The Hickman courier., 1869-05-08

The Paducah UeraId. Column
bus Dispatch and Hickman
Courier.
The Columbus Dispatch, of the 29th, in
speaking of the relative position or the Ia
ducah Herald and Hickman COURIER on the
question of State Aid, says:
Some time ago the COURIER very sensl-
blv commended DR.. Miles bill providing
State aid for protecting the bank at HlcK-
man. From some of the articles now aP-
nearing in the COURIER one would suppose
he would regard such bill as proposal 10
rob the people of Kentucky.
"This shows the consistency of the Hlck-
man COURIER. State aid, when applied 10
Hick man and advanced the interest OF q par
ticular section in which the COURIER was
directly interested, combined, as policy,
swisdom, Justice and the higher recommend
alton of being strictly within the prescri0-
ed limits of the Constitution; but when the
benefits are not exelusively conferred upon
Hickman, and the immediate interests OF
the COURIER are not considered, then the
policy is unwise, the measure unjust ana
unconstitutional i'-PadHc Herald.
The above from the Paducah Herald
does injustice to the editorial of the Co.
lumbus Dispatch, and clearly misrepre-
sents the position of that paper. We
therefore insert the whole of the Dis
pdtchs article:
STATE AID TO RAmRoADs.-The Hickman
COURIER and Paducah Herald have locked
horns on the question II State aid to Rail
roads. The COURIER refers to Virginia as
an example of the bad effects Of such poll
cy, and the Herald refers to that State as an
example of the good effects of it.
Of the two we think the COURIER whi eh
opposes State aid, IS the nearest right, but 1t
is little astonishing how interest W i'll
1 sometimes effect our editorial vision. Some
time ago the COURIER very sensibly COM
mended DR.. Miles bill providing State aid
/ for protecting the banks at Hickman. From
! some of the articles now appearing IN the
| COURIER one would suppose he would re-
gard such bill as proposal to rob the peo-
pie of Kentucky.
AS a rule, we think the policy of granting g
! State aid to railroads or other corporations
or individuals. is injurious-yeR, ruinous-
to the State, but there may be coatlngeneles
when it is right and proper, but these sell
dom occur Columbus DssPateh.
The CoURIER's approval of DR.. Miles
bill and its opposition to the system OF
Sv~te aid urged by the Herald involves
no Inconsistency. DR.. Miles bill asked
protection to property already created
and acquired The system of interna
improvements urged proposes with the
peoples money to create wealth for, asl@
to enhance the value of property in Ger
tain localities. s'The first is within th'
purposes of government, and the latter
Hickman and Columbus and their Bot
tom surroundings is threatened with a.
strucrIOn, ana 1t Is duty the State gov
ernment owes these citizens to protec
aEd preserve their property from desires
s7pn. tits not the object of the Mile.
bill to increase the value of Hickman OF
Columbus property, or to make wealth
for any man or set of men, but to saU,
property already made.
Eve care not to deny we viewed DIR
Miles bill somewhat through Hickman
spectacles, precisely as the Herald now
views the whole question through Padu,
cab glasses, and yet we at no time ar
gued the bill strictly within the linn.
its of the Constitution. We found the
last session of our Legislature engaged
in making special appropriations, to
Green, Barren, and Kentucky rivers,
etc., and believing, as in the past, thou
sands of dollars would be appropriated
to improvements in Central Kentucky
we acknowledge no inconsistency in hav-
ing approved an effort to obtain for
Hickman, Columbus, and Uniontown,
an equal divide, inasmuch, as we are
always called upon td4help pay the taxes.
IF the people of the State, by amend
ment 10 the Constitution or otherwise,
shall engage in the Internal Improve
ment system advocated by the Herald,
We shall certainly claim all the help we
can get for our section, Notwithstanding,
we know from the past, we shall get but
little or none. The Herald some weeks
ago INDUCED in high eulogy upon the
last Legislature, assuming its special
defence, and in candor, we ask, how he
justifies the defeat of the Hickman, CO.
lumbus, and Uniontown bills, and yet
approve the appropriations to Green,
Barren, and Kentucky rivers, etc? The
Herald, some days ago, went outside OF
Legitimate discussion, to inform its rea-
ders that the RADICAL Governor of
Illinois had vetoed the Internal Improve
ment bill of that State. Why not also
state that the RADICAL Legislature
passed it over his head? Why not, also,
state that the Democratic Governor OF
Kentucky vetoed the Uniontown bill?