The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1852-09-23

The Times says:-"It is work thankless
utterly to illustrate, time and again, the doc
trine Of the Democratic party OH this great
question" of appropriations by the general
government for river and harbor improve
ments. We should think it mere a worse
than useless work, to attempt to illustrate or
explain the democratic doctrine" on this
subject. Why, my dear fellow, your "Dem-
ocratic party" never entertained the same
opinion on this subject as party FIVE years
consecutively. At this day, its doctrine in
one section, cannot be said to be its doctrine
In another. In some quarters of the country
you are strictly for the appropriations, and
no man of your paaty could be elected there
to Congress unless he occupied this position.
In other sections, you are utterly opposed to
river and harbor appropriations. There is
no River and Harbor Bill which ever comes
before Congress, that your party do not as
terribly split upon, as any steamboat may on
the snags these bills are intended as part of
their work to remove. Your party has, on
this very subject, exhibited an inconsistency,
which proves it utterly unreliable as the op-
Ponent or friend of these appropriations.
Why, my dear, amiable sir, "you, your
SELF" have spoken in bitter terms of the
River and Harbor Bill passed last session of
Congress, and declared yourself its opponent,
yet that bill was voted for by the Democrat
ic Representative from this District, and was
passed by Democratic Congress. In
another place, you will fiji the vote on the
bill. That vote will show, too, which party
may be relied upon as the particular friends
of river and harbor improvements, although
the Democrats have majority in Congress
upon which the Wings must trespass to pass
any fsvorite measure of the people. But
being aware. sir. that your position is a mat
tsffof ~ consequences, except SO far as it af:
forda US capital-what is the doctrine of the
democratic party" which you think it q
thankless taskto illustrate!
1t appears to US in memory, that every
Democratic paper in the land supported
Folks veto of the River and Harbor BILL
And what was the substance of that veto
message! Why. just this Congress has No
Constitutional Po'cer to Improve the NAVIGATION
Of amy river, ,Ohether II be the Mississippi o,
Ohio, or any Other stream, or wAether it BE- can
nected ,Cth one or a dozen States; and that ;f ;,
should ecer be deemed necessary for The Genera
Gos~nment to engage in any such Improvement
nnames<mest q tie Constitution must first
ddfa'nod- Such was the doctrine to which
the Locofoco press at that time nanimousl,
subscribed. Now we have the Times do
claring in great tribulation of happiness
that COL Miller is an advocate of appropria
tioas for the improvement of the Ohio an,
Mississippi, Rivers. If this be so, we ar,
glad he is 50 much Wing in one principle
But what'is the position of the Democrat,
party! Why, as mixed up as mil I'D ca,
be. A few years back, supporting Polk
yeto-before that backing Gen. Jackson
approval Of similar bills to that which Poll
vstsed-and now, Democrats in one sectio,
msiataining the views of Jackson, and i,
,oaether, those of Polk Even on this on
dill, divided in the most Objectionable manner
Yet the Times don't think it worth while t
explain the doctrine of the Democratic part
on this subject! Now, it can't do ii. Thi
party laid down platform on the subject
few months ago, and has already violated
by passing the bill alluded to. Now, whc
was right-the Democratic Convention or tn
Democratic Congress! Both can't be RICH
Yet the Times thinks or says, its party's do
trine is perfectly clear. Bah. You h,