Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-07-25

every article that is used and consumed by the poor
as well as the rich in this country.
Now, if you take from the Federal treasury. say
six millions of dollars, and divide it between the
States, you divide it according to population, and
the North being more pOpulous than the South and
West, would get about thirds, say four millions
of the six while the South and West would only get
about one-third, or about two millions. But when
you come to pay the money back into the treasury,
the North being manufacturing people, manufac-
turing almost everything they USE and to some ex-
tent manufacturing for US, they buy very few i'm
ported goods, while the farmers of the South and
West are the chief consumers of these articles upon
which the Federal tax is levied and therefore they
pay much the larger proportion of the Federal
nues Thus it will be seen that when we go to make
up the deficiency in the treasury the people of the
South would pay about four of the six millions,
while the North would only pay twO-but when we
go to divide, the North gets four while we only get
two, which is gradual transfer of the wealth of
the agricultural South and West into the pockets of
the manufacturing North. Rather expensive
mode of increasing school fund, or an internal
improvement fund.
Is it not better for the people of each county to
determine for themselves frst whether they will be
taxed to increase their common school fund, and if
so, to what extent, and then they will get the bene
fit of every dollar they pay? But if you increase
your school fund by distribution of the land fund,
you have no option; you are compelled to be taxed
to supply the deficiency in the Federal Treasury,
and taxed, too, under system that compels you to
pay about two dollars into the treasury for every
dollar that you get out. ~
But, said Gen. H., my competitor says that the
present tariff win raise money enough to support
the Government without the land fund. Col Hatton
forgets that about the last thing the recent
Congress did to reduce the tariff to what is sup
posed to be the low revenue standard But if it is
found to raise money than necessary to support
the Government, the policy Of the Democratic party
is to reduce it lower and lower, until they have
reached the lowest revenue standard holding it to
be unjust and unwise to tax the people cent more
than necessary to support the Government So the
difference between mycOmpetitor and myself is this:
He says the present tariff will produce more money
than is necessary to support the Government but is
opposed to reducing it, and insists upon keeping it
up high enough to make the proceeds of the lands
surplus for distribution This policy results in rails
ing by taxation the fund that he proposes to distri
butte; for in principle there is no difference between
raising fund for distribution by keeping the taxes
up unnecessarily high, and levying a tax for the
purpose of raising a fund to distribute. Each re-
suits in drawing from the pockets of the people, by
taxation fund to distribute; and when you dstri-
butte it according to this plan, you have taken two
thirds of it from the pockets of the South and West
and given two.thrds of it to the Golfers of the man
ufacturers of the North; which results in forcibly
taking the money from one set of pockets and re-
turning ii to others, policy unjust and unwse But
if it was to be returned to the same pockets from
which it taken, it would still be unwise for the
reason that you would have incurred the expense of
collecting it and returning it, and the loss of inter-
est while the money is making the necessary cir
cult Gen. II. said, according to the opinions of
Clay and Webster and indeed all the great lights of
both the old parties, there is not nor can there be
for many years, any land funds to be distributed
For Clay and Webster both held that Congress could
only distribute nett surplus proceeds of the lands
In 1886 there was surplus in the treasury, COM
posed in part of the proceeds of the sales of the
lands; but they held they could not distribute that
surplus because they denied the power to distribute
fund raised by taxation, and that the proceeds of
the sales Of the lands not NETT for the reason
that the lands were at that time in debt to the treas
ury, they having cost more money than they had |
paid back into the treasury. Hence they advocated
Inc policy of depositng with the States the surplus
in the treasury, to be returned to the General Gov
srnment on demand.
The lands are at present in debt to the treasury
some seventy million of dollars, having cost that
much more money than they have paid back, and |
his, tOo independent of the expenses of the wars
hat have resulted in the acquisition of territory
# you add the expenses of those wars the lands are
indebted to the treasury about $500, OOO, 900.
But it is said that you should favor the policy of
distribution because lands have been granted to some
If the States, for school and railroad purposes,
md that they have been benefited. tits not for
,oten that Tennessee has received about four mil
ions of acres But who made those grants to the
lew States that are complained of? There is but
me instance record where the Democratic party
f the House of Representatives have, by MAORI
y, voted those grants, and not an instance where
he majority of other parties have failed to sustain
hem by their votes The bill granting alternate
ectiOns to the Illinois Railroad in 1850, 4S Demo-
rats voted for in the House, while 43 voted against
!, Gen. H. recording his vote against it. This is the
My bill of the character for which majority of
democrats in the House voted, and this grant did
ot injure the federal treasury dollar but upon
he contrary as shown by the report of the commits
Toner of public lands, has benefited the treasury
he building of the road enabled the Government
sell the alternate sections retained for double the
rice at which they were originally held, and en-
anced in value sand brought. into market land on
ach side of the road for 80 or 40 miles that would
OF have come into market but for the road.
But, said Gen. H., voted against it because was
nwilling thus to increase the price of the lands to
lie actual settlers feeling that it better policy
encourage settlement and cultivation than the
lilroad corporations.
The Minnesota bill that is much complained of by
y competitor, said Gen. H., passed the Senate by
lie unanimous vote of the K. N, party, with Mr..
ell at their head, majority of Democratic Sena-
Ors also voting for it, but in the House the Dem
rats voted against it by majority of about two to
ne, while the K. Ms voted for it by majority Of
bout two to Hence, if these grants wrong,
'rtainly the Democratic party are less guilty of
lat wrong than any other party in the country, it
'ing the only party that has stood out against this
olicy. But, said Gen. H., the great leader of the
N. party in Tennessee, Mr.. Bell, said in his dis