Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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