Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-07-03
THE PATRIOTS DEFENCE OF Mr.. BELL.

THE PATRIOTS DEFENCE OF Mr.. BELL.
We showed in our paper of Tuesday that Mr.. Bell
mad not only declared in his speech at MurfreesborO
in ls4s that distribution had ceased to be ques-
ton" but that as a member of the United States
Senate, eighteen months afterwards, and during the
tendency of the first land plundering project before
that body, while favoring the land bill, he voted
e0ainst proposition to renew Mr.. Clay's distfbu-
ton act of 1871.
Tho Pas,;ot has come to Mr.. Bells defence, and
endeayors to relieve him from the Inconsistency in
which he is now placed. That paper puts his de-
fnce unon the ground that the time he delivered
his speech at MurfreesbOro', "Other questions of
greater Importance, growing out of the acquisition
of territory from Mexico, were looming up before
the people, portending bitter sectional strife At
such time as that, it was the part of wisdom and
sound policy permit such questions as that OF dis
tribution, which could be renewed again at a more
favorable moment te be laid aside" Unfortunate
ly for the Patriot, Mr. Bell gave at the time
for his declaration that, distribution had ceased
To be a question" which foresalls the defence that
is now made for him. Mr.. Bell said that distribu-
ton 81 had ceased to be observation-disclosures, as he
continued, I" the lands may HOU be considered as
PLEDGED for the payment Of the national debt and I'M
der the continued emigration of millions from Eu-
rope and from other causes, they will soon cease to
exist as q national domain" Thus it will be seen
that Mr. Bell gave his reasons at the time, why,
in his opinion distribution had ceased to be aques-
tion," and we submit to the candor of the Patriot
if they are not irreconcilabe with the defence 1t
would make for him?
Eighteen months after Mr.. Bell had made this
bo r,cid ara1
as pledged for the payment of the national debt,
we find him voting away some fifteen millions of acres
of these same pledged" lands to build the Illinois
Central rail road, which served the nest-egg for
all subsequent rail road grants. And while doing
so the proposition made to him that, after the
appropriation of the land hereinbefore referred to-
the nett proceeds of the sale of the residue should
be divided between the several States of the Union
and the Territories thereof agreeably to the provi
sions of" Mr.. Clays distribution act of l84l, and
against this opposition Mr.. Bell voted, assigning no
reason for so voting, and making no effort to revive
the policy until towards the close of the last Con-
gress, when looking TO the approaching canvass in
Tennessee where new issues would be needed by his
party
But, SAYS the Patriot, In 1850, when Mr.. Bell
voted against the proposition referred to, there was
no probability that it would become law There
was a majority in Congress opposed to it." Very
true. But is Mr. Bell in the habit of shaping his
votes according to the majority? Does he abandon
principle because he is in the minority? We must
do him the justice to say that such has not been his
rule of conduct on the slavery question. Claiming
to adhere to his own honest convictions, he in the
language OF the New York Tribune, 'single handed,
H. abr slro
bill, and carried terror into their ranks"
But this excuse will not do for other reasons.
There was more probability of distribution becoming
alaw then than now. There was Democratic Sena
then, but there is also Democratic Senate now.
There was Wing President and Wing Admins
tration in power then to aid him with their influence
1t is not so now. But we have Democratic Presi-
dent pledged by his known opinions, to oppose and
veto any such measure.
The Patriot makes further defence of Mr.. Bell up
on ground which, think, does equal injustice to
that gentleman 1t says that Mr. B. was privately ap-
preached by Mr. Douglass and other friends Of the
Illinois rail road BILL and assured by them, that if
the bill passed. according their construction, 4" a
porti on of the grant would be assigned to the con-
struction of the Mobile and Ohio rail road through
and aid in the construction of important road
through his own State he deemed it proper to vote
against the proposition of Mr. Dayton to attach an
amendment eenacting the distribution act of lS4l"
What an admission Mr.. Bell, to secure the little
end of the spoils, to aid in the construction OF
road in his own State, voted against distribution
against principe-against what he is now preach
ing to the country as necessary /" to secure some
measure of justice to the old Staes!'' The Patriot
certainly did not think of the principle of morals,
rs well as of right and justice, against which it was
arraying Mr. Bell in making this defence Certain
that gentleman with his aspirations for the Pre-
sidency, does Tot wish to be regarded as having
evinced willingness to do injustice to the other
States of the confederscy for the selfish consldera-
ton of receiving small share of the common pro-
perty for Tennessee.
The Patriot further asks: " Had distribution come
M as separate distinct proposition, who can doubt
that he MIR. Bell would have supported it warmly
although assured of its defeat?" How can the fd-
triot do Mr.. Bell the injustice to suppose that he
would have pursued such course, when IN the very
canvass that brought the then existing Administra-
ton into power he assured the people that plsri-
button had ceased to be question" and that the
public lands were - ptedged LOT the Payl VI NV
national debit" But if Mr.. Bell, in voting against
distribution was voting against principle, why did
he fail to explain his position at the time, as Puohc
men are in the habit of doing under such clrcum-
stances? Or why did he not, at some subsequent
perod of the session. introduce such bill into Con-
gress?
In our judgement, there can beno answer to these
questions No friend of Mr. Bell can reconcile MS
position If he has been honest IN his course as
Senator from Tennessee he owes it to his consttu-
ens to take the stump and defend his character as
public man from the many charges that are pre-
ferred against him. The people demand it OF him.
not only as being due to himself, but to them. his
record as a public servant, belongs to the people;
they have a rightto criticse it, and demand OF MN
ON exclamation of his conduct. To refuse them, I'M
der the circumstances win not only be construed as
virtual admission of the charges preferred against
him. but as treating them with an indignity which
If would be folly to expect them to brook In the
name of the Democracy of Tennessee, who cOnsti-
tute the majority of his constituency, we call upon
Mr. Rel to come forward and vindicate himself be-
fore the public.
ESFn Mr.. Fillmore, the candidate OF the mo"