Newspaper Page Text
LEGAL DECISION.
T. N Ifoullaiii &. Son,"!
vh. f Sei. fa. in Taliaferro
IVixC. Moore ami [ S.iperior Court a-
Jarkson I Moore. J pamst Hail.
This is a sc/, fa. issued on tho forfeited
bail-bond of Wylie Cherry, against the de
fendant as his securities.
The bond is payable to plaiutift's ( and is
conditioned for the appearance of said Cher
ry nt the September Term of the court
aforesaid, in the year 1812. The set. fa.
recites the non-nppi arance of said Cherry;
verdict, judgment and ca. fa. against him,
und return of non est inventus by the Sheriff
of Taliaferro county. The defendants
shew for cause, why judgment should not
go against them—lst. That the bond is not
taken in terms of the law, it being taken as
common bail or hail below and not as spe
cial bail—2d. That the affidavit is insuffi
cient and does not state that plaintiffs hud
reason to apprehend the loss of said sum.
Every Judge who has had to administer
our laws, must have often been perplexed
on account of the legislature supposing the
law to be different from what it reallV is,
and then legislating on such erroneous ba
sis. Those who passed the several acts
regulating bail in Georgia, have created
great contusion anu difficulty by having
misapprehended what was special bail at
common law. A short review of the Com
mon Law and of our Statutes on thissubject,
will be necessary to understand the difficulty
in construing tho Statute of 1789, now in
force, and which prescribes the manner of
taking bail, and sueing on forfeited bail
bonds.
At Common Law, bail was divided into
common and special, and tiie latter, into bail j
below, or bail to the Sheriff for appear- |
ance ; and bail above, or hail to the action, i
Common bail is the same two imaginary ‘
persons that were pledges at Common Law.
for the plaintiff.’s prosecution, John Doe
and Richard Roe. It was the way in which
the defendant, at Common Law, voluntarily
appeared, or if the defendant did not appear
upon the return of the writ, or in four days
after, the plaintiff could enter an appear
ance for him by filing common bail to de
fendant’s name. 3 Biackstone, 297.
But if the plaintiff made affidavit that i
the debt, since 7 and 8 Geo. 4th, amounted j
to £2O or upward, then he might have the !
defendant arrested, and compel him to put i
in two substantial securities for his appear
ance, called special bait , and is that kind
of special bail known as bail below, or hail
to the Sheriff 3 Biackstone, 287. If the j
defendant did not appear, according to the I
exigency of his bond to the Sheriff, he was ;
compelled to assign it to the plaintiff, under 1
the Act of 4 ar.d 5 Anne. If, however, the i
defendant appeared, he then put in bail
above, or bail to the action, which is like
wise special bail. The condition of this
bond was not like the former, for an appear
ance simply, but that if the defendant he
condemned in the action, he should pay the
costs and condemnation money, or render
himself a prisoner, or that the securities
would pay the debt for him. 2 Biackstone,
290-1.
It is very obvious, front a review of our
various Acts on the subject of bail prior to
the judiciary of 1799, that when the Le
gislature spoke of special bail, they meant
that kind ofspecial bail known as bail above.
(See the Act of 1789, Watkins’ Dig. 390;
of 1791, Watkins’ Dig. 441 ; of 1792, lb.
487 ; of 1797, lb. C 23.) It will not only
plainly appear by these various Acts, that
what was meant by special bail was bail
above, but that they also prescribed in
terms, bail to the Sheriff for appearance,
or bail below, as at Common Law, to he ta
ken in the first instance. Then comes the
judiciary Act of 1799, (Watkins’ Digest,
094-5 ; Prince’s Dig- 422-3,) directing the
Sheriff to “take a bond with one or more
sufficient security or securities for double
the sum,” &c., without prescribing to whom
it shall be made payable, or upon what
condition it shall be void. At Common
Law, bail below was to the Sheriff', condi
tioned for the appearance of the defendant,
and bail above to the plaintiff, conditioned
that defendant should pay the condemna
tion money and cost, or render his body, or
the securities would pay for him. Perhaps
it is incorrect to say, that hail above was
payable to the plaintiff, being a recogni
zance taken before a Judge or Commission
er, in which the obligors, by acknowledg
ment to them, undertook for the defendant,
in the form beforementioned. At Common
Law, the obligees and conditions were ap
propriate to the objects designed by the bail;
whether to the Sheriff or to the action. By
our Act, one bond being designed for both
objects, the Legislature has not directed
which form it shall take, but has added a
clause which seems designed to make either
good, and is to be found in the 15th Section
of the Act of 1799, and prescribes that
“ all bail taker, according to the directions
of this Act, shall he deemed, held and ta
ken as special bail, and as such, he liable
to the recovery of the plaintiff.” Was the
bond in this case taken according to the di
rections of this Act? The Act directs
on!3’, that the Sheriff “shall take a bond
with one or more sufficient security or secu
rities,” Vc. The Legislature seems to
l have designed great latitude in taking bail
I bonds, under .the Act of 1799, inasmuch as
’ iu former Acts they have directed that the
j Sheriff should take a bond for appearance,
! and directed how it should he assigned to
, plaintiff in the event of forfeiture ; but by
: the law in force, on these important points
:no directions are prescribed. It would
seem that the condition of the recognizance
i at Common Law, given in hail to the action,
! would he most appropriate to the object de
j signed ; and yet, bail to the action, as used
| at Common Law, cannot he given under
• our judiciary Act. Because there it was
given before an officer, authorized to take
recognizances. Here it is a bond only, and
given to a ministerial officer. The Sheriff
I lias no authority to take recognizance of
j bail. Bail to tho action was a recogni
j /.ance, and every lawyer knows the impor
tant distinction, at Cpnnnon Law, between
1 a bond and a recognizance,
Indeed neither kind of special bail, as
used ami given at Common Law, would he
exactly applicable under our judiciary.—
Bail below or bail to the Sheriff for appear
ance, would be insufficient, because such
appearance would be a compliance with
the condition of the bond, and without bail
to the action, on such appearance, which
is not provided for by our judiciary, the
plaintiff'would take nothing by this kind of
special bail. Bail to the action, as given at
I Common Law, 1 have shewn, cannot be
j given to the Sheriff on the arrest of defen
i dant, because it is there a recognizance, ta
i ken before a judicial officer, or Commis
| sioners appointed for the purpose of taking
| recognizances.
It has been argued by some, that when
the Act of 1799 directed that all “bail ta
ken according to the directions of that Act,
should be deemed, held and taken as special
bail; and as such, be liable to recovery,”
&c. That special bail, or hail above, i
should be taken by the Sheriff, I have j
shown the difficulty, not to say the impossi- j
bility of taking Sail to the action by the j
Sheriff. But the best answer is, that the :
Act does not say that “special bail,” or I
bail above shall be taken. It would have j
been very easy so to have said, if such had j
been the intention. But the General As- j
sembiy of 1708, seems to have anticipated j
just such a case as that now under conside
ration, and such as has occurred in Geor
gia since that Act, thousands of times.
That body knew that, by former Acts
and by the Common Law, two kinds of bail
had been required, and it desired, (very
properly,) to simplify the process by requi
ring one bond only : but, truly, supposing
that there would be much difficulty as to
the form of the bond, endeavored to obviate j
it by directing that if the bond had two se- !
curities, &c., it shonld be deemed, heldiScc. I
to be a kind of bail well known and under- !
stood. The very terms used, suppose that .
bonds would be taken that would not be
“special bail” or bail above, else, why
say, that they should be deemed, held and
taken as such, if they were such ? Why
say that one thing shall be deemed, held
and taken as another, if it be that other
without any such process of transmutation ?
Let it not be objected that it is absurd to
say, that a bond for appearance shall he a
bond conditioned that defendant shall pay
the debt, or render his body in execution,
&c. Within the Constitution the Legisla
ture is Omnipotent, even to do an absurd
thing; admitting this to be such. But this
cannot be, and as an argument, when it is
recollected that by the same Act, the Sher
iff is in a certain event, made special bail :
and I am sure, the transformation of a hail
bond for appearance into bail to the action,
is not more remarkable than this explicit
change of the Sheriff’s bond into one with
the condition of a recognizance of bail to
the action.
I hold, therefore, that if it be a bail bond
taken by the Sheriff) with one or more se
curities &c. appertainining to the case;
whether given in the form of bail below or
bail above, or compounded of both, as in this
case, it is “taken according to the direc
tions” of the Act of 1799, and must “ be
deemed, held and taken as special bail, and
as such, be liable to the recovery cf the
plaintiff.” When 1 say “ special bail,” I
mean to use the term in that sense, which
I have shewn, and shall directly shew the
Legislature has in its various Acts on this
subject. The important inquiry again oc
curs ; what is meant in the Act of 1709
by “special bail?” I have shewn, that
by all the Acts prior thereto, “ special bail”
means bail above. This uniform and obvi
ous meaning in so many Acts, might be
deemed sufficient to settle the legal defini
tion of the term. But that it means some
thing more than “ special hail,” is manifest
from the fact that there is, and was, at the
time of the passage of the Act of 1799, no
other kind of bail known to our law than
special bail. Our judiciary recognized no
appearance by the imaginary persons of
John Doe and Richard Roe. Aud all our
Acts regulating hail look to real and sub
| stantial securities, who, of themselves, con
stitute the bail special. Then if we have
no other than special hail, why say that a
particular kind of hail means what it can
only he, special bail 1 There being only
| two kinds of bail, and both special, accor
■ ding to the Common Law, does not the Le
gislature, of necessity, mean to distinguish
! it by that name from some other bail known
i to our law ?
Again, by the same Act, the Sheriff', in
certain contingencies is made special bail,
hut if hero it has the Common Law mean
ing, it may well be asked what kind of
special— bail to the Sheriff, or bail to the
action ? It cannot mean the former, for
that would make him bail to himself for
appearance.
It is obvious, that to make any sense of
the Act of 1799, by “special bail” is meant
one kind of special bail, and that it must
be bail above, or bail to the action. By this
construction, the least violence is done to
j the literal meaning of the Act. I admit
that all bail taken as prescribed by an Act
! is “special bail,” as the Legislature has
i directed. But 1 say, by the words “spe
cial hail” is meant, one kind of that hail ;
and it is shewn by the prior Act, and by the
: judiciary of 1799, that that kind is bail
’ above.
The conclusion then, on this ground is,
that there is no other bail known to our law
than special bail; —that prior to the judici
ary of 1799, the Legislature recognized the
difference between bail to the Sheriff, for
appearance and bail above, or bail to the ac.
| lion ; but that the latter was uniformly dis
i tinguislied, I believe, without exception,
jas “special hail.” That the judiciary of
! 1799, now of force, by the words “ special
! bail,” means bail above ; and that having
enacted that “all bail taken according to
the directions of that Act, should be deem
ed, held and taken as special bail, (meaning
I bail above ;) and as such, be liable to the
j recovery of the plaintiff’.” And having
■ given no other directions in the Act other!
j titan such as has been observed in the bond j
’ now under consideration, I. am of opinion j
j that the bond is a good one, and recoverable. ;
! No objection having been made to the form
of the pleadings, there is nothing further to
consider under the first ground.
The foregoing judgment is in conformity j
to one rendered in Oglethorpe some three !
or four years ago; the name of the case j
not now recollected.
Since writing the above, my attention
has been directed to the Act of 1841, which
prescribes that “all bonds to be taken there
after, shall be made payable to the plain
tiff’.” This bond having been so made pay
able, rather confirms my confidence in the
conclusion to which 1 have arrived as to its
validity. But as it, like bail below, at
Common Law, is conditioned for the ap
pearance of the principal, the above mean
ing is as applicable as if the Act of 1841
had not been passed ; that Act not having
prescribed the condition of bail bonds.
However formidable the last ground
might have been, if taken by the defendant,
Cherry, for the purpose of being discharged
from bail on account of the insufficiency of
the affidavit, it is much matured when as
sumed by his securities, as a reason why
they should be discharged from their liabil
ity.
Whatever Cherry might have said, at the
proper time, as to the illegality of his ar
rest, cannot avail his securities when they
seek to be discharged from their voluntary
bond. Their liberty has not been impro
perly restrained ; and if Cherry chose not
to complain that his was, they cannot make
sucli complaint now (when lie is silent,) in
discharge of their voluntary bond.
At the Common Law, when a bail bond
is sued, it is “ not necessary to state that the
debt was sworn to or writ marked ; for these
omissions do not avoid the bond, though the
Sheriff, or perhaps the plaintiff may be
punishable for them. Nor need it be
shewn, that the defendant in the original
action was arrested ; for the arrest is not
traversable.” Ist Bac. 347 ; 1 Burr. 330;
1 Str. 444 and 643.
It is adjudged and considered by the
Court, that the plaintiff be permitted to take
his judgment against the bail.
GARNETT ANDREWS,
J. S. C. N. C.
Intercst on the Public Debt. —The inter
est on the public debt, according to the re
port of the Secretary of the Treasury, is
$1,032,739 02 ; which is $2,829 37 per
day, or $2 a minute. Instead of giving
the people “two dollars a day and roast
beef,” the Whigs have already taxed them
$2 a minute to pay interest alone.
Globe.
Is it tiie fault of the Whigs that the Loco
focos spent all the surplus money in the
Treasury, about thirty-two millions, run the
country in debt, and provided no means to
pay the debt, nor revenue enough to meet
the expenses of the Government, even re
duced from the Van Burcn average of thir
ty-five millions a year down to the Whig av
erage of twenty-four millions a year ?
Try again, Mr. Globe-man, that lie is too
flimscy—it won’t impose upon any one that
has a thimble full of brains.
Whig Standard.
From the Baltimore American-
THE CURRENCY QUESTION.
The New York Tribune thus speaks on
tho subject of the Currency and the position
of the Whigs in rcgnrd to it :
“We understand the whole Whig party
| to be united iu the conviction that a Nation
jal Currency—a currency which any man
! may eusily und cheaply send by mail five,
j fifty or five thousand dollars from any part
to any part of tho country,and have it worth
; just us much at one end of the .route us the
Other, is indispensable to the highest pros
perity ofthe productive industry und busi
ness of the country. Sucli a currency has
heretofore been afforded by a National
Bank alone. But we do not peremptorily
decide that rio other means ofereating it is,
orever wili be impossible—we are willing
to consider without prejudice any other plan
which may be suggested. We are confi
dent the next Whig Congress will do so,
and will decide in favorofthat plan which
shall seem best calculated to subserve the
great end desired, which is a sound and uni
j form National Currency in accordance
with the Whig principle that it is the duty
ofthe Government to provide such a cur
rency. And when Congress shall have de
cided on the means, be assured that we
shall have a Whig President who will ren
j der a hearty concurrence. Sucii we un
derstand to he tiie Whig platform in rcla
-1 tion to the currency.”
We understand the same thing precisely:
j The platform of a great principle is always
wide and capncious enough to allow am
ple room for discretion and freedom ofopin
ion as to the ways and means of a practi
cal application. The matter in controver
sy is not whether there shall be a Bank of
the U. States or not, hut whether there shall
be a national currency or not. Has tho
General Government tlie power under the
Constitution to create and sustain a Nation
al currency, and if so is it tiie duty of tiie
Government to exercise its power in that
particular? The wliigs answer affirma
tively in both cases. The very existence
of a National Government implies, as its
correlative, a national currency. Such a
currency is necessary for the uses of the
government ; it is essential to the business
interests of the people. In one form or an
other such a currency will exist. If put
down in otto shape, it will spring up in an
other, as by the force of an instinct innate
in our political national organization, and
actively at work in all tiie impulses and
movements or trade, both inland and for
eign. Thus we have Treasury notes at
one time and at another we have sub trens.
ury drafts—substitutes and poor ones for
such a currency as we ought to have, vet
indicating by their circulation tiie general
want which may be well or ill implied ac
cording as we have a wise or unwise Gov
ernment.
DEMOCRATIC WHIG PRINCIPLES.
No intelligent and candid man (says the
New York Courier and Enquirer) can doubt
that the fundamental principles of the Whig
party are infinitely better adapted than
those of their opponents to secure tiie great
est happiness of the greatest number of our
people, and that they are therefore far more
truly democratic, in this most honorable
and worthy sense, than those of that party
who claim the name of Democrats, in re
turn for which they cheerfully give upeve
ry thing that could entitle them to wear it.
Robert Y. Conrad, Esq. in a letter declin
ing a re-election to tlie State Senate in Vir
ginia, asks some very pointed questions on
this subject, and utters words of courage
and of hope which must inspire tlie heart
of every Whig in tho land. We copy the
following passage:
“Wherein does a single Whig measure
conflict with democracy ? Is it democratic
to throw ourselves at the feet of the mer
chants and manufacturers of England and
France, the cotton growers of Carolina, or
tiie importers of New York, and say to them,
do with us as you will ? Is it democratic
to deny to our own Representatives in Con
gress the power to regulate the currency
and commerce, without which the several’
States will have less intercourse with each
other than with foreign countries ? Is it
democratic to leave the public lands a sub
ject for political bribery and rapine, whilst
the States to whom they belong need them,
to save us all from the disgrace of repudi
ation, to educate the rising generation, to
make us good roads and canals ? Is it dem
ocratic to sustain and foster the overgrown
power of our Federal Executive ? Or is it
democratic to refuse to men of small capi
tal the right of uniting their means, that
they may engage in enterprises, which
witiiout this privilege, would be monopo
lized by the men of great wealth ?
“Whig principles must prevail. To
doubt it would he to give up the great ques
tion of Republican Government. For a
time selfish politicians and selfish prin
ciples have place, for the people are not
always awake ; but when the misrule be
comes apparent, they arouse themselves.
Already we behold that great party, which
never permits itself to be aroused but when
the republic is in danger, moving with even
stronger power and will than in 1840. The
people of the country are again coming to
the rescue of theirown institutions, and the
victory of 1844 is already won.”
A New Southern Staple. —An ingenious
citizen of the State of New-Jersey has re
cently taken out a patent from the office in
Washington, for a discovery which he lias
made, which enables him to manufacture
paper of various qualities, and of a very
firm and strong texture, from the cane
which grows in such abundance in the
swamp land of the Southern States. The
process is to remove the outer coat by a
very simple chemical process, when the
remainder of the cane is easily converted
into a pulp, of which the paper is made.
The following is an extract, inter
esting to Southern Cotton planters, from a
speech of the Hon. G. Furman, of N. York,
in defence of tho tariff system, delivered
at the Fair of tiie American Institute.
“ Another prominent feature of litis Brit
ish scheme of polity is to allay the fears of
the South as to the culture of cotton in Iti
i dia, und to induce in the minds of tiie Sumh
j i rn planters an illfoundcd jealousy of their
! brethren in tho Eastern States—and in this
j they have been hut too successful.
I That those who assert that the East In
: dia cotton cannot come in competition with
I that raised in tire United States; and that
j Great Britain will always be obliged to look
j to this counlry for her supply of that article,
because cotton cannot he raised in the
East Indies, are deceived, and intentionally
deceived by the British nation, until their
cotton prospects in tlie Fast are completed.
It is precisely the course they pursued in
relation to our indigo towards tiie close of
our Revolutionary contest ; previous to
which contest two-thirds of the quantity of
that article consumed in Great Britain was
raised in the Southern United States. But
as soon as our independence was certain,
i they commenced the culture of indigo in
> the East Indies, and continued deceiving
joiir people by fallacious representations,
until about forty years ago they had so far
succeeded as to raise sufficient for their own
consumption, and destroyed the market for
the American article; and of course, we
had to stop producing it, and turn our at
tention to something else. That this is the
course pursuing in relation to our cotton, is
evident from many facts of recent occur j
fence, and among others, from the public j
sale of cotton at Liverpool, on the 3d of |
March, 1843—when Madras and Surat cot j
ton sold for 4gd. to sjjd. for middling to !
good fair, Slith, (East India.) Western kind \
for 3d. to 3-id. lor ordinary, and Demerara ;
cotton for 2d. to 3;jd. for very common, j
seedy and stained, and 6Jd. for fair—while j
at the same sale American cotton sold for |
3id. a s,jd. for ordinary to good. What i
chance have we under such circumstances?
None ; unless we do as the English are
now doing, build up a home market, where
our cotton will command a steady, uniform
price, and no East India or Demerara cot
ton can come into competition with it. Ev
ery year will make it worse. There may
be periods of occasional excilement, when
the price of cotton will appear to revive;
hut the general tendency will be downward,
until many of our planters will be compell
ed to turn their attention to producing some
oilier article, unless a home market should
be previously created to obviate such ( fleet;
without lhat the Southern planters will ne
ver again see the day when they will gel
such prices for their cotton as they did some
seven or eight years ago. I may be told,
perhaps, that was a temporary depression
in the price of American cotton, and that
it has much improved since. It is not so
much for the particular price that I cited
that instance, as to exhibit tiie principle of
the competition which the American grower
must always meet in that market, and with
a continued and increasing force. But let
usexamine the improvement, as it is called.
The following statement exhibits the price
of American cotton in Liverpool on the 22d
of September last, a little short of a month
ago, compared with that of the growth of
tiie British Colonies and Egypt:
American Cotton. British Cotton.
Upland Cotton, 4d a 51 and C. W. India, 4-J, a 6-Jd
Mobile, 4d “ s|d Madras, 4d “
New Orleans, 3J “ 6|d Egyptian, 5J -‘6-Jd
This view is certainly anything but fa
vorable to this country. The import of
cotton into Liverpool, for the week ending
on that dav, was still more unfavorable,
showing only 2,441 bales of American cot
ton, while that from the East Indies amount
ed to 12,401 bales. On this, however, I
place hut little reliance; many circum
stances not connected with the genera! trade
may have affected the importations of that
particular week. Mv main object in noti
cing it, is to show that cotton continues to
be imported from the East Indies. I have
not referred to the price of Sea Island cot
ton, as that species can never be more ex
tensive than at present, and can never be
of sufficient quantity to regulate the mar
ket. If, however, it should be thought that
should be brought into the estimate, I would
then observe, that at the same sale, while
American Sea Island cotton sold for 7d. to
9d. English Barbadoes cotton sold for not
less than 9d. Thus showing that, so far
from militating against the view which I
have thus taken of the American cotton
market in England, and the effects produ
ced upon it by the British system of policy,
the increased prices sustain it, and enforce
upon us the absolute necessity of looking
at home to the sustaining of our own pro
ducts.
At the commencement of the present year
the English correspondents of some of our
presses informed us, as interesting news
from Bengal, of the entire failure on the
part of the American planters to raise cot
ton in that District, and that the United
States cotton growers have little to fear from
that quarter for some time to come. The
English would have had us believe, that
this was a failure to raise cotton in the East
Indies, and not confined to a comparatively
small extent of country. It emanated from
a source known to be adverse to the Pro
tective Tariff policy of the United States,
and is therefore to be ranked with the cry
of ‘ Free Trade,’ ‘ the reduction of English
duties on American Products,’ and ‘ the
modification of the Corn Laws,’ which have
been so long used to prevent the people of
the United States from adopting as a settled
policy the Protective Tariff System. That
they are busily engaged in fostering the
growth of cotton in the East Indies is evi
dent from the official statement of the stock
of cotton in Liverpool on the 31st of De
cember, 1840 and 1842 :
United States. East Indies.
In 1840, there were 371,175 bales. 38,610 bales.
In 1842, the Cotton
of the United States
had decreased to 260,130 “
The other increa
sed to 100.470 “
So that the East India cotton from being less
than one seventh of the amount ofthe Uni
ted Status cotton in 1840, had increased in
the two years, at Liverpool alone, to be-*
come more than one.third. The stock of
cotton on hand in all the ports of England
and Scotland in 1840, was:
U. States, 301,990 bales. K, Indies,9B,ooo bales.
In 1842, the United Slates hud decreased
to 283,444 hales, aud the East India cotton
increased to 179,448 bules.
This docs not look as if the East Indies
could not raise cotton, or as if the English
would not use it, as we have been frequent
ly told of late. There is a certain and
steady increase every year in the quantity
of East India cotton sold in the English
market, and un equally certain and steady
decrease in the demand for the cotton of
the United States in lhat country. This
simple fact, proved as it is by the
statements, should open our eyes to the par
amount importance of supporting our Pro
tective System, and thus create a market
for our cotton and other agricultural pro
ducts within our own borders.
Notwithstanding all these facts, tho
English are now again urging upon us ilrtu
we should not levy sucli heavy duties upon
their manufactured articles, because they
will always bo obliged to take our cotton.
Admitting that to be the fact, we owe them
no thanks, for they have spent hundreds of
thousands pounds sterling in the endeavor
to raise cotton in their East India posses,
sions, and also ill Egypt, with the avowed
object of breaking up our cotton trade.—
And if they have not been successful, it lias
not been from a want of the design to sup
plant us.”
DUTY ON TOBACCO IN EUROPE,
i Among the documents accompanying tho
j President’s Message is a report from the
j Secretary of State, in reference, among oth
j er tilings, to “the important subject of our
| relations with the Germanic Association or
| Customs Union.” From this document, it
i appears that the efforts of our Ministers
■ abroad have been assiduously directed to
the reduction of the duty on American To
bacco—but, for tho life of us, we cannot
conceive any motive for the urgency with
which this reduction is insisted upon, if, as
is sometimes contended, tiie decrease ofthe
duty would not inure to the benefit of tho
American planter. We should infer, at
least, from the language of Mr. Upshur, the
Secretary of State, that lie is no believer
in such an ab surdity. lie says:
“Tiie reduction on tobacco, proposed on
the part of the German Customs Union,
brings to our view in a strong light, the un
fortunate state of the trade with England,
France, and Austria, in that great staple of
our country. In England vv,- have to com
plain of an enormous duty of three shil
lings a pound, or about eight hundred per
cent, on its value at the place of exporta
tion ; at the same time it is permitted to sell
the article freely in that country.
“ In France, however, although every
Minister of the United States, from the
year 1786 to the present time, has earnestly
pressed the subject upon that government,
no change has been effected. The govern
ment of Franee still continues the monop
oly or regie, which stops up all the
to that trade, whilst the United States ad
mit all the products of French industry.
“In Austria the same plan of monopoly
or regie destroys the prospect of any pro
ductive trade in tobacco ; and our Minister
to that Court holds out no inducement to
hope for any change for tiie better.”
If, indeed, it he true, that the exorbitant
duties imposed upon American tobacco in
the ports of Europe, are not prejudicial lo
the interests of the producer of tiie article,
it would seem strange that our Ministers in
England and France, commencing soon af
ter the negotiation of our National Inde
pendence, have been strenuously urging in
the one country, a reduction of the duty,
andjn the other, the abolition of the monop
oly—and still more so, that, in referonco to
the German States, we have been induced
more recently to open the negotiations on
the subject, having the same object in view,
and that we have even instructed our en
voys to offer equivalents lo those States for
a reduction of the duty on tobacco, by a
greeingto a like reduction upon their man
ufactures introduced into this country. If
the American planter is not to be benefited
by a reduction of the duty upon tobacco,
why do we urge it so strenuously and per
tinaciously ? and especially, why do we
offer equivalents for that reduction ? On
the other hand, if it he probable that a mod
ification of the European tariffs will con
duce to the advantage of the American
planters, is it not the duty of the “ free tra
ders” before they open our ports to British
and French manufactures upon the pay
ment of a duty merely nominal, for the
benefit of British and Frencli capitalists
and laborers, that they shall, at least, re
ceive as a just and proper equivalent, that
the SOO per cent, duty upon tobacco in Eng
land, shall be brought down to a more rea
sonable standard, and that F'rench govern
ment monopoly shall be, if not abolished,
at least abated somewhat in its rigorous
exclusion of individual competition? We
cannot conceive of the idea of “ free trade,”
which consists in “low duties on One side of
.the Atlantic, and high duties and prohibi.
tions” on the other. That is not the sort
of free trade of which Mr. Jefferson, of
whom the modern free traders profess to be
the disciples, was in favor. On the con
trary, he emphatically asserted, in his jflj
ebrated Report to Congress, that “ free trade
is not to be given in exchange for high du
ties and prohibitions.” Upon this question,
as upon many others, indeed, the Wliigs
stood upon the old Jeffersonian platform;
and it is remarkable to see the flippancy
wsth which the doctrines and opinions of
that Statesman are scouted and derided fotjgF
the very party which assumes to be his lin
eal political desceneants, and the only or
thodox expounders of his principles. Nor
is it the sort of “free trade” for which we
fought during the late war—when we con
tended-for equality of rights and reciproci
ty of obligations and duties—both of which
