The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-07-28

r. Smith, St0nty, Stokety a. H. Stuart, j. Z. Sssat,
Summers, TaIiafero, j. B. Thompson, II W Thompson
Watterson, E. ID. White, j. l.. Whie T. w WI
ians, r. Williams, c. H. Williams Yorke H. Young,
J. Young.
Those who voted in the negative are
Messrs. adams, Atherton Baker Banks Beeson, BID
lack Birdseue Borden Bovine, Boyd Briggs BrockicayA
V. Brown, c. Brown, Burke, Buanel, P G. Caldwell,
Clifford Clinton, j. Cooper Cranston, Crapens, Cross,
Gushing, r. d. Davis, j. b. Dawson, Dean, Dog,
Eastman, j. Edipard j. G. Edwards, Egbert, Ferris,
j. G. Floyd, c. A. Floyd, Torrance, Gerry, Gordon,
ings, Henry, Hopkins, Houk, Houston, Hudson, z; j.
Ingersoll, j. hrn W. W. hrcin, Jack, James, C. john
son, Kem, A. Kennedy, Lane, Laurence, Littleheld,
A. Mcclellan, r. Mcclellan, Mckay, Mallory, Mar
chand, A. Marshall, Mathews, Miller, Newhard, Par
menter, Plumer, pope, Ramsey, Randolph Reynolds,
Riggs, Satonstal, Sanford, Shaw, Simonon, Snyder,
Steenrod, Stratton, Sumpter, Sweeney, TilIinghas,
Ioland TripIet, Turney, Underwood, Van Buren,,
Ward, Westbrook, Winthrop, Wise, Wood.
BY analysis of these votes will be seen tn at ihis
proviso carried in both Houses, by the votes of
majority Of those friendly the principle of Dlstrbu
ton and thus the friends Of Distribution hemseve-
fixed, and laid down the Limitation, that no dlstnbu
lion should take place during any period whenever
there should be occasion for duties any articles OF
imports exceeding the amount of 20 per cent ad va
loren.
Now, a provision is inserted in the present Tariff
BILL BEING the 25th section, to repeal this proviso and
limitation, that TO say the repeal of 1t is stuck, as
rider the back OF the Tariff bill. 1t is proposed
by those who fixed and settled this fundamental con-
diion of Distribution, to repeal and unx that funda-
mental condition.
| This is tickle and unstable legislation 1t Is
| tickle and unstable legislation in the Con-
| gress which prescribed and established the
| and conditions of the Distribution, to undertake
| TO repeal those terms and conditions. That duties
exceeding 20 per cent would be needed was just as
well known then now.
/ II IL, ,fI a,ri.1 ati,, 'EarIn act
providing revenue for the Govern emf, and in the ar
rangement and discrimination of the duties ahording
protection to the industry of the People, is primary
necessary, indispensable thing The repeal OF the es-
ablshed terms and conditions OF the Distribution act
is not necessary object, but one only OF secondary
erpedency, to say the most which can be said In It's
favor To associate these two things together and to
make the first depend upon the second is not an equl-
| table or fair mode of legislation
1t is affirmed, in many of the newspapers eitherIg
| norantIy or for the purpose of deception, that You
| must preserve the Distribution act that the object
Of this 25th ion is to preserve that act, and that
those who 20 against this 18th section of the Iarli
act in doing 90 against 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 the Dsiribu-
ton stand entire, theterms, and with the con
diiions, which the present Congress has Itself pre-
| scribed
| la addition 10 this, know, since the President
returned the temporary Tariff bill with his objections,
that in retaining TIE 18th section all we dois to fish
for another Veto.
In fact the effect oths 25th section is to enlarge and
extend the operation of the Distribution act beyond
the conditions and limitations which the present Con
has itself recently prescribed as 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 tme such as TO warrant this
When the Treasury is Reconsideration all the
resources of the Government are insufficient for Its
necessary expenses-when there is already large
debt--when every day is adding to that debt-when
il is a matter OF the m st painful difficulty to raise
ways and means carry on the Government IS 1t a
wise operation, financially speaking, to throw away
any additional part of those resources and to 60 on
and borrow money for the purpose of distrbut-
ing the money 80 borrowed among the States Sure
| ly not
There ale gentlemen no profess readiness and a
determn sacrifice the Tariff ITSELF rather than
accomplish the object of now repeating their own
limitations of the Distribution actt that Is TO say to
bankrupt the Government, to disband the Army, to
dismantle the Navy, to stop the action of all the
Departments and to keep the trade, industry and hu-
sness of the whole country on stretch OF dlstrac-
tion piosraton and agony, until the next Congress
shall together the next President be chosen,
rather than not carly 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 vctimzed for such an
an object2 And is the object worth much that
you are willing to pay all this price for the mere
chance of getting il For remember, it IS but a
chance
The newspapers argue the point of this 25th sec
ton if the question 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 it, 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
Supposng (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, ii
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, it applies to but small
pait of the public lands nasmuch as by far the largest
part Of the existing public domain consists of territory
paid for with money by the Federal Government and
purchased from France Spain. To no part of this
great division OF the pablo domain does the aTgu-
ment attach
If therefore, Distribution be put, as right of the
ind .vdual 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
out any such right to the portion of the public domain
comprehended in those cessons, you do in the SANE
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, as covering the whole
public domain, must be justified, upon considerations
of cxpedency.
AS question of expediency there has, it seems tc
me- been extreme exaggeration IN this case on both
sides.
1t 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, thai
questions like this, of mere pecuniary expediency