Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-01-26
Modern Democracy and it's Principles

We might say It's no principles 1t has a
"platform''-a professed creed-but when you
come to test their principles-their platform
by their ,eorks, it clearly appears that they
have, as party, no principles Take for in
stance, the policy of Internal improvements
On that point, they will refer you to their
platform, as adopted at the Cincinnati, and
other preceding, National Conventions. But
when you turn to their toUks-to the rotes of
the Democratic members Of Congress, from
session to session, you find dlsoays. whenever
the subject comes up, and a question of an
appropriation of this kind of the public
money arises-you find always Democrats of
e the purest water, and whose Democracy is
unquestioned, going the 'whoe hog'' for in
ternal improvements, And this thing has be-
Dme so glazing that Democratic leaders of
distinction give up the question entirely, as
one on which the parties of the day are divided
In proof whereof we cite the following passa-
ges from the Appendix to the Congressional
Globe of May q, 1883:
"Mr. DAVIS, (of Mississippi.) This seems to
be aquestion which upheaves party distinc-
tions.
Mr.. SEWARD. / do not see that it does
Mr.. Davis. | scarcely know how to find
Democrat on the question of internal improve
ments.
Mr.. SEWARD. 1 do not know about the
Democrats.
Mr.. DAVIS. A certain portion of them
seem always to me, some how or other, to
get seduced into the camp of the enemy, &C."
Mr.. BIGLER. had not supposed, Mr.. Pres
id mt. that the question OF improving rivers
AID harbors, either naking nelO toork or ex-
'nding work that had been commenced, or
re9siring or protecting improvements already
made, ever had been considered a question of
Democracy. have not so understood it.
could not so understand il, looking at its his
tory long before came here as a member of
this body. L do not recollect ever TO have
seen distinct party Uote on The subject. 1t is a
question of policy. of expediency on which
statesmen may differ. Ii may be a question
of constitutional power. 1t may be one of
policy for one section of the Union, and not
policy for another. l recOllect that in the
last Congress members of this body who stood
h1gh ~ The Democratic party voted large dppro-
P3tatons 10 commence srorts and to extend
improvements Of this character"
Mr. BIGLER, one of the Senator's from Penn
sylvania. and the known friend of the Presi-
simple truth. He nor any other man has ev-
er seen "a distinct party vote on the subject"
The Democratic party, through their repre-
sentatives in Congress, always diVide on II ques-
ton OF this character. Yet those of that par
ty, who vote for appropriations for internal
improvements are never denounced aud read
out of the party for those votes; while those
of h, ~ l..
denounced as Federalists of the deepest dye,
who are in favor of voting away the "peo-
p Plies money" in n most wasteful and uncon-
stitutiOnal manner.
Much has been said by the Democratic pa
pers about the large appropriations voted by
the House of Representatives of the last Con-
grass, which was, as they say, Black Repub-
lican. Admitted. But the Senate was Demo
cratic by an overwhelming majority. We do
not, ut present, know how large the majority
was; but Mr.. ToOMBs, good Democratic au-
thority, stated, that at the last Congress. the
Democrats had about "two-thrds'' of the Sen
ate. And he also said:
Il know that at the last Congress the SEN
ate (two-thirds being Democrats) papers show
sixty bills, all of which failed in the House
(Rrpublican). except five, and think they
w"r" oil for continuing existing improve
ments."
So it appears from Mr.. TooMBs that the
Back Republican House Of Representatives, of
the last Congress, refuses to sanction appro-
priations made by too-Liirds Democratic Sem
ate for internal improvements, in forty-five
out of sixty cases.