New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-05-19
Canal Policy.
the enemy.


The Evening Post refuses to print our
reioinder to its calumnies, coolly observing
that we don't feel that we have done
The Tribune any injustice. Of course not.
We didn't expect you to see what you had
before determined not to see; but we ask
ed you to let your readers see our answer
to your charges of systematic fraud false
hood, shameless audacity, &c. &c. We
printed those charges in full. with the logic
and evidence whereby you claimed to sup
port them-then why should you not print
our reply! Our readers have seen both
sides; why should not yours! Hear The
Post of yesterday:
ave charged, and we renew the charge that The
Tribune said in substance that nineteen tceafiehs OF
the people the State would not vote tax Tor tne com
peon of the lateral canals t specified the Black river
Osweso and Genesee Valley Canals because hey Jea
NO interest in h; that abused the Democranc party
and State officers and the Court OF Appeals and every
bodv else who in any way participated IN denouncinga
law which by unconstitutional means, was designed TO
di.ranchise nneteentwenteths OF the people OF tue
State pro hac vce, and which, as The Tribune adms
imposed tax for the benefit OF onetwentietn OF our
nopul,tion. to promote an improvement in which the
femapipg nine.eentwentietbs only felt interest
but If the opportunity was offered them, would vote
against. A.. ,.,, o,..,,r, 10
comne the people of the State be taxed against their
WILL for improving the lateral or any other canals wasa
fraud upon the people OF which oil the Parue' co"'
cerned in it ought to be ashamed
is this a fair representation Have
we ever proposed to compel the People
of the State to be taxed against their
will" Have we proposedto disfranchise
nineteen-twsntieshs of the People OF the
State 7" Have we said that they felt no
interest in the Branch Canals Have we
not at all times stood on the ground that
no tar for Canal purposes should be I'M
posed because none is neeessary-that the
Canals would finish themselves and pay
for themselves if only permitted to do so!
Under Gov. Hunts plan those who used
the Canals would pay for them in proper
ton to their use /; and that is clearly just;
but levying a Direct Tax on Suffolk and
Orange to pay tho expense OF Canal I'M
provements is quite another affair. Ifthose
who use the Erie Canal only should pay
something in tolls toward the cost of COM
pleting the Branches, we should think that
but fair, considering how much the outside
Counties have paid in Taxes and Salt Du-
tie. toward the cost of the Erie Canal; but
Direct Tax for Canal purposes would be
imposing burdens not in proportion to ben
efits, but on quite different basis.
Have we abused the Court OF APP
meals? Have we "abused" the State
officers and their party, unless by printing
their public pledges to the Canal law last
Fall, whereby they carried the Election
.~a --h;nh tn. Past now admits I'm have
been fraudulent by its silence when chal-
lenged to give them place in its columns !
In fine, has The Post shown any justifica
ton of its sweeping charges! Our readers
have seen both sides, and can fairly Judge
not so The Posts.