Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-06-30

many Of the present voters may not Be familiar With
the arguments on which il had been rejected as nm
constitutional and inexpedient and impraoticable
He would therefore, devote portion Of his time !,
to the discussion Of its merits, or, more proper
speaking its dement's. The proposition az gscioi
nally made by Mr. Clay, and as now revived oy M.
Bell, to distribute among all the StsSes the nett
proceeds Of the sales Of the public Sr ia instead Of
appropriating them, always his been done TO
the common expenses Of the FIdsral Government.
In this shape It IS PROPOSE ION 70 withdraw from
the treasury annually sopye four or five million Of
dollars and hence TO orsg The necessity Of supply
ing TINS amount By to alton But the candidate Of
sLe oPgostlon ior Governor, Mr.. Hstton, has gone
peyOho MI Ci2y and MIR Bell, in his zeal in the
cause OF dis't-pution. He proposes to divide out
anu osLfloIte the lands themselves, If It IS found
that their proceeds cannot be distributed. Mr.. n.
was no. aware that any other public man, except
Ar. Hatton, had ever advocated SO impracticable
dangerous and proposition as that Of dividing the
lands themselves. When Mr.. Bel brought forward
his late BILL he repudiated this proposition and sug
gested one reason why it could rot be adopted he
said; " propose no grants Of land to any State in
which there are public lands. This has always
been objected to by the States upon the ground
that it was unbecoming the dignity Of any State,
that other States, CO sovereigns comembers Of the
Union should be prOprietOrs or holders Of portion
Of the public domain within their limits cOncede
if not entirely the validity Of that objection, yet
force enough it to defeat any measure proposing
| such grants"
To understand the absurdiy Of the proposition, it
is only necessary to imagine Congress engaged in
an attempt to parcel out to each State its proportion
| Of the lands And then to imagine each State the
owner Of large tracts Of lands within the sovereign
jurisdiction Of other States. Let any undertake
in his mind to carry the proposition into execution,
and he will be astOnshed that project so lmpracu-
| cable and so certain to destroy all harmony and
brotherhood among the States, ever met the appro-
| val Of even one public man. If Mr.. HattOn had
| taxed all his ingenuity to devise scheme that
would be more effectual than any other to agitate,
distract ALLEVIATE and finally break up the cOntede
-acy he could not have been more successful than
when he proposed to divide out the public lands.
But said Mr. n, we will dismiss this proposition
to divide out the lands the suggestion Of a too
ardent and impulsive mind and direct our attention
to the proposition of Mr. Bell-the distribution of
! the proceeds Of the sales of the lands. Mr. n said
| he was here met by a conflict between Mr.. Bell and
the late opposition convention, quite as remarkable
] as that already noticed between Mr.. Bell and Mr.
| Hatton. He found the opposition convention de-
claring that the policy by which the public lands
are appropriated in large quantities for the benefit
Of particular States, Is unjust, unequal and Injurious
the old States and ought be tolerated" This is
the language Of the platform, with the further
mark, unfoUnded in fact, that the policy de
| nOunced is the policy Of the party in power"
Turning to Mr.. Bells speech, made when he intro
duced the bill, Nh n. said he found him not only
avOWing what was true, that he had always favored
the appropriation of the public lands in large guam
titles for the benefit Of the new States but that he
| had idea Of interfering with disturbing that
| liberal policy Listen 10 him:
! Il wish further state that it will be found in
! the provisions Of this bill that no change is pro-
/ posed in the policy Of this Government in making
liberal grants Of lands to the States in which the
public domain lies for the purpose Of aiding in the
| construction OF railroads and canals. I Isqrs that
altogether untouched ieagg that policy to operate 0s
heretofore, h0Csrer beneficial mag be 10 those States
! beyond anything sHJ0gea By the other States"
| This measure which ] propose does not initiate
agaiHSf ire B0eg Of JraHiiG IaGs for ai{rnC fAe
ne,g States 1 have favored that policy heretofore
for reasons connected with the public interests and
do not propose TO interfere uih IN bringing tor1sard
! this bal."
The Convention says tha' the policy Of making
large appropriations ct land for the benefit Of the
States is unjust Ur" Ual, IT. uiiOUs, and ought
not to be tolerated Mr.. Bed, SAYS chat he has ad
7ocated this policy heretofore and that he does not
propose 10 disturb it in future The Convention
says that this unjust, unequal and injurious policy is
! the policy Of the Democratic party. Mr. Bell says
that this liberal policy is his policy and will con
tinue to be his policy Mr.. HattOn goes beyond
Mr.. Bell in proposing to divide out the lands Mr..
| Bell condemns Mr.. Hatton's policy as impractical
the Convention pronounce Mr. Bells policy Of be-
raj grants to the States unjust unequal and iniu-
| rious-aud Mr. Bell claims the policy as liberal
and insists letting 1t alone. And yet all these
gentlemen say that the Democratic party ought not
to have the confidence Of the country, because there
are some differences of opinion amongst its leaders
! as TO a few measures Of policy. These singular
conflicts amongst the leaders Of the opposition are
easily understood when it is remembered that when
Mr.. Bell made his speech he was seeking to cOncate
the voters in the new States-when the Convention
put forth this platform they seeking to coneili-
ate and humbUg the voters Of Tennessee.
CONCLUSION tomorrow