The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 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-
ticsm of our article upon the charge of nconsis-
tency against Mr. Tyler for having vetoed the Little
Tariff bill. He quotes at length the famous passage
from Mr. T.'s speech in 1899, 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.. r. at that time repudated any connection
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
| find the following remarkable passage
cit is said, that if instrumental in procur-
ing distribution of the sales of the public lands,
such distribution may lead to disturbance of the
Compromise act and to an increase of the Tariff of
duties declare to you MIR. Speaker, that if could
in the slightest degree anticipate such result,
would be among the very first to oppose myself to
the measure now under consideration. l should be
the last man to disturb that great and salutary mea
of it's being disturbed? Can any man believe that
Mr. Clay could be regardless of his future fame,
to remove from under him the broad pedestal on
which that fame must mainly rest?'
Then follows the extract relied on by the Wing
and "American,' with this additional remark in con-
turbing 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 case he was in favor of Dis
trbution-ande converso if the could not be
supported without the aid of the land fund.- he would
be ''among the very first to oppose the Distribution"
Is there, them any inconsistency between his present
action and his declared principles of 1892 Has not
Mr. T. clearly seen, that in case of Distribution of
the lands the will fall short in proportionate
degree and the Compromise violated in the same de-
gree-and therefore, in strict accordance with his
speech of 1899, he will not sanction Distribution
which tends to break that compact' Experience has
taught him. that we must sacrifice either the Com
promise or Distribution-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 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 nuioate ?" 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
cusson to be regarded as more calmly and firmly i'm
bodied in such paper than in the hurried express
sions of speech, touching upon numberless minor
details bearing more less on the general subje
Let him, then, be judged by that resolution, and he
will be justified for his present action. Let him
be judged by his speech itselftaken in all its parts
and connexions-and to what other conclusion can
any impartial man fairly arrive Indeed, the above
passage is conclusive Mr. T. here declares, that if
he could in the slightest degree anticipate such result
he would be the very first TO oppose himsefto the
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, Gin connection acih the
Compromise, he 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 TO that ertent have always been
of the same opinion the charge falls to the ground.
The last hit of the "American," of the "Robin-
son Letters" alusion to the "leadng editor of the
Locos in this State" we shall despatch in short or
DER 1t is passing strange that the "American"
should undertake to act as judge of what should
have done under the circumstances. If zoe did not
take exceptions at the hits in said letter, cannot
see the right of the "American" to give advice on
the subject--however, can 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, (if really aimed at us,)
magnifed as it is by that journal.