Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-07-02

fsar not d ne extent claimed for It. Every |
aau' mind lat will investigate this subject, will
strained to admit that it is not wholly local in
its snefts Bat, TO inconsiderable degree, gener
al-cont ting its advantages on all the States in
grealer less degree. But ii is said with air of
triumph, argument conclusive against the mode
of dsposng of portion of the lands, that Tonnes
has received portion of them to aid her in
making her works ofimprovement. True; but does
it follow of course that she has not been benefited
by it. Large quantities of lands have been given
to the States of Illinois, Arkansas, Mississippi and
Alabama, most, if not ALL of which have been made
tributary to the prosperity of Tennessee, by opening
up avenues of trade, commerce, and travel, which
must have remained closed for years, if not forever
without this aid In verifcaion of this, refer you
to the Central Illinois road, the Mobile and Ohio
road, Memphis and Little Rock road, Cairo and Full
ton road all of them connecting with and tributary
to works.
Such has been my course in regard to the public
lands since have had the honor of a seat in the
Senate. have never had any scruples about the
power of Congress to distribute the proceeds of those
lands among the States but many, very many, able
and patriotic gentlemen have differed with me on
this subject. A majority of the American people
have differed with me and continue to differ with
me, and it only remains for me, as a patriot recog-
nizing the right of the majority to rule, 10 acqui
esce in the decision thus often and definitely made
Repeating again that recognize the right of Con-
gress to distribute the proceeds of the lands among
the ctaIes just as II Qid ie surplus IN the treasury
yet it is due to frankness to say that do the
wisdom and do not approve the policy Of thrusting
this question on the public attention at this time
Do any of its advocates regard it practical
question? Do any of them believe it attainable at
this time, any time within the next four years-if
sttainable at all? So to suppose would be to mpute
to them an amount of ignorance about the position
of parties and the otexpressed opinions of public
men that would not willingly impute to any.
1t is impossible to conceive of a railroad OF any
great magnitude which is local in its benefits and
operations you cannot confne these to the narrow
limits of State-they promote the general pros
perity, tend to connect the bonds of Union, and
preserve the fraterna relations that ought to exist
and must exist if we remain one people To benefits
like these, patriot who desires to preserve the
Union can be indifferent. Who has been injured
who defrauded by the operation of this system? No
one Has Tennessee lost anything by dminution
of the receipts from the lands, in the Treasury
Not one dollar but on the contrary, the records
show that where the roads have been made by these
grants of land the Government has made instead of
losing money. The lands that had been in the
ket for more than quarter of century unsold,
and would have remained another quarter, have
been brought into the market and sold-and selling
at double the price heretofore asked for them Then
we as part of the nation, one of the partners in
the lands, are not in ured but benefited.
Is it not known TO the country that decided ma
orty of the Senate is opposed this policy and is
it not known that it will be many years before its
complexion can be changed, if, indeed, il shall ever
be changed? In addition to this is it not knownto
every man who knows anything of public
public things that the President the United States
is now, and has been for mere than q fourth of a
century, opposed to it constitutional grounds and
that he stands pledged in his acceptance of the
nomination for the Presidency to resist this policy
With these facts known TO all, why ask, is this
question presented to the country at this time, and
made issue in the pending in this State
Without the shadow of the hope of success, no posi-
sible means of accomplishing the object professedt to
10 be sought, what the purpose, every man is left
free to form his own conclusions Hope shall not
be deemed uncharitsble when l declare it is my
conviction that it is a ruse diversion, cal
culated if not intended, to call off the public aten
ton from the true position of things and divert them
from the real issues before the country If this be
the purpose Of those now urging this question on
the public attention land can imagine other,)
l confess / feel no sympathy with such an object
and if was before the people, seeking TO deal fairly
and honorably with them, would lend myself to
no such fraud on their confidence.
There is another aspect in which this question is
presented to tie country, fraught in my judgment
with imminent danger to its peace and repose. In
order TO obvate the difficulties that exist in the
minds of many to the power to distribute the
proceeds of the lands thus taking money out of the
treasury, il is proposed to divide the lands them
selves. This is the merest subterfuge, beneath the
dignity of the merest hoolboy sophistry you seek
10 sOOLue Inc COneClenCe W lhdhlnS huIueIouS
assault on the brain-if you give away the money
you get for the lands. The power in the one case
is the power in the other but the expediency is
wholly different thing l think it expedient to
divide the proceeds of the lands, but nexpedien and
dangerous to divide the lands This proposition, to
my mind, is monstrous and absurd asto leave me
i'll doubt whether any sane, well informed mind can
seriouslyenteItsip it for one moment.
Suppose such system as this adopted, would not
conflicts between the States which the lands nigh
lie, and the States owning the lands be inevitable
How would you regulate the question of taxation?
Would you pay taxes to the State in which the lands
lay? If So hew much? Would you leave this to
the State in whose jurisdiction they were? Would
not some Of the States, those out of debt, and no
great works Of improvement to make, keep their
lands, thus occupying the position of large non
resident land holder, neither occupying selling,
thus impeding the progress of settlement, IAN evil
of which all new States complaint wouM not this
be cause, and just cause, of complaint? And would
it not lead directly to the establishment of the dan
gerous doctrine of anterenism, which is, when
simphfed, nothing more nor less than a man shall
have NO more land than he can occupy? But how
would you divide the land in equal proportions .
according 10 populstonf Well, this looks right but