The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-02-25

msnt and cultivation hence il ID that there are more
than two hundred millions OF yet unsettled IN the
new States and 10 which the Indian title has long since
been exiting uished After all this, need say that, upon
the OF generous treatment there IS really no just
claim the part OF the States against the govern
3ent OF the United States for any enlarged liberaly
The question recurs, Can we not appropriate OF dis
pose OF the public domain, 10 be applied for railroads,
wherever situated forming connecting links between the
old States and the new or for any purpose whatever,
provided only that the principle OF equality shall be OBJ
served There time in this country when II looked
like violation OF the public faith 10 appropriate these
lands in any other way than rgldy Tor the extDguish
ment OF the public debt which they were pledged but
that debt has long since been exngushed We contract
debts almost every dayai least whenever they
neededfor war purposes, Tor peace purposes, without
the slightest regard 10 pledges that have been given Of
the public lands.
The honorable senator from Michigan argued thai
there is way Of having this equitable distribution Of
The public lands Tor the benefit OF all the States
and he assists that the scheme OF the honorable senator
from Kentucky not exactly Just and equal--thal
there was difficulty IN fixing the ratio OF population and
territory Certainly there is difficulty in everything
laiing to morals and government There is no mathe-
macal exacness that can be applied any OF the great
political affairs OF government We can only approx
mate justice in the purest tribunals Exact equality is
seldom aainabe IN the distribution of private estates
IN lands
The honorable senator from Michigan viii not agree
to concede any OF the public lands 10 the old States be
cause there can be exact justice equality in the
superintendent and he suggests that the only constu
tiona and equitable mode OF distributing for the
mon beneh OF all the States is 10 continue The policy oil
paying the proceeds into the treasury, and letting them
pass into the general expenditure But insist that that
Is not the question You every day narrowing
down this tundakng more and more TO be appropriated
Tor railroads in States; and still they cry, "Give
more OF these lands Tor these purposes. They say to
the old States You shall not have them for any OF your
purposes.
II there is no other way of doing justice to all the
States, except by distributing the money from the treas
ury, after paid in the regular mode, let do that
That was done in 1871 II you will admit nothing else
which will approximate what is just and equitable,
back TO that II will assist the States gToanng
der heavy debts for internal improvements Give them
equal proportions of the receipts from the public lands
and It will be great relief TO them.
lis remarkable fact that the ACT OF ls4l stands repealed
by proyiso, which, when you examine it, ought
not and does not according TO the spirit of the provso
operate as repeal Tor II was meant to stand repealed
whenever higher rate OF protective duties given
than the rates prescribed by the compromise of 1888
have been informed that the tariff OF 1885, admins
tered with its I'D vaiorem duties. does afford protec-
ton to many OF the Leading articles OF domestic
faclure equal 10 that OF the tariff OF 1888 That gave
better protection to American industry than the act OF
1S46. Ii that be equity and justice the OF
1s4 stands unepeaed to this day, and Congress has
in its power TO declare that opinion But whether we are
OF opinion that the tariff OF 1888 gave better protection
than that OF l646 not, can il please approx-
mate standard OF equality by revivng the of ls4l
II the proposition OF the honorable senator from Ken
lucky be rejected, why may no, that be done'
But here is my friend from Virginia, [ MIR. HUNTER, 1
always stern advocate for the doctrine Of State rights
he will consent TO this This doctrine OF Stale
rights and the discussion of it, have sing uar perodicty
mean II IS raised with certainty every four years
There is always less excitement about il once
IN four years. and this uniformly takes place on the eve
OF presidential election Circumstances in our history
OF late have impaired some new life TO the party which
advocates that doctrine and is given that It just
now OF more than usual Importance that this political
creed shall be maintained. The South are admonshed
that the moment they admit any laxity the construc
ton OF the constitution the North will be down upon
them that there will be safety for their institutions
policy but in unfolding this doctrine OF construc
on according TO the theory of the Sect which,
believe, IS now the Virginia sectSouih Carolina hav
ing taken the lead awhile, but having now surrendered
10 It's first and earliest patrons. Such arguments have
an imposing effect on the country do suppose, sir
that honorable members OF this body be deluded by
any argument not sound IN ITSELF But thousands
deuded upon questions OF the class before the Sem
ate by the specous and imposing in which the
value oil this State rights doctrine is often presented
The opponents OF protective tariff well those who
are against internal improvements oil any kind remind the
South that ydeparure from strict and literal nterpe,a
ton OF the constitution on The subject of internal improve
nents or OF the ar exposes certain species OF prop
erty IN the South 10 imminent hazard that the North
Will not fail TO take advantage OF any liberal laiu
dnous construction which admitted in our legislation
10 carry out their policy. Let how this doctrine Of
State rights applies TO tariff suppose my honorable
friend from Virginia would vote for tariff OF 20 per
CENT and perhaps OF 80 per cent, upon some articles
believe be voted for the tariff OF 1870
Mr. HUNTER; did vote for the tariff Of ls4e.
Mr. BELL That tariff laid duty of thirty per cent
upon some articles, twenty upon others, and so A
tariff OF thirty per cent them that time, held be
violation OF the constitutions but il tariff imposed
duty OF thirty five per on coons or wooens or
forty per cent Pennsy iron Louisiana sugar
then told that that would be violation OF the
constitution. Ii tariff OF twenty thirty per cent is
no violation OF the constitution or OF the doctrine of
States rights, how would tariff OF hry-fve or forty
per cent. become so know what the reply u.s. know
il will be said that different of duties may be i'm
posed simply for revenue purposes and thai such
constitutional; but The moment duty imposed for the
protection oil the domestic article, then il is no longer
constitutional. That is all very well but how do they
derive the knowledge that duty Of thirty per cent
would be the proper rate for purposes, and that
thy-hve per cent would go beyond the revenue point
and become protective IL cannot be derived from any
source no two would agree about it, Ii is purely
arbitrary Senators who are opposed TO tariff OF pro.
lection may have sheltered themselves from the charge
OF Inconsistency 10 voting for the tariff OF 1916, by saying
u was the best and lowest they could get and better than
the act OF 1912 Well, whatever is voted from time TO
time this subject is always the best that be done
under the circumstances, and the defence is complete ii
you admit the idea OF discrimination extent, if
You admit the constuonality OF a tariff Of duties all
where Is the practical limitation upon the powerl II the
tar were TO be cut down 10 ten per there would be
protection TO that amount. You can never tell wha,
would be the product OF any particular OF taxation
the lmportaons OF this country because the
vary well as The value OF articles Those honorable
senators from the South who voted for the tariff of s4e
may in 1853 1884, be compelled allow an increased
duty OF five per cent articles and ten upon
others, and may have only 10 declare that their opinion
such necessary Tor purposes and
who Justly charge them with having departed from
their principles Thus the constitutional objection to
the protective principle is subtle 10 be made rule OF
practice.
In pursuance OF similar policy, any distribution Of the
public lands, OF their proceeds among the States lis
deprecated BY the gentlemen OF the Saerghs creed lest