New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-05-17

mitted to them this Fall" Shall Seven
Millions be borrowed for the completion of
.our Public Works !"-we have no doubt
that they would vote Yes. But when you
append to and blend with that the
question:" Shall q new State tax OF
100000 per annum be levied to
pay the interest and a twentieth of
.the principal of such loan give be-
leve that would turn the scale the other
way and kill the whole proposition. We
believe there would never have been any
Erie Canal, any State Works at ALL under
such a requisition as this. All men do not
profoundly realize the utility of Canal
located in another part of the State. but all
men feel the burden of Tax, which
touches erery part. The Tax thus pro-
posed would kill the Loan-the Hofimans
and 8. Youngs who fastened this require
ment upon the Constitution meant just that,
and nothing else. They were not hypo-
critics; they profoundly hated the Internal
Improvement policy, and fought it like
men. Their pupils, who now pretend to
favor a submission to the People under
conditions which would certainly expose
the Enlargement to defeat, exhibit their
venem without their frankness and courage.
The only pretext for Taxation is this
same determination to render our Public
Works odious and thus defeat their prose-
cution. Here are capitalists willing to
lend the money required and look to the
Canal Revenues alone for payment. Why
tax, then! Why call upon the People to
pay principal and interest of the cost OF
completing our Public Works when those
who furnish the money are willing to take
the risk of the Surplus Revenues of the
Canals, over and above the appropriations
made by the Constitution, proving ample for
that purpose! And yet the fact that the
People don't choose to be taxed for an object
for which no tax is required, is cited as
proof that they don't ant the work done
The Post asserts that the work was to be
done without their consent by fraud" I'M
der Gov. Hunts plan Have you so soon
forgotten, Srs, the result of last June's
Special Election! Have you forgotten the
Canal resolve of yourlast State Convention
and the Canal pledges of your State Of
fcers last Fall! Why do you not publish
those documents, as we have dared you to
do!
The Posts plan of appropriating an
undue share of the accruing Canal Reve-
nues to the Genesee and Black River Ca
mails, and applying all the proposed loan to
finish the Erie Enlargement, may not di-
rectly conflict with the letter of the Consti-
tutional inhibition, but it certainly does
with its spirit. 1t is plan to circumvent
the restriction, not to obey it. You rarely
find any one else so astute as a stickler for
strict construction in getting around an
impediment when it stands in his own way.
We oppose an Extra Session, because
we see nothing it can do toward expediting
the completion of the Canals, since it cam
not initiate a Constitutional Amendment.
We oppose an Extra Session because 1t
was suggested and is urged by the deadly
enemies of the vigorous prosecution OF our
Public Works, and plainly with the intent
of subjecting that policy to an ignominlous
and blasting defeat. We oppose it, be-
cause we believe the completion of the
Canals is eflectually stopped by the late
decision of the Court of Appeals, and can
not be revived except by an amendment OF
the Constitution, whereof we see no pres
ent prospect. In the face of the actual
calamity which that decision has created,
we are opposed to saddling the State with
new expenditures and deluding the friends
of the Canals with false hopes. We wait
to see some practicable plan suggested be-
fore counseling any action whatever.