Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1857-05-09
Tactic. Of the Oppo.ition.

have taken against an equitable distribution oil
the proceeds of the public lands. They par
,rcfLeqcs, the constitutional and law abiding
party of the country. and IL does not become
them, even though lured by the prospect of TEN
porarv or permanent future advantage, to Won
ture upon the exercise of doubtful powers. We
might essay 10 prove, wha, is susceptible enough
of demonstration. that the Constitution has been
frequently oyerriden by its quasi friends. and
that the most violent shocks it hns received, has
been when ii was administered by those who
have claimed TO be its especial guardians
md defenders When cur assertion Is question
ed we shall be in readiness TO produce the e'i
denee Never, since old fedefa sln. with every
other ism that conglomerated at the advent
of Jack sonsm, and has since been known by the
auphoneous des gnation of Democracy, fur.
nished the uuvarying staple IN wiiel m"oibing
demagogues have Traded, has TIT p7-'v ar
sumed such arrogance aud pretenslon, at pre-.
cent. Other parties may be desperate and un-
principlcd,' bat not it. Rearing itself olofi like
some majestic Tonerffe around whose summit the
inlgtt bursts and gows whilst all beneath il
dark and repulsive, the Democratic party lifts It's
head above the waves of sectional partiaty--
maintaining every whore the equality Of tho
States, and the rights Of all under thr Constitu.
ton. Hnppy would it be for Virginia if thi. "a.
sumption were true But what is the real STATE
Of the case With an affeoiaton OF rern,d for
the Constitution. they hold IN one section TINT
it is not lawful TO make partition Of property
reserved in trust by the general government.
whilst they permit ether members Of the party.
who are less scrupulous or less skilled in the
science of abstraction, to appropriaie all to them
selves. The conduct Of Gen. Jack son in peck
citing Mr.. Clay's Land bill. has been commended
by Virginia Democrats, many Of whom doubt
less arc not aware Of the fact. that when the
President did. at the subsequent session Of Con
gross, return the bill. he assigned as principal
reason why his sgna,ure was withheld, that i,
gave twelve nnd.n-haH per cent more TO the
States in which the lands were located, than it
did to the other States; whereas, the terms of
cessiou required that the States should he equal
IN benefited .Wha, is tho Democratic doc
,rne now, interpreted by the action of the
majority in Congress. who do not hesitate II
give all to the States wherein these lands lie. In
thus passing judgment Mr.. Cly's hill aud
lauding the conduct Of GEN. jackson. they un.
Willingly condemn the very practice they 50 per-
tinacously adhere TO now bat. says our neigh
Dor, for we shall regard him such still, not
withs,andiug he bristled up little lntely.l "the
Know Nothing press and politicians OF Virginia,
in their desperate extremity. are s..ekiu to as
simulate their proposed distribution OF the lands
among the States, with the depasie Of tho sur
plus revenue among the States, under the Deposi
act OF 1886, which was sanctioned by Jackson
and other leading Democrats of that day
Now ifthe same result is attained. who're can be
the difference II is results that we seek to
accomplish, and if the Democrats chose 10 de.
wise plan whereby we can recover our own,
they shall be entitled to full credit for the con.
ception. but will not allow ourselves to be di.
verted from the main issue by shallow sopAistry.
nor admit the force Of attempted Illustrations
tina: are not opposite. For instance, the Re
publican asserts that there is about tho
Same similarity between Distribution aud
Opposite, that there is between the con
duct Of the merchant who deposits SO.
900 in one of our city Banks subject nj I'll times
20 his check or draft. and the conduct oi the
merchant who should distribute the same equal
ly among all our citizens, never 10 be reclaimed
and never 10 be returned" Now let us fri ron
slider whether the premises be right, and we shat
he more likely t. arrive at correct couc ions
Upon the principle Vt strict analogy. "a III sc can
admit no other,--the inquiry would first arise rs
to whether the Bank had any claim upon the
party making the deposit Ii the proceeds de.
posted resulted from property conveyed by the
Bank in trust for the party making th" deposit
and the trust had been satisfied the Bank
would most probably relieve him of all
further care Of the fund; and it would do right
For the life of us cannot comprehend tho
force Of the Republicans argument, aud humh,y
submit that is distinction without. difference
Nobody believes that the States will eyer be O. /
led upon 10 refund the amount awarded them un
der the Deposit act or that,exoept under circum
stances not likely ever TO arise they would re
store said amount. and therefore We cannot So,
how II is that the government Is Incompetent !,
apporton the public auds to the States which
however. it is doing) but can yet sell them ant
deposit the proceeds with the States, restitution
in all probability never to be demanded, as il
couldin M event be en(orced The recent de
oi,ion Of the supreme Cou,, has settled this lat
ter point. And II, as the Democrats alloge. it is
dHInoralizng TO the states 70 be placed IN the
position of recipients of the bounty of the Gene
ri government. by accepting grants Of lands or
tue proceeds thereof. thereby putting them more
completely in suhle, ton 10 the Federal govern.