Democratic standard. [volume] (Georgetown, Brown County, Ohio) 1837-1850, 1843-05-30
sag + s LETTER
Of Mr.. CASS, in Gnswer to the
Indiana State Committee.
(S.,lt1r lnnn Ok;r. FL % 1910
LETTER

Indiana State Committee.
Columbus, Ohio Feb, 2s, ls43.
GENTLEMEN:
YOuF letter enclosing the resolutions
of the Democratic Convention Of the
State Of Indiana, was addressed to me 81
Washington, but did not reach that city
till after had left it. II was then for
wsrded TO me at this place, and in con-
sequence of having stopped on the route,
considerable delay has occurred in its
receipt. | make this explanation TO &C.
count forthat delay.
shall now proceed TO answer the
questions proposed by the convention,
briefly, but frankly. Satisfied 1t will be
more agreeable to yourselves, and your
colleagues Of the convention, that
should be explicit, than that sho uld bt
led into tedious dissertations.
With respect to National Bank,
have 10 remark that have always enter
tanned doubts Of the power Of Congress
TO charter such an institution. The in
direct process BY which this power is de-
duced from very general provision Of
that instrument has never been satisfac-
tory TO me. But there is less necessity
for entering more in detail into the con.
stithtlonal question, as it seems to me
the public voice has pronounced itself,
and justly, against the incOrporaiiaD Of
any National bank BY Congress. No
such institution should, in my opinion, be
established.
In answer TO the second question,
which relates to the distribution of the
public lands among the several States, I
reply that think no such distribution
should be made. will state. ina few
words, the ground Of this opinion.
The necessary revenue for the sup-
port ofthe government Of the United
States, must come from the people, and
it must be supplied by direct or indirect
taxation, or by the sale Of public Pfoper
".
The general sentiment is opposed TO
direct taxation by the general govern
ment in time of peace; and of course
there are left but the other two sources
Of supply 10 meet its expenses. Their
proceeds must constitute the revenue of
the country ;dnd If one ofthem is abstract.
ed or diminished;an additional burden Is
thrown upon the other, whatever ne.
cessary sum the expenses ofthe govern.
meHt may reqGire--if the proceeds Of
public lands make no part OF il,the whole
must be raised by taxation. Ifthey make
part OF il, then the Smount Of taxation is
diminiahed by the sum supplied BY these
proceeds. II follows thai any PROPOSE.
ton TO divert the proceeds oftbese lands
from the support Of the government is in
fact but a proposition to lay taxes on the
people. III permanent annual revenue
OF eighteen millions of dollars is necessa,
ry for an economical administration Of
the government; and If two millions Of
these are produced BY the sales Of the
public lands, let the source Of this supply
be divertedtO some other object, snd
these two millions must be provided BY
tbs imposition Of taxes.
All this is TOO clear to need further IL
lnstratien. I
A proposition, then, to distribute thu
proceeds Of the public lands among tn,
several States is, in effect, but PROPOSE
ton to increase the taxation of the peo
pie Of the United States, through the me
dium Of the General Government, in or
der that the amount thus increased, ma,
be paid into the treasures Of the respec
tive States. To me il appears perfectl,
clear, that whatever may be the annua
sum produced by The sale of lands, tina
sum is part of the revenue of the cOun
try, and that il is Just as competent 70
Congress to take any other two millions
-suppOsing that TO be the amount-fron
the public treasury, and divide them a
nong the States, as 10 select for ,ha: pur
pose, the dollars actually produced b.
} the laud sales.
1t seems TO me that such course
action would be injurious in practice
dangerous in principle, and without war