Newspaper Page Text
poned ; and 1 voted against laying the
subject on the table. It is whispered
around me that the postponement ot the
report of the committee, or laying it on
the table, would leave the rules of the
last Congress of force in this hall. 1
know it. But I will not resort to this
sort of legislative finesse to retain tem
porarily what wc have a right openly to
demand as a permanent rule of the House.
I will not consent to juggle this rule into
a sort of temporary, equivocal existence,
by artifice and parliamentary manoeuvre.
No sir; we ask if, WQ detnand it, boldly
and fearlessly, but respectfully, of our
political friends, upon a direct vote. 1
want it openly and directly voted, or rid
at all. tlrves us the rule as it stood in
the last Congress, or vote it down. If
there Ire any flinching, let itrj know it.
Those who arc not for us dc against us;
there can tre no half we.y house here. 1
have no policy no compromise on this
•question. The South has lost too much
by compromises to make her eager for
■ilietn now. Talk not to inunf Democrat
or Whig, of policy or management, on
this question ; for however 1 am dispos
ed to confide in my political brethern,
when abolitionism lifts its Gorgon head
in this House, 1 know no party but that
which sustains the rights and interests
of my constituents, and the guaranties of
the Constitution. When this question
comes again before the house from the
committee, I will speak more at large on
the subject. 1 have hut to repeat em
phatically the hope I have so ardently
indulged, that the House will instruct
the committee to re-enact the old 21st
rule, and drive from among us the wild
fanatic, who would apply his torch to our
homes and habitations, arid to this fair
temple of lilierty. Admit him not into
this hall; for he will, day after day, cast
firebrands among us that will eventually
hurst this glorious Union into a thousand
atoms. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the yeas
and nays may he recorded on my motion.
ft c marks of Mr. Mc DI FFIE.
In Senate, Jan. 19.
THE TARIFF.
The; Senate then took up lor considera
tion tiie report from the Committee on
Finance, as follows:
January 9, 1841.—Mr. Evans, from
the Committee on Finance, retried the
following resolutions:
Resulted, That the bill entitled “ A
bill to revive the act of the 2d March,
1833, usually called the compromise act,
and to modify the existing duties upon
foreign iihpons, in conformity with its
provisions,” is n bill “for raising reve
nue,” within the meaning of the 7th sec
tion of the Ist article of the Constitution,
and cannot therefore originate in the
Senate; therefore,
Resolved, That it be indefinitely post
poned.
Mr. McDuffie said, if one of the illus
trious framers of the Constitution could
have presented himself before us in the
debate of yesterday, with what utter as
tonishment would lie have found us con
struing a provision, which was made to
protect the people of the United Stutes
from injustice and oppression in such a
manner us to make it a barrier against
any effort to free the people from the
most unjust and oppressive systems that
was ever imposed on them. The illus
trious patriots who framed this instru
.ment had seen so much of the abuse of
the taxing power, that they endeavored
to rescue their posterity from die evil.—
They tberefoie provided that all bills
raising icveuue should originate in the
House more directly representing the
jx'ople of the United States. The people
could not suppese that the framers of the
Constitution would deal in mere idle
words, and that they would insert a
clause with no particular meaning.—
What rational construction could be giv
en to the clause except that it was inten
ded to prevent unjust and unnecessary
taxation ! It did not prevent the Senate
from putting money into the Treasury,
4tut from taking it out of the pockets ot
the people. Raising money was nothing
—but the design was to prevent us from
raising it in such manner as to take it
from the pockets of the people. One of
the gentlemen who had taken part in the
debate had left out what was the true
view of the question. The Senator trom
New Hampshire had shown beyond dis
pute that the Senate Imd passed hills af
fecting the revenue, and the Senator
from Connecticut had said truly that
they did not raise revenue by imposing
taxes. Suppose we had some mode of
raising revenue without a resort to im
l>osts : sitppo e we had some magic pow
er of raising it—by stamping on the earth
—wc could raise in that or any way, ex
cept by imposing burdens on the people
in any other light the provision would
appear frivolous and unmeaning, consis
ting merely in words. But let us look
a the bill. Is that, in any form or sense,
a bill to raise revenue ? Is that its ob
ject or effect ? It was absolutely and es
sentially a bill repealing duties, and no
thing else; and yet a construction bad
been assumed here for the purpose of
scouting it cut of the Senate, and the
•people were to be told that we bad no
jxnver to mi igate their burdens.
It was contended by the Senator from
Maine that duties must be collected un
der the bill if it passed into a law. It
ibis was true m any sense, lie would
give up the question. How can it be
.i! that a bid reducing duties from fifty
1 1 thi ty per cent, imposes duties 7 The
gentleman says if you repeal the other
t.venty per cent, you would impose du
ties; that is to say, if the bill fails to re
jieal a part of the hi ties, it imposes the
whole. Hi could lot comprehend this
versoning. Why, sir, an act repealing
duties, because it does not repeal the
whole, is an act imposing duties! He
had never rein any thing like this, ex
cept tlw case of the sportsman, who, liav
iuj lo t twenty dollars o:i a horse-race.
said lie had lost forty dollars; for his
own twenty was gone, and the twenty
that he expected to win. He did not in
tend to go fully into this question, hut he
wished to vindicate the Constitution from
this construction.
The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
| Buchanan) had asked what effect a pro
! position would have to amend the hill by
increasing taxes? Would it not, the
Senator asked, render the bill one of such
a character that the Senate could not
originate it? The answer was plain.—
No amendment could become incor
porated in the hill which would throw it
out of the jurisdiction of the Senate. —
We could not add any thing to it that
would have the effect to impose taxes
and increase duties- He admitted that
the amendment would be inconsistent
with the powers of this body, and the
Senate, he supposed, would therefore ex
clude it or vote it down. The other
question, proposed by the Senator from
Connecticut, (Mr. Huntington,) was not
for him to answer. The puzzle is how
the President would net when he had
occasion to return such a bill to the
House where it originated. The Presi
dent had so many difficulties to contend
with that he might be predared to meet
this. He must answer the question when
the case occurs. But if we send to the
other House a bill, and they amend it so
as to alterits character, it does not receive
its character of a tax bill here though it
originated here, but in the House that
has the right to give it that diameter.—
The whole purport of this clause was to
prevent the Senate from originating mo
ney bills—from imposing burdens on the
people.
Mr. McDuffie here referred to the com-
promise act, which wus offered in the
Senate, and the decision upon which he
regarded as the most solemn one ever
made in this country, one which gave
deace to the Union. Never was there
a more heroic action than that of Mr.
Clay on that occasion, and it was done,
too, while the agents of the manufactur
ers were here denouncing him as a trait
or. He had greatly regretted that that
distinguished statesman had not been
here again to interpose his great infiutmiOe
and extend the olive branch of jieuoe
over tha country, when this compromise
was broken. lie regretted that he was
not here to vindicate it from the fool and
faithless innovation that it received from
the tariff of 1812. He was not here, and
I regret (said Mr. McDuffie) to say that
I have lately seen a letter from him in
the newspapers, in which, after giving
some general views which are in accord
ance with my own, he concludes by sav
ing that this monster of 1842 was a very
good measure in many respects ; that it
no doubt needed some amendment, but
in what particulars he was not prepared
to say, not having examined it with
scrupulous exactness. Now, sir, I like
the text of the letter, but not the com
mentary. I had hoped, sir, that this
eminent and influential statesman would
have used tho power that he possesses to
do justice to the South, and which every
consideration of justice and good faith re
quired that he should have done.
But there seems lo be a desire, sir, on
the part of the Senator from Maine, to
strike frumthe statute hook every vestige
of that compromise. The tariff of 1842
was no doubt before the committee over
which he, with so much distinction,
presides, and he probably had an impor
tant and influential agency in passing it.
That act therefore, no doubt, occupied a
distinguished place in the regard of the
gentleman. He occupied towards it a
parental relation, which always excited
the strongest sympathies of the human
heart. This accounts for hispartiality to
it, and he could not expect him to gi ve up
the bantling ; for the intensity of parental
affection was often increased by the very
defonni ies which excited the horror of
every one else. He would take off the
veil and expose its defects. What urns
this bill of 1842 ! It was a mongrel
one of those monsters, fabled by the
genius of antiquity, with the head and
body of man, and the tail of a fish. It
was called a hill to provide revenue.—
Falsehood and deception wore thus
stamped upon its brow. A bill wholly
prohibiting the importation of ma
classess of goods was called a hill lo p
vide revenue, lie had before him docu
ments from well informed practical mer
chants and other sources, showing that
the duties, in many instances, were one
hundred and fifty per cent. On some
descriptions of iron it was from seventy
five to one hundred aud fifty per cent,
and even two hundred per cent; totally
prohibiting it. This was the duty im
posed for revenue on an article of uni
versal consumption. .Salt was another
article used in equal quantities by the
rich and the poor, and cl the first neces
sity for all—what was the duty on this
article ? For every bushel, costing in
Liverpool five or rix cents, wc pay a duty
of eight cents. [Mr. Benton here said it
was now ten cents.) And this, sir, is a
revenue law—aduty of two hundred per
cent, on salt. These are revenue duties
—duties imposed for the General Govcrn
m nt.
Having adverted to the prominent
features of the hill, it was proper that lie
should submit some considerations in re
gard to the extent an J character of its
principles. A question of its constitu
tionality’, as well as of its expediency, ad
dressed itself to every mind. What pow
er have you to pass such a law ? We
profess lo act under that clause of the
Constitution which authorizes Congress
to raise revenue for the support of the
Government. What is the line between
revenue and protection ? He was satis
fied it could be drawn so distinctly as to
satisfy eveay mind. lie held that the
power of Congress was limited by the
Constitution, and that onrduty was this,
when wc voted a revenue duty, that it
must be the lowest rate of duty, ad valo
rem. which would yield the necessary
nmonnt of taxation. Every Senator
knew that any duty,, however small
operated to some r-xtenlas a prohibition.
Twenty per cent, on Colton Goods would
yield quite ns much revenue as any high
er rate oi duty. If taal rate of duty
yields four millions, a duty of forty per
cent, would yield no more; for it will
exclude one half of the' amount of goods
usually imported, and impose the duty
on the other half. .
Both rates of duty would yield the
same amount of revenue. Many of those
articles paid a higher rate of duty than
forty per cent. Oil dflicoes, the duty
was forty, seventy, eigjity, a hundred, a
hundred and twenty, a hundred and eigh
ty per cent. This shows very clearly
the true character of this law. Calico
cloths, which were wdrn by all the poor
er classes of the whites, anil even by ev
ery negro slave—for every planter gave
his slaves at least one calico gown to,
wear on Sundays—paid such an amount
of duty as to prohibit them. < alico cost
ing four cents a yard,' and which could ;
be sold here for five cents, was by a most
ingenious device of the manufacturers,
taken and deemed to have cost thirty
cents, mid a duty of thirty per cent ad
valorem was inqiosed upon that, making
the rate of duty one Imndred and eighty
per cent. So it was villi many other ar
ticles. There was a class of prints, good
enough to be used in every family, that
cost ten cents, and under the rule adopt
ed the rate of duty was ninety per cent.
A large class of cotton goods, amounting
to ten millions in value, was utterly ex
cluded by this tariff. lie also referred
to the duties on window glass and other
articles.
He came now to the question, was
this a revenue tariff ? If the Senate was
satisfied that a duty of twenty per cent,
would yield more revenue than a higher
rate of duty, then they must admit that
this is not a tariff for revenue. It is then
a hill framed, not in accordance with the
Constitution and the principles of ever
lasting justice, but for the purpose of tak
ing money out of the pockets of one por
tion of the people and putting it in the
pockets of another portion.
But an idea was got up by which the
friends of free trade had been, in some
cases, deceived—that, though duties
llHK <t he imposed for the purpose of reve
nue alone, yet, that we could discrimi
nate in favor of domestic manufacturers.
This was saving one thing and doing
another. It might be employed for giv
ing the whole ti’w a most unjust charac
ter Every revenue law was considered
as if it was created enti-'eiy lor the bene
fit of manufactures. Me make, in my
opinion, a vast concession to the manu
facturing interest when \ve raise the
whole amount of revenue from duties on
imports alone. We do what no other
country on the face of the globe does,
when we raise our revenue entirely from
that source. But still, gentlemen grave
ly say, yon must protect manufactures.
Let me tell them what would fie the true
mode of discrimination. He would ad
mit that discrimination was proper in
one sense. There wen! two proper ob
jects of discrimination. One was to get
the proper amount of revenue from the
lowest rates of duty; and the other was
to avoid, as far as possible, the imposition
of dirties on articles universally used by
the poorer classes. The application of
these two rules would alone reverse the
whole system. It would take the duty
off from calicoes and put it on muslin,
and the reverse. That was the true dis
crimination. Poverty ought, as far as
possible, to Ik? exempted from the burden
of taxation. He would begin at the low
est rates, under the minimum, and come
up, increasing the duties on the more
costly articles.
There was one other discrimination
that he would make, and it would lie in
favor of the imported article, and against
the article manufactured at home. He
would impose the highest rate otduty on
the commodities manufactured in the F.
States. If he imposed a duty of thirty
per cent, on the foreign article, he would
impose a higher rate on the article made
at home. A duty of twenty per cent
made on cotton fabrics to the amount of
ten millions would impose a burden of
forty percent, on the people of the Uni
ted States, If we import twenty millions
worth of cotton, on which the duty is
four millions, we raise the price of the
commodity to the same amount. A duty
of twenty per cent would give the same
revenue that a duty of forty per cent will
give; hut it will impose a burden, not of
four millions, hut of eight millions on
the cousflmers. He went into a variety
of illustrations to explain his views on
this subject.
The duty-paying imports were about
forty millions. The amount of goods
manufactured here was a hundred and
sixty millions, one half of which came
in competition with foreign imports, and
excluded them to the amount of eighty
millions. The amount imported yielded
lo the Treasury about sixteen millions.
What is the burden which the system
imposes on the people, under the pretext
of a revenue law, for raising sixteen mil
lions? What is the amount of bounty
I aid to the manufacturers with a duty,
lie would not say of forty per cent., but
of only twenty per cent., supposing the
duties to he brought to the revenue stand
ard? Twenty per cent on eighty mil
lions would give sixteen millions. The
other eighty millions totally prohibited
might lie taken at ten per cent., making
eight millions more. Thus twenty-four
millions would he putin the pockets of
the manufacturers. Mr. McD. went
minutely into explanations on this sub
ject.
Mr. McD. said he had made out an
estimate of the amount of capital, Arc.,
employed in manufactures. He would
show the distressed condition of those
manufacturers who came here begging
for aid and protection. He would show
tlie amount of the profits put in their
pockets every ycaf by this system. The
maim fact mors of cotton state their annu
al productions at forty-six millions. j
The raw material Tsuppose to be onc
fom th of the value of the manufactured I
articles. I concede half a dollar a day
to each person employed, and ten per i
cent on the wear and tear of machinery ; j
mid the interest on the dead capital kept 1
there 1 put at ten millions. Let me give,
you a p.cture of their distress. Tho
manulacfUFof?? Os Massftchushtfs are; from 1
the above data, now living on tne small
protit of t»u»ty,fopr per cent, on the capi
tal employed by them, on the average ;
but 1 have information that some of them .
arc receiving forty per cent, profit, Stiff ■
laying aside a handsome contingent I
fund. The average profit on other man
ufacturer does not average but twenty t
nine per cent. On rolled iron it is ffiir-'i
ty nine per cent, on the capital invc'Stdd. l
The Senator from Pennsylvania could
correct him if wrong. They received,
at their furnaces, two centra pound.
Mr. Buchanan. Many of them have
had to stop entirely this year.
Mr. McDuffie. That is distressing—:
that they cannot live on a profit of thirty
nine j>er cent, on their capital.
The salt made in Virgiuia cost to
make it $400,000. A profit of eighty
per cent, is mad* on this capital if the,
salt sells at twenty five cents a bushel.
He made these statements to show into
whose pockets these euormou.s bounties
went. The ground on which this sys
tem was originally supported was, that
it would protect domestic industry from
the competition of foreign industry.—
This was a till lacy. There could he no
competition between the manufacturers
here and those abroad. The competi
tion was between the different branches
of industry at home. What was it to
our manufacturers that at Birmingham
they made three hundred millions or
three hundred thousand millions worth
of goods? It was nothing till those
goods were brought into the 1 1 . States
for consumption.
Another prominent argument in favor
of the protective system was, that it Help
ed us to maintain our national independ
ence. If there wassuiy truth in this ar
gument; then it would strike a blow at
once at our foreign commerce, aud abol
ish our navy, which cost us nine millions
of dollars a year. National independ
ence ! independent of whom ?
It is the language of despots—it is the
language of those who live by plunder—
of those who war with the peace and
welfare of the human kind. Now, sir,
nothing under heaven so illustrates the
principles of Christianity as this mutual
dependence of nations. It was this gen
eral principle of harmony betwceti na
tions, this bond to keep the peace, that
the tariff system would break down. It
was the only foundation on which the
peace and happiness of the world could
rest. He cannot be a Christian who
.seeks to destroy this bond of fellowship
between nations.
The.se remarks were not speculative,
nor weTe they made for any vain object
of display. They referred to a state of
things tliai was actually approaching.
The system aimed at the destruction of
the commerce winch tends to hind us in
relations of peace to a nation, the only
one with which wo coifld over come into
conflict. Yet, while destroying three
fourths of our commerce with England
and the rest of Europe, we arc rearing Up
a navy at the expense.of nine millions a
year. We must build ships to employ
workmen. A most'pathetic appeal was
iatelyhnade to us in behalf of workmen
at the navy yard for employment; and
the administration of the Government
was denounced in the public prints be
cause it would not keep persons employ
ed without authority of law. In coming
to tiiis city in the cars from Baltimore,
he heard this matter spoken of in Such a
manner as to lead one to suppose that
the grievance was beyond endurance,
and that the people concerned would
come to tiiis Capitol and drive us from
our places here. This state of feeling
naturally resulted from the spirit and
genius of this system.
Why maintain these splendid fleets
scouring the Pacific, the coast of Africa,
&c., for the sake of a paltry commerce
of three millions? If you must destroy
foreign commerce, you must also destroy
the navy. Wc must adopt the.policy of
the Chinese—as they were, not as they
are. You want a navy to defend our
commerce Against whom? Pirates?
England ? for she is held tip as the great
bugbear whenever you are asked for ap
propriations. What do you Want this
navy for ? To defend commerce, you
say. Bnt the great enemy of commerce
is not England, nor pirates, nor foreign
nations, but here in this Capitol ; and
before God, he declared that he would
rather nndertake to defend commerce
from all those enemies than from this
Congress.
It was also urged that the system
would benefit farmers. How ? The
circle within which the farmer could
deal with the manufacturers beneficially
was narrow. Ile would agree that, for a
short distance, it wAs a mutual monopoly.
It did not extend far because of distance,
and the difficulty of transportation pre
vented it.
Now, he would tell the gentlemen
that the planters of the South bear the
same relation to Liverpool and Manches
ter—their natural markets—that the
Eastern burners bear to the manufactu
rer, in their immediate vicinity. Dis
tance made no difference to (lie |>arties.
Their naiur*l markets, which God gave
them, were in laverpool and Manchester,
aud Leeds and Birmingham.
Another idea was, that the system
made manufactures cheaper. The man- j
ufneturers cannot compete, they say, |
with the foreign manufacturer, and there- I
fore they demand more than twenty per
cent. duly. This was conclusive, a* far
;is we could judge from men’s actions, !
==*=- - I-""* - --===—
not their pro felons, that they could tint
soH'articles cheaper than wo can import
them. If they conks afford to manufae
t.ire any thing like as . hi ;>p as the for
eign manufacturer, they would not need
any higher duty than twenty percent.
Bret it was said that hv thi* system w«
would relieve ourselves of the ignominy
of paying tribute to foreign nations.—
Vos, sic, a President.of tlm United States
held up this commerce with foreign nn
‘tionsmS a degrading tribute. What
could we ex[>ect when such principles
were advocated by high authorities.—
The foreign manufacturer could sell to
us cheaper by twenty percent than any
other. If we buy. wc pay tribute, it is
said. But the tribute is on tho other
side. Mr. Clay had said, in a recent Jot
ter. that it was ’grod*poLiey»to buy a»-Jip
tlo-of foreign nations #s possible! and sell
as,much as .possible! to them Tiffs is
the advice gravely given to the most, en
lightened people an the face of ff(e earth
by one of its most distinguished men.
What would a horse-jockey say if you
tell him to give his best horse in qx
clmnge for the meanest he could get?
We must give all our best products for
tlie smallest quantity.of foreign goods in
exchange. What could we do with all
the precious metals in the world if we
bought nothing with them ? Wc would
la? worse oil' than tiie Spaniards ever
were, with all their gold and silver, ex
porting nothing. You must seiuimpu
ey abroad, because you prohibit buying
abroad ; and foreign nations cannot buy
of you unless you buy of them.
He alluded now to the operatiou of the
system oil the exporting Status. What
was its effects on our staples ? Now, lie
would undertake to maintain that the
value of those staples was diminished m
the proportion that the duties were in
creased. The value of exports was the
value you could receive ill exchange for
them. The amount received in ex
change was not to he estimated in money
alone. Mr. McDuffie went into some
statements aud calculations to illustrate
this view. The consequence of this sel
ling every thing and buying nothing
was now severely felt by the people of
the South. They found themselves,
with a delightful soil, with a valuable sta
ple, which clothes half of the world
cheaper than they can Ik? in any other
way; with ns industrious habits as any
pcoole on lire face of the earth, not ex
capting those of Europe, they found
themselves laboring under embarrass
ments and sinking into poverty. The
importation of specie into the United
States degrades its value here, and en
hances it in Liverpool and in Manches
ter, and renders our products lower there.
Do we not receive a smaller amount for
our cotton in tiffs way ? Are not our
means-of enjoying life curtailed by this
difficulty of obtaining consumable com
modities? The? idea of selling every
thing for gold and silver was the most
gross delusion ever heard of,in the world.
The amount of imports from France,
England, Germany, tScc., excluded by
this tariff ciumot be less than forty mil-,
lions, ■ and who suffers from it ? The
planters sustain the -special burden aris
ing from this prohibition’ What have
we seen in Maud tester, lately ? A mar
ket has been o|K?ned with India. It
gave an instantaneous stimulus tp the?
trade. Suppose we ojx-n our markets,
would it not give instantaneous prosperi
ty to the South ? We were approaching
a,fearful crisis. In the.Southern,Staffs
this wasa matter of lift? aud death. This
policy has created a hostile feeling a
! gainst the South—their peace, happiness,
and very existence on the part of Great
Britain. It had cut off the trade between
this country and Great Britain to such
an extent as to destroy every friendly
feeling that springs from commercial re
ciprorgv; and the feeling of England
had Allied itself with Eastern abolitionism
against the South.
I fe contended that fheprodticingStates
were in a state of colonial vassalage to
tho Manufacturers. Suppose we were
colonial dependencies ol England, what
would be onr situation ? England might
compel ns to trade with her alone : but
tlmt would lie tho best market in the
world fonts, and England would give
us our commodities cheaper than any
other nation could do. But we were
now'compelled to trade with our mother,
or rather toother country, on \ lk? most
disadvantageous terms. We were com
pelled to buy of New England and seJ)
to her—the worst market that we could
have.
He had said that this was die only na
tion in the world that derived its whole
revenue from imports, England had
excises, mid income tax, &c,, and, it lie
remembered rightly the amount she de
rived from customs was only one tenth
of the whole. Rather than that this pol
icy should continue, lie would see every
blade of cotton nipped in the bud. Sup
pose 1 he were to introduce a bill to raise
the revenue of the United States by an
excise duty of equal amount to the import
duty. Two hundred and forty million j
of cotton manufactures would lie the sub
ject of taxation. It would yield, with a
tax percent:, a revenue of twenty four
millions of rk>llars. We have been pay
ing a duty of forty per cent, on our im
ported goods, and they could not com
plain if wc laid this excise duty on their
products. 'They say it fails,oil the cou
smnetonly. This would be equal toa
duty only of thirty per cent., on an nn
portatiOn of eighty millions.
Suppose we qnit making cotton?—
We cannot make it at these (trices. Wc
cattoof make it to rot on our hands.—
What shall we do? Suppose we manu
facture? Suppose we. wiio are only re
ceiving twelve mid a Half centsa day for
the labor of our slates, and our Northern
fe||o\i - -citizens having made slaves of us
all—suppose we abandon our land, make
no cotton, and confer on the manufac
turers ot the United States the inestima
ble blessing of having to pay thoirty cts.
,in t. 1 .ft! ■
Kupjose wjbccdp? yofWt rivals in mami’
factoring ? We con have steam, water
power, and every advantage. If W e can
make Haifa dollar a day on our ojierntives
and twenty or thirty per cent on their
prodlietious,*we would be doing well.
The Southern negro, acclimated as he
is, is much more efficient than the Mexi
can, and ten times more so than the East
Indian. Slave labor, notwithstanding
all the European economists tell us, who
know nothing about it, is the cheapest
labor in the world. Suppose, then, we
go to manufacturing and undersell y Ol ,
making no more goods than we can use
—what would he the result? You ot
the.Nmth cannot bfur.a. competition
even with flic free, lutyor of England
much less of skive labor .; and a Senator
tro:n Massachusetts had declared here
that smuLuuu industry, should, never Le
brought into competition wiTo Hie free
labor of the North. What, weiffd you
do ? W r oti!d you attempt to impose a
discriminating duty of forty per cent be
tween the produce of the two species of
lalxir ? If that were attempted, would
not the South, patient os she liad been,
rise up agmnst it ?
Sir, I can conscientiously say, That ffi,.
ring the twenty-four years that I have
been connected with this Government, I
have contemplated it with painful Icfel
ings. I have known it only by its exact
l ions or oppressions. 1 have since 1828,
felt no interest in the Government beyond
that of my connexion with the the State
in which I live.' * • ♦
llq never should think of the distim
guished Senator from Kentucky without
the highest admiration. When the com
promise was adopted lie was disposed to
say, ‘-laud, now lettest thou thy servant
depart in peace.”
1 then retired, said Mr. McD., in the
hope that I could spend my day's in peace
disgusted with every thing else I had
seen and heard here. And I can tell
geutleincn now, that in consenting to
come here again, I was influenced by
the Hope that I might have some agency,
however, small, in effecting another ad
justment of this question. If that hope
failed Into, lie should shake off the dust
of his feet and leave this place forever.
He warned the manufacturing States
that it would be for th?ir interest to a
total (Kiiicy ; for it would lie
fatal to them, The/?oudjtiou of things
would sttod ehftoge' The great West
would combine with the South against
this monster of injustice—this god of
Eastern idolatry ; aud it was only neces
sary to tear oil! the veil that concealed
the monster in order to expose its deform
ity to the people ofjhe United States.—
He had attempted to do this.' The fesuil
life left to pod.
The liichniond Enquirer’s Principle*.
No paper fin thy' Up ion has beeu more
loud in atioimcirigand vaunting the mot
to, '■Principiu, fiV \ homines than the
Richmond Enquirer, It declared that
those who would .allow theif pcH’erfeii
ces, as to the individual best adapted to
lead the Democratic party into t|ie next
Presidential you test, to affect tficir con
duct or the harmony of the party, were
placing men over principles. Its pure
and disinterested patriotism, rebuked so
unworthy and degrading a course ; and
held up jtrinctjucs as the great, and pri
mary, and only object, in our party, and
men as nothing to them. “A plague on
both your Houses I” it exclaimed, at the
idea of our estimation of men dividing
0/ distracting ihe party. Wc propose
now to show how the Enquirer exem
■ plifips his doplrines.
1. hi’ordcT that he toight 'Secure for
his candidate the nomination for the
• Presidency’, under the shallow pretext
that each State has the right to ffo as it
pleases, w!jcn actiifg with other States,
iie upholds a liiethoa of organizing the
convention, directly in the teeth of tha
compromises of the Constitution; and
whin this is objected to, and men, ap
pealing to the Constitution, declare that,
if 1 e will, they cannot violate its solemn
compromises, lor the sake of anymau—
be brazens it out, and shouts his mot
to -“Princu’lks not Men.”
2. He is a Southern mail, mid profes
ses the opinion, that Congress has no
right, by entertaining Abolition petition?,
to assail the jimtitHtiofus of the,,Smith:
yet a portion df his Presidential allies
tear down the harrier erected by tlx?
21 st rule.. This is objected tre and men,
appealing to the Constitution, declare
that they cannot support those who
would thus take from them the shield
of the Constitution, and ftieir place in
the Confederacy, for the sake of concil
iating support to any man , in any
ter. The Enquirer has his answer-*
“ Pit£*cfftx.i.3 not Mrs.”
3. Tho protective tariff policy’, dech r ; I
cd by the Enquirer to he uucoustilutioiW' I
and unjust, is put upon the country by a
certain'portion of his allies, who now
keep it there. 'Those who are
!>v it, declare that, on this great point ot
the right and power of taxation,
cannot stand with these who have thus
acted, contrary to the principles of thci r j
party, and cpnstutionnl rights of ine j
tax-payir, tor tiwsake of any P"|‘
motion to the Presidency. The En<l u! ',
rer rages at this new exemplification cl
his doctrine—caLls them hard names
threatens everlasting excommunication
—and, with a loftier emphasis than c) 1 "
c;d<?s put CUES TjQT MkN •
1. Got ; - •'• is in session. He
the delinquncy from the principle?
party, in his Northern Presidential a" 1 ;
Acknowledges—rebukes it. Other-
with him, plead for the union and
mony of the party—by the only y'
which makes them a party — the pn ,
y/es of the party.! “Principles not me
they sav to him. Principles, be «
shouts ’the Enquirer. The Baiti” 1 .
('on volition !—the man of the Balm 1
('otivenfron !—that is all I ri . ic,,n ,; I
principles. A man is my princ'l' I