading editor of the
Locos in this State, shall despatch in short or
der. 1t is passing strange that the american"
should undertake to act judge of what pe should
have done under the circumstances. If ,ue did not
take exceptions at the hits in said letter. we cannot
see the right of the american" to give us advice on
the subJect-howevcr, sufficiently defend our
selves without calling in the potent editor of the
American" Moreover, for the good that Mr. Ty-
Ter has done in baking the dangerous Federal usur-
pations of the Wings, we willing to forgive him
for that little stroke at us, (f really aimed at u.s.
magnified as 1t IS by that journal.