Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-07-01


and that they would show Il By witliholslng their
confidence from the party which can resort to such
hazardous appliances for political effect and by de-
Gliding that the policy Of banning theeredi of the
State shall not be pushed 70 disastrous extent -An
annual bonds of ten cents head said Mr.. N, Was
entirely too small consideration for thus running
State credit and suspending the various unfnish
ed Railroads, cqmmenced on the faith of getting
bonds Of the State that would be available in the
market.
But, prodeeded Mr.. n, the distribution PROPOSE
ton is something verse than political humbug.-
1t Violates fundamental principles, which must ever
remain intact If we hope to maintain our admirable
federative system of government. II the lands are
to continue to be a source of revenue the withdraw
al of the amount desired from the land sales must
necessarily be supplied by similar amount raised
by taxation. He remarked that was not a surplus
revenue proposed to be distributed, could fu-
ture surplus revenue be anticipated.
Amongst the last acts of the late Congress was
one reducing the tariff tax the estimated revenue
standard. The present unliquidated debt of the
United States is more than large enough 30 exhaust
the surplus left in the treasury by the late admins
tration. II the land revenue, therefore, be here
after Withdrawn from the treasury for distribution
its amount must be supplied by increased taxation.
In its most favorable aspect therefore, the disribu-
ton project, so far as Tennessee is interested is
proposition to take the two hundred thousand dol
lars out OF the federal treasury and then to return
the same paek 10 the Iederai treasury by imposing
on the people OF Tennessee increased taxes in the
shape of tariff, that will raise that sum- TIE two
hundred thousand dollars, so derived from the fed
eral treasury, under the constitution of Tennessee
must be applied TO internal improvements and edu-
cational purposes. 1t is then practically propo.
sItion to raise from the people of Tennessee, thro
the agency Of the revenue system Of the Federal
Government the annual sum of two hundred thou
sand dollars for Internal improvements and Educa.
tlon The people, of Tennessee make nothing by
thsReration; every dollar they receive by dstrbn-
tiqfbey pay back by indirect taxation-to saw
nonig OF the additional amount in the expenses of
the collection, or In the unequal operation of that
-made of raising revenue. If our opponents want to
pnrfally two hundred thousand dollars for
~ Improvements and Education, why not make
boldly to tax the people for the
Rffoney! Why attempt to cover up the real purport
of their proposition by creating vacuum in the
treasury, which must be filled by new tariff duties?
BESIDES being proposition for additional taxation
in disguise, it is movement towards creating feel
ing Of dependence the part of the States on the
Federal government, which ought to be promptly
and resotelyrebuked by all who are opposed to the
centralizing tendency of federal power. The first
step in the distribution policy is made under the
pretext of dividing out the land revenue It will
not be long until the disguise will be thrown off and
the demand will be made for distribution of reye-
nue. derived from taxation. The mode of collecting
taxes BY impost duties IL deceptive that the adj
yocatesof distribution hope to reach the pockets of
the people without their knowledge of the process
by which the same amount is taken from them that
is distributed to them. When the breach is once
made in the barriers that stand between Federal and
State Governments, and the former becomes the
gather for the latter they will be little else than
dependencies on Federal bounty.
But and above all other objections to the dis
tribution policy said Mr.. N, it is plainly VIOLA
ton of the Constitution. very small portion of
the public lands undisposed Of derived by ces
sion principally from Virginia and Georgia 1t has
been said that with these the terms of the deeds of
cession provide that after the payment of the pub
lie debt of the resolution the residue should be d.
vided equally amongst the States. This, said Mr.
N, was an entire mistake. The deeds of cession
contained such provisions, and no language that
would bear such a construction. The language of
the Virginia cessOn is that the lands ceded shall
be considered common fund for the use and bene-
fit of such of the United States have become or
shall become, members of the confederation, or
Federal alliance, of the said States Virginia inclu
died. according to their usual respective proportions
in the general charge and expenditures and shall be
faithfully and bona tide disposed Of for that purpose
and for no other use or purpose whatever" The
language of the other deeds of cesson was similar
to that Of Virginia. In the language there is no
condition of reverson, specific appropriation of
the proceeds of the lands, with remainder over to
all or any of the States.
The pre-, eeds were " to be a common fund " for
the Utneub VI III OtdJes, anu THIS common IunQ
is to be applied to the " charge and expenditures
of the common government and each was to be
credited from the common fund with an amount
exactly in proportion to its share of the common
charge This cession was made under the confede-
ration and before the constitution was formed when
the States paid their respective proportions of the
charge and expenditure of the common government
by the States. There is therefore, pretense that
the deeds of cession authorized anything like dis
ribution either of the lands or their proceeds But
nearly all the lands owned by the Federal 60
yernment, were obtained by purchases. They we're
bought and paid for with money collected by taxa
ton from the people. No one has yet been bold |
enough to contend that Congress has any constitu-
tional power to distribute give away the money |
collected by taxation. But it is said that Congress
may vest the money thus raised in lands, and then
may convert the lands into money again, and thus
make it constitutional to distribute it The consti-
tuition cannot be thus evaded or violated. The |
power of Congress over the public revenue derived
from lands is greater than that derived from
taxes. In neither case can it be applied to any /
other than the objects specified in the constitution
There is clause of the constitution which ex-
pressly or implicitly grants to Congress the power
take money out of the treasury, whether derived
from taxes from lands, and to give it away or dis
tribute it among the States. If Congress can give
away the proceeds of the lands, it convert all
The other property of the government into money, |
lud then give it away, The same power is given to
given to it to dispose Of" the lands. 1t is clear
hat if Congress can give away the proceeds of the
ands, it give away the proceeds of all the other
property. 1t can then assess taxes raise other
eyenues, buy with it other property, and then
'ert this into money and distribute or give it away
The proposition is the most palpably unconstitu-
ional of any that any party has ever advocated In
he view of those democrats who have favored appro
riation of land for railroads. for retaining swamp
ands and for military services, the grants were not
lifts bounties. The grants in the two first named
asses, were made upon the consideration that the
improvements of the lands would make the residue |
S valuable as all the lands and more saleable in |
market. The lands granted TO soldiers were for
Military services, in discharge of debts which had
cen inadequately paid in money The proposition
owever to distribute the lands or their proceeds,
Tas based on no such considerations-it was ma {
ed gift, and therefore, unauthorized by the const-
ltion.
Mr.. n said, he would dismiss this subject by re- I
arking that it was not true, stated in the oppo-
tion platform, that the policy Of railroad grants
as the policy of the democratiS party, any more 1
ian it was the policy of the other parties 1t was
ne, however, that this policy had been greatly u
bused and it would be found that those abuses had
cen resisted by none but Democrats. 1t was also "
ntrue, stated in the opposition platform, that "
ennessee had been omitted in the appropriations of
nd by the general government. When North Caro- r
ma ceded the territory composing Tennessee to the
,nera government she did it on the condition that
lie North Carolina military entries and warrants
ould be satisfied The residue of the lands after d
sfying these entries and warrants had long since
ekoI aD1r al H.