The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-07-28

4, S'nssh, MGnty, Siokety, a. H. STUART :. -. ~
| TonIir,on. Trumbuu Wallace, Warren, Washington
| Watterson. e. d. White, j. l.. White, 4. W. "t|
isrns, r. Williams, C. II. Williams, Yorke, H. Young
| j. Young.
Those who voted in the negative are
Messrs qdams, Atherton, Baker, Banks Beeson, Bid
lack Birdseye Borden Bovine Boyd Briggs Broek.eay
V. Brown, C. Brown, Burke, BurneH, r. u Caid"eh'
Clifford Clinton, j. Cooper, Cranston, Crape''s' ross
Gushing, r.. ID. Davis, :. b. Dawson, Dean, Dog
Eastman, Ed'eads j. C. Edwards, tgoer', fedl'
}. G. Floyd c. A. Floyd, Fornance Gerry, GoraoI''
Cuisine, Haberstam, Hal, W, s. Hastings, ;. HasI
ings Henru Hopkins, Houk, Houston, Hudson, =; ).
Ingersoll, j. Hrs, W. W. hlcin Jack, James =. JoIn-
son, Keim, A. Kennedy, Lane, laurence Lttienelu'
A. Mcclellan, r. Mcclellan, Mckay, Mallory, Mar
chand. A. Marshall, Mathews Miller, Newhard, Par
menter, Plumer Pope, Ramsey, Randolph, Reynolds
Riggs Saltonsau Sanford, Shaw, Sinsonton, Snyder,
Steenrod Stratom, Sumpter, Sweeney, Itthnghasf,
Toland, Tipisa, Turney, Underwood, Van Buren,
Ward, Westbrook Winshrop, Wise, Wood
By analysis of these votes m will be seen IN at THIS
proyiso was carried in both Houses, by the votes OF
majority of those friendly to the principle OF Distnou
tion and thus the friends of Distribution themseve-
fixed and laid down the Imitation that no dlstribu
ton should take place during any period whenever
there should be occasion for duties any articles OF
imports exceeding the amount Of 70 per cent al va
loren. >, 80.
Now, provision is inserted in the present Tariff
bill being the 25h section, TO repeal this prov'so ana
rider, on the back OF the Tariff bill. II is proposed
by those who fixed and settled this Fundamental con-
dion Of Distribution, To repeal and unhI that tuhua
mental condition.
This is tickle and unstable legislation Il is
| tickle and unstable legislation in the sane Con-
press which pre- scribed and established the terms
| and conditions Of the Distribution, To undertake
to repeal those terms and conditions, That duties
exceeding 20 per would be needed was just as
well known then as now.
A.. r. l.. .f ,ft.'a n
providing revenue for the Govern emit and in the ar
and discrimin alton of the duties, afordng
projection to the industry of the People Is primary
necessary Indispensable thing The repeal OF the es
tabisheJ terms and conditions oil the D's'lou'.on ae'
is not necessary object but one only OF secondary
erpediency say the most which can be said IN It's
favor To these Two things together and to
make the first depend upon the econd, IS not an equ-
table or fair mode Of legislation.
1t is affirmed in many of the newspapers, eitherlg
noranty, or for the purpose Of deception, that you
must preserve the Distribution act that the object
of this 18th ion is to preserve that act and That
those who 90 against this 18th section OF the arm
act in SO doing 90 ag anst the Distribution act That
is false This 25th section of the Tariff act proposes
to repeal Fundamental part Of the Distribution act.
In striking out this section you leave Inc DistrDu-
ton stand entire in thetems and with the con
diions which the present Congress has Itself pre-
scribet.
In addition 10 this we know since the President
returned the temporary Tariff bill with his objections
that retaining TIE 18th Section all we dol TO fish
for another Veto.
In fact, the effect ofths 18th section is to enlarge and
extend the operation of the Distribution ACT beyond
the conditions and limitations, which the present Con-
gress has itself recently prescribed being in the
opinion of the Wing majority, the wise and proper
conditions and limitations
Is the financial condition Of the Federal Govern
ment, at the present time, such as 10 warrant Tins
When the Treasury is exhausted all the
Ires.u rcas AT
necessary expenses-when there is already large
debt-when every day is adding TO that debt-when
it is matter OF the st painful difficulty 10 raise
ways and means TO carry on the Government, IS II
wise operation financially speaking, TO throw away
any additional part of those resources and to go on
and borrow money for the purpose OF distribute
ing the money 30 borrowed among the States : Sure
y not.
There gentlemen who profess readiness and
deermin alton to sacrifice the Tariff itself, rather than
not accomplish the object Of now repeating their own
limitations of the Distribution act; that is TO say to
bankrupt the Government, to dsband the Army, to
dismantle the Navy, to stop the action of all the
Departments, and to keep the trade industry and tu
sness of the whole country stretch OF distrac-
ton, plostration and agony, until the next Congress
shall come together, the next President be chosen,
rather than not cary this proposed repeal of one
OF the fundamental conditions OF the Distribution
act.
Are the People willing to submit to all this for the
purpose of gratifying the schemes Of politicians
Are they content to be thus victimized for such
an object And is the object worth much that
you willing TO pay all this price for the
chance of getting it For remember, it IS but
chance.
The newspapers argue the. point of this 18th sec
ton if the question was now OF the original pas
sage of the Distribution act, whereas the express OBJ
ect of the section Is to repeal fundamental part OF
that act Take il, however, either way, and the
question recurs, What is the true value of the OBJ
ject2
Much learning and ingenuity have been expended
in the endeavor show that the public lands actually
belong Of right to the several States, in their sepa-
rate capacity, and not to the Federal Government
Surprising (Which is not true) that this argument
were made out in any degree still it would avail but
little for only applies to that part of the public do
main which consists of gratuitous cessions made
by the States In respect even to that part, 1t
shuts out from consideration all the money
which the Federal Government has itself paid
out of the Federal Treasury, and derived
from Federal taxes, to conduct the Military de-
fence of those lands and to complete the title by buy
ing out the occupation of the Indians And making
the hes, Of the argument, 1t applies to but small
part Of the public lands nasmuch as ny far the largest
mart of the existing public domain consists of territory
paid for with money by the Federal Government and
purchased from France OF Spain 10 no part OF TINS
great division of the public domain does the argu-
ment attach.
IN therefore, Distribution be put, right of the
individual States and you could make out the right
upon the original Virginia and other cessions, prior
to the Constitution, then in proportion as you make
on, any such right the portion OF the public domain
comprehended in those cessions, you do in the same
BREATH establish the fact that the separate States have
no separate interest whatever in the residue of the
public domain that is to say in the far larger and
more valuable part of it, which the Federal Govern
ment acquired by purchase for money since the adop
ton Of the Constitution.
Accordingly Distribution, covering the whole
public domain, must be justified, upon considerations
of xpediency.
AS question of expediency, there has, it seems to
sides.
It is the misfortune of political controversy in this
country though in another point of view, it is evil
dence of the comparative felicity of our lot, that
| questions like this of mere pecunary expedency