Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-07-09
CHARGEs OF INCONSISTENCY.

We have argued during the canvass against the
Distribution policy upon the ground, among others,
that to take money from the treasury and distribute
it among the States, would create vacuum that
would have to be supplied from the pockets of the
people, by means of the revenue system. Our op-
ponents, to avoid this well-founded objection,
sumed the position that with the labOriRg classes
this should be objection, inasmuch as the rich,
those who wear broad-cloths and drink foreign
brandies and Wines pay the revenue and support the
government To this insult to the laboring people,
this revival of the old spirit of Federalism, re-
piled by showing that the assertion that the rich
supported the government was unfounded, and quo
ted in proof of our assertion the various articles of
ordinary consumption upon which heavy duties are
paid-such as cotton end wooen goods of all de-
scrpons, shoes, hats, iron, steel, sugar, &c.,-and
which furnish the principal part of the revenue that
supports the government
Finding themselves heADIed in on every side, they
abandoned the argument, and endeavOr to show an
inconsistency between the manner in which we have
treated the subject and the platform adopted by
Convention One of those resolutions declares that
in the language Of Gen. Jackson, the time has ar
rived when the public lands should cease be looked
reserved as future homes for ourselves and children
Thus" say they, democracy in one breath ar
CUES against regarding the lands a source of rev.
enue and in the they argue against distributing
the proceeds because it is needed for revenue"
These two positions shall be so plainly recOnciled
that no one fail to understand who does not de-
sire wilfully to misrepresent.
1t is evident that the government has no money,
makes no money, and is wholly dependent for its
means of support upon the pockets of the people,
taxed in the way of tariff duties, and the small
amount of revenue arising from the lands. I'm fact
it has been already stated by of the heads of
bureaus that the sales Of the lands for years
past have payed their expenses of survey, &c,
&C., and that they actually indebted to
customs.) The Democratic party has declared that,
in its Judgment these lands should not be looked 10
as a source of revenue, but that it is the policy of
the government to make homes of them for such of
our people as may need homes and may choose to
settle upon them We might make lengthy and
conclusive argument here to show that it is better
for the government as well as the people, in hun
bred different ways to encourage the settlement of
these lands with healthy hardy population, than
to look TO them as a source of revenue But this
is not necessary for our purpose now. 1t is only
necessary to state that such the position of the
Democracy of Tennessee and that they will adhere
to it.
When the Know Nothing Convention assembled |
they took ground against this position and said in
effect. eve are for making the lands a source of |
revenue to the government the proceeds to be dis
tribued, when collected among the several States"
To this the Democracy have replied: we are OPP
posed to looking to these lands for revenue, but if
the policy of so regarding them is to be continued
we are still opposed to abstracting that revenue
from the treasury and distributing it among the
States, and should insist upon its being applied to
the support of the government, and just to that
extent lessen the demand upon the people for taxes
through the tariff duties. The Democratic party are
not only right, but consistent, in contendng that
while they opposed to regarding the public lands
as means for revenue yet, if they are to be so
regarded the proceeds should remain in the treasu
~ and be used in meeting the expenses of the gov-
ernment instead of being noonstitutionally wasted
in division among the States. Our argument that
it would be better to apply the money arising from
the sales Of lands to government purposes than to
distribute it among the States is no reason why we
should not favor a different policy from either.
Another discovery which our Know Nothing
friends claim to have made is that there is a won
derful conflict the question, between the position
of our present candidate for Governor and that
by our candidate for the same position
two years ago. In this they are equally mistaken.
In every thing material Gen. Harris and Gov john
son cordially agree. They both contend, in common
with the Democratic party that the true policy of
The government is hold the lands in trust for the
use and enjoyment of the people, the future I
homes of such as may need them, and that they i
should not be looked to with an eye to profit or t