Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1857-1858, 1857-05-27


The Union and Auerioan of Sunday, asks
this question, and answers it by asking
another, based upon what we have said
about the public lands. That paper quotes
us as follows:l
sIf the present course of policy is to be pursued,
and the Northwestern States are 10 be the perpet
ual subjects of the public bounty to the utter neg
ect of the old States, our condition must grow
tinually worse"
This, followed by the resolutions adopt
ed by the State Convention on the subject
of the public lands, is taken from the Pa
TRIoT of the 22d inst. From our issue of
the the goth, the following extract is
taken:
''No statesman 10 the National Councils has been
governed by more liberal and enlightened views
than the Hon. JOIN BELL. Measures tending to
build up and strengthen the new States, and to
develop their resources to increase and extend the
commerce of the country and to magnify its great
ness and renown, have uniformly found in him
consistent supporter. Evidence of this is to
be seen in bis support of grants of land to new
States for railroad and other purposes"
The Union and american contrasting
these two propositions, remarks:
Regarding the Patriot as the witness, we would
ask the reader, was Mr.. BELL right or wrong?
II be was right was not the system also right? If
the appropriations we're wrong, can it be possible
that Mr.. BELL was right?"
Our neighbor, fearing, as we suppose, to
risk a discussion of the vital question,
whether the disposition of the public lands
shall be equitable and equal among the
States, seeks wholly to avoid that issue,
and strives to break the force of our argu-
ments upon the subject, by presenting what
he is pleased to term inconsistencies, in us.
We take it that he has failed as signally in
this, as be would in an argument of the ques-
ton itself. True, we have admired the
enlightened" and "liberap course of Mr..
BELL, upon this as well as other subjects,
showing him to be matured and powerful
statesman, and faithful and able public
servant. In the first quotation from the
PATRIOT, there is nothing to change or mo-
dify this estimate. Our language there
implies, as much as an endorsement of Mr..
BELLS course. The most careless reader
will observe that the complaint there made,
is Of ''tbe utter neglect Of the old States" and
not Of the system as sought to be shown by
the Union and american. It's the granting
to the neW States and refusing to grant to
the old States, which constitutes the burden
of our complaint, and not the aid which
has been extended to the new States. Mr..
BELL is eminently consistent. He has sup
ported these measures, with a sincere and
strong desire to see our whole country
flourish But with that untarnished con-
seriousness of right and justice, which has
marked his course, both as statesman and
private citizen he presented measure to
the last Congress, by which all the States
would be made equal in the disposition of
the public lands. We have said that we
have no objection to the " system" pro-
vided all the States are treated alike. This
the Union d american knew, or ought to
have known. For, in our issue of the 2lst,
we gave unequivocal expression to our posi-
ton in the following language, italics and
all:
eve maintain thatin Congress reposes the right
and power, exclusive and absolute, to administer
and dispose Of these lands. We concede that con-
curing with this right, duty dictates that the in
terests and internal Of the States should
be cherished and developed, and that Congress has
been performing a mertorious work, in lending its
assistance to these ends. But in process Of time
other States which have not hitherto partsken of
this bounty, put 10 their claim for an equal share
in the disposition Of the common fund. The wrong
does not attach until you spurn these just demands,
and oppose this act Of justice. II IS your refusal
to grant to the old States egasalrights an and equal
enjoyment Of the public domain nth tie men, that
makes the wrong of Vhich zoe complain. The very
issue which our opponents make with us defines
the outrage, and if successful will consummate it,
In all questions of State policy, and even
in those of constitutional law, there is
room for honest and patriotic differences
of opinion. In manly aud fair discussion
of these differences, we are always willing
to meet our opponents, and to submit the
rightfulness or wrongfulness of our posi-
ton to the enlightened judgment of the
people, But when our adversaries persis-
tently refuse to meet us on these grounds,
and seek to divert the public atten-
ton from the true issues, by catching at
bubbles, we are forced to say that such a
course is as disreputable to the cause they
advocate as to the motives and manner
with which it is done, and in this case sun
worthy of a paper, generally so respecta-
BILE as"-the Union and AmericaR.