Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-02-19

TO the Congress Of the U. S. No man firmer in
his opposition 10 enlargement Of the powers of Con-
gress aud he could not now be quoted in support OF
the power without doing gross injustice to his prnci-
pies and opinions.
The gentleman from Fauquier said that we had to
choose between old Federalist and Nul6er- that
if the statements which had been made were true we
would be reduced TO the necessity Of choosing between
the two. This proved that Gen. Watts 10
Federalism than Mr.. Taylor
Mr.. Scorr. | only said that Gen. Watts not a
Nullifer.
MIR. HoLLADAY. Is Mr.. Taylor a Nullifer' The
charge has been made, but not proved. Mr. II. con-
cluded by asking the people of Virginia expect
ed to sustain man who approved Of the measures of
the Extra Session in opposition to man who held the
doctrine Of John Taylor of Caroline and the fundamen
tai principles Of Virginia. Should Mr.. Taylor receive
the appointment, he would exercise The functions of
his Office became statesman devoted To The honor,
interests and principles Of the Commonwealth MIR.
H. thought him entitled to the support Of all who che
rished Them
MIR. YERBy sad he would not apologize f,r consum.
ing the time Of the House, important question
like this. The gentleman from Accomac had charged
him with having come here on whirlwind on the sub
ect of Internal Improvement which swept his county
This was not The storm had passed away. No
question Of Internal Improvement brought him here.
His (Mr. Y.s) opinions upon that subject, were well
unde stood by those who sent him here and his record
ed votes would show that he had not been derect in
duty. But how stands the gentleman from Accomac,
who votes against but occasionally makes speeches IN
flvor of, works of Internal Improvement in certain
sections of the State? lie held the Democratic Party
responsible for the opinions advanced in this debate,
and in the article in the Enquirer to which ausion had
been made. The gentleman from Accamac told the
House he opposed 10 the Ubiquitous Distribution
Law. In relation TO that matter, Mr.. Y. contended
that bill for distributing the proceeds of the sales Of
the Public Lands among the several States, had passed
both branches of Congress- and had received the sig
nature ofPresdentT "a State lights Republican,
and therefore it not aquestion of Distribution,
but question to whether should receive the mo.
ney gire it away to others. We all know it will go
TO the other States if refuse portlon and what
will be the effect Of refusing the quota of
Undoubtedly, increased taxation to the extent of our
share Of the dstributve fund.- whereas such neces
sty will exist if that fund be permitted 10 flow into the
State Treasury and by much, diminish the taxes
the people, generally Another effect would be to de-
prve portion of the citizens Of the enjoyment of the
land fund There thousands who never have and who
enjoy it, unless distributed from the Teasu.
ry and the is this they not consumers OF
articles which imposts are laid. Here, then, IS
question between direct and indirect taxation If the
opinion Of Mr.. Jefferson is to be taken, we should all
prefer indirect, for gentlemen should recoect that the
odious law passed during the administration of the
Elder Adams, was raising revenue TO very small
amount by system Of direct taxation And the mos.