Newspaper Page Text
mamm
The most perfect Government would be that which, emanating directly from the People, Governs least—‘Costs least—Dispenses Justice to all. and confers Privileges on None.—BENTHAM.
yol. i.i dr. Wm. green-editor.
AMERICAN DEMOCRAT*
PUBLISHED WEEKLY,
IN THE REAR OF i. BARNES' BOOKSTORE.
COTTON AVENUK. MACON. GA.
AT TWO DOX.Z.AH3 PHR AHOTK.
rcr- in advance -€»
Rates of Advertising, Ac.
One square, of 100 words, or less, In small type, 75 tents
for the first insertion, and 60 cents for each subsequent inser
t'on.
All Advertisements containing more than 100 and leas than
900 wards, will be charged as two squares.
To Yearly Advertisers, a liberal deduction will be made.
ay- N. B Sale, of LAND, by Administrators. Executors.
Guardians, are required, by law, to be held on the first
Tuesday in the month, between the hours of 10 in the fore
noon, and 3 in the afternoon, at the Court-House in the Coun
,y in which the property is situated. Notice of these must
be given in a public Gazette, SIXTY DAYS, previous to the
day of sale.
Sales of PERSONAL PROPERTY, must be advertised in
the same manner, FORTY DAYS previous to the day of sale.
Notice to Debtors and Creditors of an Estate, must be pub
ished FORTY Days.
Notice that application will be made to the Court of Ordi
tary, for leave to sell LAND, must be published FOUR
MONTHS.
Sales of NEGROES, must be made at public auction, on
t he first Tuesday of the month, between the legal hours of
tale, at the place of public sales in the county where the let
„ers testamentary, of Administration or Guardianship, shall
have been grained, SIXTY DAYS nonce being previously
given in one of the public gazettes of this State, and at the door
of the Court-House, where such sales are to be held.
Notice lor leave to sell NEGROES, must be published for
FOUR MONTHS, before any order absolute shall be made
thereon by the Court.
All business of ibis nature, will receive prompt attention, a
the Office of the AMERICAN DEMOCRAT.
REMITTANCES BY MAIL.—“A Postmaster may en.
c lose money in a letter to the publisher of a newspaper, to
pay the subscription of a third person, and frank the letter, if
written by himself.” Amos Kendall, P. M. G.
COMMUNICATIONS addressed to the Edito* Post
Paid
POLITICAL.
From the Petersburg Republican of April 20.
MR CLAY
This distinguished gentleman made his appearance
on Thursday evening about 9 o’clock. He was re
ceived by a salute of cannon, but owing to the in
clemency ofthe weather, the formalities of a welcom
ing address, and reply were omitted. There were
several military companies in attendance, by who a
Mr. Clay was escorted to the residence of Col Will
iam R. Johnson, where, we understand, he put his
head out of the window, and told those who had
wives to go home and kiss them —those who had
none to go and get them. On Priday, a (ascension
was formed in front of Col. Johnson s, consisting ol
some ten or a doaen troopers, a handful ol the Peters
burg Guard, various committees, and porha|>c a hun
dred and fifty oilmens. Mr. Clay, with Col. John
son and William Robertson, Esq., took his seat in an
open carriage, drawn by four horses, and driven by a
Very respectable citiien of the town. Ihe procession
moved to Poplar Lawn, where Mr. C. was conduct
ed to a rostrum, and formally welcomed by Mr. Ro
bertson We were not present at this part of the
cctemony, but understand that Mr. Robertson’s re
marks were couched in lus usual eloquent language,
and deliverad with his accustomed elegance and
grace. There were possibly a thousand persons pre
sent—we do not thitlk so many, and we took some
pains to ascertain ; but, as a Clay tiiend observed to
us, ‘‘give us a thousand,” we will not stickle about
numbers. For ourself, we wish that every voter in
Virginia, who could have come within the sound of
his voice, had been there to hear this “great” man,
who we have beon so long told is a statesman ; a pa
triot and an orator. The last he/i s been. Mr. Jel
ferson pronounced him a “splendid orator, end
some of his speeches (for instance, that In reply to
Quincy during the debate on the war question)
show the highest powers of eloquence. We have
heard him frequently in the Senate ofthe U. States,
and have felt the captivation of his manner, when
speaking in the tones of persuasion ; and again al
most trembled when his excoriating lash was applied
to some unfortunate victim of his indignation. But,
alas, “ Ilium luit,” the bright light of by-gone days is
dimmed, and Henry Clay, deprived of his once glo
rious voice, forgetful of his select and ornate diction,
cannot now be called even an orator.
There were upon the rostrum various distinguish
ed personages, committees, little boys, girls and old
ladies; the rest of the company had to stand in rath
er an uncomfortable position, which possibly prevent
ed a more numerous attendance. We shall not un
dertake to give a report of Mr. Clay s words, but
will vouch for the general accuracy of our sketch.—
We arc accustomed to listen the public speakers with
the intention of replying, and have seldom found our
memory so deficient as to call from them a correction;
upon the present occasion, we have co ..pared notes
with other gentlemen who were attentive and anx
ious listeners.
Air. Clay commenced by expressing his deep sen
sibility and gratitude for his reception in this renown
ed Commonwealth, renowned for her revolutionary
achievements, renowned in arms, renowned in coun
sel, renowned as the birth-place of the Father of his
Country (1.) He had been accused of electioneer
ing he was no electtoneerer; he had gone to New
Orleans on business, and in consequence of a previ
ous promise to visit Raleigh, and because he had nev
er se.m Alabama, Georgia, or the Carolines he was
more induced to do so. Some two years since, he
had been invited to Raleigh, but declined from mo
tives of delicacy, because he understood that a Con
vention was about to be held, at which his name
would be brought forward for the highest office in
the gift of the people—at the same time, he declined
an invitation to Petersburg Last summer, the peo
ple of Raleigh, finding that he was about to visit
Louisiana, reminded him of his promise, and in re
spectful but firm tones, demanded, that as a man of
honor, he should discharge the obligation he had
contracted. He felt bound to fulfil his promise.—
When at Raleigh he had to get home and through
Petersburg was his most desirable route. (2 )
Mr. Clay ih n proJuced a piece of paper, which
appeared to be cut from the Richmond Enquirer, and
aaid, that his “old juvenile friend Tom Rrtchie,
had warned the Democracy against him—the rights of
hospitality were not to be extended to him—those
rights which were not refused by the Indian in his
wigwam, the savage in his forest I Ritchie denied
that he was born in the Slashes of Hanover—if not
XIXOAM DEMOCRAT.
DEMOCRATIC BANNER FREE TRADE; LOW DUTIES; NO DEBT; SEPARATION FROM RANKS; ECONOMY; RETRENCHMENT;
AND A STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE C. C.ILHOVA'i
born there, wh -re was he born I—he asked Ritchie
to tell him. (3.) But to speak seriously, what impu
dent arrogance did this General Ritchie display in
commanding the Democratic Party to file to the right
Ot the left 1 By what authority did this Autocrat is
sue his Ukase, ordering the Democracy of Virginia,
to deny to him, a native of the soil, the hospitality
which his fellow-citizens were willing to extend 1—
What did Ritchie say when Martin Van Buren
travelled through a larger number of States than he,
(Clay,) had visited—States, too that Van Buren had
seen before —where was his condemnation then !
lie surely haul as gSod h right to visit States which
he had never seen ss Van Buren had to visit those
he had seen. When Martin Van Buren caine to
his (Clay’s) in Lexington, Virginia; he begged
pardon, he should have Said Kentucky—but the be
loved name of Virginia often escaped his lips—lt
was the land of his birth, the mother whom he loved
—and there was scarce a connty in the neighborhood
of Petersburg where he did not have deaf friends and
near relations. (4.) He, (Clay,) received Mr. Van
Buren, carried him to hisuwn house, where staid five
days. The largest proceision he had ever seen in
Lexington escorted Mr. Van Boren through the
town. He joined in it himself. There were not
less than one hundred carriages. When Ritchies
son came to Lexington, he invited him to dinner.—
He did not speak of these things as creditable to him
self—it was merely the performance of a duty—any
negro would do the same by another. Why did not
Gen. Ritchie call upon the Democrats to stand to
their arms! Was it the part of men of valor to re
treat in the face of the enemy 1 Was it for Virgin
ians to fly even from a “Conquering Hero 1” much
less should they run away from a solitary and peace
ful individual. But why did not Ritchie call upon
his troops lo expel this marauder 1
He was no political intriguer, whatevei he did, he
did it openly ; ho never concealed his opinions. Tom
Ritchie accused him of want of candor; he said he
was an honest man. The character of a candid and
honest man was one which he made it the chief de
sire of his life to attain—he believed that he deserved
it —certainly he had more claim to it than Ritchie,
who for more than 20 years, had been engaged in
misrepresenting him. Call him a political intriguer !
there was not a President within thslast thirty years,
from whom he could not have obtained the highest
office within his gift, if he had chosen to have pur
chased it with his support. (5.) Ritchie had even in
sinuated that h e was an Abolisl.ionist; he had not
dared to make the charge openly, but he inculcated
the iJea. Why did not Ritchie publish his reply to
Mendenhall, at Richmond, Indiana, and another
speech which he delivered some two years since!—
He never had asked any man’s vote—lie never would
ask it. Why was he to be feared 1 He was no mon
ster; he brought not with him war, pestilence, and
famine. Hit 'hie had so long been accustomed to
view him through a distorted medium, to point him
in a false light, that he had loft the power of seeing
him truly—Ritchie could not see the truth. It was
his Intention when he left home to make no political
speeches he had been forced to so otherwise by the
wishes ofthe people of both parties, and “tothewish
es of the people on all proper oecasions he submit
ted.” (6.) He should continue to fulfil their wishes;
he defied Gen! Ritclue or any of hia subalterns to
discuss these great questions at issue. (7.) Why was
not Gen. Ritchie here to support his own views, and
to show to the people openly, face to face, how he,
Clay, was guilty of the charges brought forward a
gainst him—he meant to throw down no gauntlet,
hut still he would wish to meet his opponent before
the people.
He was in favor of a National Bank—it was ne
cessary tor the commerce of the country;—England
had her’s, France had hcr’s ; We must have a Na
tional currency. The notes of State Banks woul 1
not Circulate; and, without a National Bank of our
own, we were in danger of being flooded by the notes
of Foreign Banks. lam not so young but that l can
recollect the first Bank established iu Virginia—the
Bank of Alexandria, chartered in 1792. 1 was pre
sent at the discussion. The people of Virginia had
been opposed to State Banks, but such was the flood
of Pennsylvania, Maryland & South Carolina notes
poured iu upon them, that they were obliged, in self
defence to create a Bank of their own. We had a
Navy to counteract foreign navies, an army to coun
teract foreign armies, and we must have a National
Bank to withstand the influence offoreigll banks. (8.)
He was in favor of a protective tariff; he had been
so since 1816- it was necessary for the welfare and
prosperity of the country. It was proper that every
country should be in a condition which enabled its in
habitants to supply themselves with food and raiment
in war as well as in peace. To achieve this desira
ble end, infant manulactures must be protected. (9.)
He believed that there was no necessity for the high
tariffs oflßl6 and 1824, (10) for that of 1827, he did
not vote hut if the audience would not let out the se
cret, he would tell them who did —he saw from their
countenances that they were willing to be silent; he
would then whisper in their ears, Martin Van Bu
ren did. By Martin Van Buien’s casting vote, (11)
this Bill of Abominations was passed, and Littleton
Waller Tazewell, then Mr. V. B’s contemporary in
the Seriate, said, “He [V. B ] has deceived us once,
that was his fault; if ever he deceives us again, it
will be ours.” Mr. Clay expected to see Tazewell
in Norfolk, and should remind him of the remarks.
Ho never had abandoned the protective policy
the compromise bill was a measure of protection from
beginning to end, he said so at the time. All he
wanted now wasaduty for revenue discriminating un
der that standard. What difference did discrimination
make to any man, provided it was necessary that a
certain amount of revenue should be made. A man
was obliged to have a 6hirt and a coat; what matter
was it to him that he paid two dollars on the coat
and nothing for the shirt, (12) or one dollar on the
coat and one dollar on the shirt 1 Some people said,
that the doty entered into, and formed a component
part ofthe price of every article, this he had always
denied, (13) and he had been much amused at a cir
cumstance which occurred just before his srrival [we
think he said] at Selma. A loco foco orator bad
been, with great gravity, discoursing on the cruelty
and oppression of the present tariff bill, and most pit
eously bemoaning the condition of the poor man,
who, besides paying the value of the article, had to
pay for his cotton shirt a doty of six cento per yard.
The speaker was interrupted by an honest, indepen
dent fellow, who had little else but his shirt, calling
out to him, “now Squire, where’, that six cents duty
a yard gone to, when 1 did not pay but five and a
half cents a yard altogether for my ehirt, and its a
I pretty good one too." (14) Mr. Clay then took up
MACON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 15,1844
Free Trade, which be argued must be either imprac
ticable, or if Carried out, would lead to the disastrous
result of direct taxation, (15) He said that duties
had lessened prices by creating competition at home,
and that the Democratic party had almost agreed to
his tariff notions. (1C) He alluded to his Georgia
letter of September 18th, 1843, and Said that, in 1831
and 132, he held the same opinion* therein express
ed, (17.) Virginia was interested In favor ofthe
protective tariff. Look at the beautiful town of Pe
tersburg, with its busy streets add prosperous inhab
itants; to what was this owing but to her manufac
tories! Here was an example at home ofthe bene
fits attending protuctiwe duties, and a more worthy
and respectable class of people th- n the operatives
were not to be found any where. (18.)
Mr. Clay expreaseJ a wish to close his remarks;
but Was urged to proceed by criee of “Go on”—after
Consultation with Mr. Robertson, be took up the
subject of distribution. He said that in 1832-33, de
mocrats were in favor of it—Gen. Jackson pocketed
the bill, knowing that a veto would be unsuccessful,
as two-thirds of each House were prepared to sus
tain it. The charter of Virginia, if enforced, ex
tended to the Pacific; she had given up to the Gen
eral Government the territory out of which the great
States of Ohio and Kentucky were composed. He
denounced the course of the democratic |>arty in Vir
ginia, for lefusing to receive what he call this “noble
fund”--Virginia ought te have the “first cut.” He
spoke of the hill introduced by himself, giving 500,-
000 acres to each of the new States; compared it with
a hill introduced by Mr. Calhoun. He thanked the
'lemocratic party for the kindness which they had
every Where extended to him. During his whole
four he had received from them nothing but courte
sy and politeness; and up to the time of his arrival in
Petersburg, nothing offensive has been offered him,
cave from some little, mean, narfow-minded and
heartless Editor, [l9.] He was in no condition for
speaking; and Was therefore doubly indebted to the
kindness of the had caught Cold by
going out in the rain at Montgomery, Alabama,
as be should by his present exposure; since that
time he had pile I speech on speech, and was now as
hoarse as any candidate who ever addressed a Vir
ginia auditory. As for Tom Ritchie, he delivered
him up to the democratic party; and the best prayer
he could address to Heaven on their behalf, was,
that the Almighty might grant them a deliverance
from Tom Ritchie. [2O ]
We have thus endeavored to give a sketch of Mr.
Clay’s speech. We claim for it no higher authority
than that of a sketch, but we will venture to say that
all the main points are correctly presented, and that
if any ofthe minor ones are omitted, they are not
such as to influence the general tenor of his remarks.
It is hardly necessary to append comments to this
speech for the benefit of our readers—nine out of ten
can answer it for themselves, and it is to us irksome
indeed, after performing the laborious task to follow
Mr. Clay thr >ugh his stumbling and erratic course,
to go over the same road again. Some of our friends
ask it at our hands that we shall not let this speech
go forth without comment. We therefore have has
tily thrown together some remarks on various points
which have appeared to us most worthy of notice. —
We present these comments to our readers rather as
land marks for the answer which their own research
and reflection will give to Mr. Clay, than as a for
mal reply on our part.
COMMENTS.
1. Mr. Clay here denies being an electioneerer, as
he has done in all his other speeches during the cam
paign. We only call the attention of our readers to
the tenor of his remarks, and remind them that he is
the Whig candidate for the presidency, lhat the Vir
ginia Spring elections are considered by all parties as
ofthe last importance in the Presidential contest,
and that those elections takeplaceon Thursday next.
2. “Through Petersburg was his most desirable
route”- these were his very words, and doubtless it
was “desirable," for more than one reason--it, how
ever, certainly was not quite the quickest way to
“get home,” most especially, when he stops two days
by the way side.
3. This a mere quibble; the remark of Mr, Ritchie,
to which Mr. Clay alluded, was in these words, "Mr.
Clay comes among us in the character of a political
intriguer —not as a native of the Slate, or as a stran
ger entitled to our general hospitality—but as an elec
tioneerer to woo our suffrages, and promote his own
ambition.” The portion of this sentence to which
Mr. Clay alludes is rather blunderingly expressed,
but any reasonable man can see that Mr. Clay dis
torted the meaning when he made Mr. Ritchie deny
him the honor of Virginia nativity.
4. Avery bad piece Os action this—we have seen
Mr. Clay do such things pretty well —that however
never was his forte —Preston could do it a great deal
belter; so could Prentiss, Tom Hilson, Booth, snd a
great many other actors off and on the stage. This
time the innocent “lapsus lingute” was brought out
most awkWarJly. By the way, we forgot to notice
that, in the commencement of his speech, he profes
sed great respect for Virginia; she was even allowed
to be “renowned in counsel.” We claim no gift of
prophecy, but we may be pardoned for quoting a
prediction Blade on the day before Mr. Clay’s speech:
“He comes to Virginia, too, at a moment when it
may be sup|iosed that his presence is intended to pro
duce an effect upon our spring elections; and as their
importance is known to none better than himself, he
will not, in all probability, tell the good people of Pe
tersburg, as he told Mr. Wise, in 1840, ‘1 rejoice that
Old Virginia has not gone for the Whigs, for we will
no longer be embarrassed by her peculiar opinions.’
5. We shall not use towards Mr. Clay the disre
spectful language of flat contradiction; but surely he
must be mistaken in asserting, that all the Presidents
ofthe United States, for the last thirty years, were
willing to sell the high offices of the Government for
political support. We do not mean to undervalue
the high standing which Mr. Clay has held during
that time, nor the great assistance which he might
have been able to give any particular candidate for
the Presidential Chair. But will Mr. Clay remem
ber that during, the “last thirty yeafs.” tbe Presiden
tial office has been graced by the unsullied Madison,
the virtuous Monroe; Ja-kson never wanted any
Inxly’s support; and it is hardly to be supposed, that
Martin Van Buren, or John Tyler, ever made any
advances to Henry Clay, le not Mr. Clay
under a hallucination as to those “thirty years 1
There wss, it is true, one President eleeted during
those “thirty vears,” whose election was secured by
Mr. Clay’s vote, and from whom Mr. Clay did re
ceive the highest office in his gift. Was aU Mr
Clay rather imagining, that other Presidents might
make bargains, sucb as sores people say be dk! make
with John Quincy Adams, when asserting, that
Madison,'Monroe, Jackson, Van Bureh and Tyler,
would have bought him at his own price, provided
he had been for sale! We cannot suppose it possi
ble, that these great men, some of whom hsve gone
down to the tomb, were really the venal and corrupt
aspirants whom Mr. Clay describes them.
6. Ah! this is anew doctrine for Mr. Clay, or he
has most extraordinary ideas of the occasions on
which it is proper to “submit to the wishes ofthe peo
ple.”—When he procured the vote of Kentucky to be
given to John Quincy Adams against the expressed
wish of her Legislature, and against the known opin
ion of nine-tenths of her people, ii this a submission
tothc “wishes people !" When he refused to
hear a call to a vote in favor of repealing the Bank
rupt law, which his colleague and sworn friend,
Morehead, found it proper to obe*. was he then “sub
mitting to the wishes of the people!” When are
those "proper occasions/’ on which Mr. Clay can
submit to the wishes ot the people !” The answer is
given by his own Conduct —when those wishes are
conducive to the elevation of Henry Clay to the Pre
sidential Chair—it was not exactly what he wished;
his health suffered by it, but the “people wished it,"
and he could not refuse —refuse what ! refuse to
make speeches day or night, wet ordry, to ingratiate
himself with the people and get their votes. These
ate his “proper occassions,” and very proper they arc
for the gentlemans’s purposes. It is only to be re
gretted that there is not time to give him more of them
in Virginia
7. Mr. Clay would like to meet “General Ritchie,”
would he ! no one probably will accuse us of rating
Mr. Ritchie too high, as going one step farther in his
defence, thin justice demands; but still we fear, that
some people will be inclined to laugh at us, when we
say that we should like to see “Tom Ritchie” meet
Henry Clay on the stump. Mr. Ritchie is not, from
his pursuits, his habits, or his duties, a man from
whom any one is to expect the gfaCe or fluency of an
accomplished Orator, but we have seen him often
irieJ, when lhat kind of talk which went to men’s
hearts Was necessary; and, if yesterday’s speech be a
sample of Henry Clay’s performances, ten to one on
“General Ritchie” against the "Conquering Hero.”
Mr. Ritchie, inrcplying to an invitation form the Nor
folk Herald to meet Mr.Clay in Norfolk thus speaks:
“But he must excuse us at this precise moment!—
We are in very ‘good humor,’ we assure him; but
we are in no humor to see Mr. Clay lowering himself
by acts that do not become a proud and high minded
freeman—and ‘lowering the office of President/ (as
Judge McLean said in August last,) and still more
IhechafaCter flf our country, by the means (which Mr.
Clay is using) to secure that office.” As to Mr.
Ritchie’s “subalterns,” if any there be, “we know
them not/’ anil Henry Clay himself cannot hold such
characters in more contempt than we do.
8. It is most extraordinary, that at this time, Mr.
Clay shoalil .leelev* a National Bank necessary. With
our domestic exchanges in regular and natural order,
with our credit abroad, (which the United States
Bank did so much to impair,) greatly improved, and
with the I rue “natural currency,” gold and silver or
its equivalent, we are told that a National Bank is
nevertheless “necsssary.” And why! Strange as
the assertion is, the argument on Which it is fdunded
is stranger still. England and France have National
Banks, and we must have a National Bank to coun
teract theirs—we have a navy to counteract foreign
navies, an army to counteract foreign armies—and
we must have a National Bank to counteract foreign
Banks. Yes, Mr. Log ician of Ashland, and by
parity of reasoning we must have a King to counter
act foreign Kings, an Emperor to counteract foreign
Emperors, unless jiossibly your own august self, in
the shape of a “Dictator,” might save us from the
latter. But to his illustration: he remembered when
Viiginia was forced to create a Bank, in order to
prevent the circulation of notes from other States.—
It would be easy to show the want of analogy, but
our limits will not allow us, and one single sugges
tion will suffice to prove tile weakness of the argu
ment. Virginia found a Bank necessary in 1792,
because other States had Banks whose notes con
stituted her currency; Virginia therefore was forced
to charter the Bank of Alexandria; and as England
and France have National Banks, so we, in the U. S.
mut have a National Bank to keep their notes form ab
sorbing our currency. Now, we have been some
years without a National Bank, and when Mr. Clay
or any of his friends will show to us that the bank
notes of England and France have become the circul
ating medium of this country, we will acknowledge
the force of Mr. Clay’s illustration, and retract the
opinion we now express, that the distinguished gen
tleman has descended to the lowest shift in defence
of bis darling project.
9. It it for ua, or for any one to go back ahd an
swer these exploded theories ! lsthere any one who
will.at the present day deny that, Ist, “Freedom
from restraint is best calculated to give the utmost ex
tension to foreign trade, and the best direction to the
capital and industry of the country ! 2d. The max
im of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the
dearest, Which regulates every merchant in his indi
vidual dealings, Is strictly applicable, as the best rule
for the trade of the whole nation. 3d. A policy found
ed on these principles would render the commerce of
the World an interchange of mutual advantage!, and
diffuse an increase of wealth and enjoyments among
theinhabitantsof each State.” Are we to be told at
this era of civilization, that every country must de
pend upon itself! Is Mr. Clay so tut behind the age
as to l>e ignorant of the advantage* accruing from
the distribution of labor ! Or is it again attempted
to humbug the people of this country with the cry of
self-dependence and independence! A the lang
guage ofthe same author from whom we have quo
ted, to be tbos independent, "is to be independent
ofthe foot path, by walking in tho kennel,” or, as
Dean Swift, in the latter years es his sanity, to deprive
himself Ofthe power of resiling, by an obstinate re
solution never to use glasses.
10. “No necessity for the high Tariffs of 1816 and
1824." Mr. Clay supported the Tariff of 1842, (the
present Tariff,) which is higher than either of them,
and when we come to the consideration of his Geor
gia letter we will show, that although he did not vote
for the Tariff of 1828, he, to the last moment, en
deavored to retain iu most obnoxious features.
11. A» to what Mr. Clay meant by Mr. Van Bu
ren’s “casting vote,” we are at a Joss to conjecture—
Mr. Van Buren had no “casting vote;’’ he was not
Vice President ofthe United States, but stood in the
Senate upon the same platform with other members;
he v. ted for the Tariff of 1828, onder instructions
from the legislature of New York, and contrary to his
asm wishes
12. “If a certain amount of revenue was necessary
to be raised, what difference did discrimination make!”
Why,- this Is the very thing of which Ih#- Opponents
of Mr. Clay complain—this "dig Wtnes” which makes
one portion of the community bear an unequal share
of the public burden, (however necessary that bur
den) which makes one laborer pay more to the sup
port of Government than another—XXhich taxes ohb
branch of home industry at the aXpeiise and to the
disadvantage of another. What a shamefbl perver
sion is (he Application of this term “home industry”
solely to manufacturers. Are not planters, farmers,
graziers, people who rely on "hems industry” for sup
port and edmfurt 1 Why, then, use this term extlu
sively as applied to the mantt&ciarstf 1 Shall we
give the answer 1 We do not Wish to be uncharita
ble, but the improperly exclusive application of this
term may be derived from that spirit of monopoly
which is so abundantly manifested in the object for
the success of which it is used. As to Mr. Clay's il
lustrations, it is Worthy of his doctrine. "What
matter is it whether you pay two dollars on your coat
and nothing On your shirt, or one dollar on each!”
It makes this matter: we may want a coat, and not
a shirt. We of the South make our own food, but
wc do not make our own clothing—we feed the North
ern people; they send us their manufacturers. We
do not want for meat —they do not want for raiment.
Both of these things each of us must have, but one
ofthem each of us produces—why tax the food for
the benefit ofthe raiment! Why tax the Coat for
the advantage of the shirt ! Wh) tax the agricul
turist for for the benefit ofthe manufacturer!
13. It is useless to enter into an argument to prove
that duty is a component part of price. In every
seminary of learning llte doctrine is taught—in every
writing on political enconomy it is promulgated —in
the experience and practice of every merchant and
trader, it is daily acted upon. Let us, however, hear
Mr. Clay himself—we quote from his speech in 1832
and, w..de we do so for the purpose of showing his
clear admission, that duty is a part of price, we would
also call the attention of oui readers to his remarks
on distribution, as they will probably be the principal
comment we shall offer on the subject:
“Whoever may be entitled to the credit ofthe pay
ment of the public debt, 1 congratulate you, sir, and
the country, most cordially, that it is so near at hand.
It is so near being totally extinguished, that we may
now safely inquire whether, without prejudice to any
established policy, we may not relieve the consump
tion of the country, by the repeal or reduction of du
ties, and curtail, considerably the public revenue.—
In making this inquiry, the first question which pre
sents itself is, whether it is expedient to preserve the
existing duties, in order to accumulate a surplus in
the Treasury, lor the purpose of subsequent distridu
lion among the several States. I think not. If the
collection, for the purpose of such a surplus, is to be
made from the pockets of one portion of the people, to
be ultimately returned to the same pockets, the pro
cess Would be attended with the certain loss arising
from the charges of collection, all I with the loss also
of interest while the money is |Hrforning the unne
cessary circuit; and it would, theiefore, be unwise.—
If it is to be collected, from one portion ofthe people,
and given to another, it would be unjust. If it is to
be given to the States in their corporate capacity to
be used by them in their public expenditure, I know
of no principle in the Constitution which authorises
the Federal Government to become such a collector
for the States, nor of any principle of safety or pro
priety which admits of the States becoming such re
cipients of gratuity from the General Government.
“it is so near lieing totally extinguished, that we
may now safely Inquire, whether without prejudice
to any established policy we may not relieve the con
sumption of the Country by the repeal or reduction of
duties and curtail considerably the public revenue.”
Is not this a clear admission, not only that duty is a
component part of price, but also that it falls on the
consumer ! Is it not a flat Contradiction to Mr. Clay’s
assertion, and a sufficient answer to those of his
friends who endeavor, against reason and truth, to
tell us in one breath, that the high tariff has nothing
to do with the high prices at whieh we are forced to
buy articles which we do not produce, and in anoth
er (when there is a short crop of cotton and tobacco,)
cry out “Oh the Tariff-the glorious Tariff—see
what high prices it obtains for your produce."
- [l4 ] Another illustration—the shirt again—a du
ty of6 cents per yard can have nothing to do with the
price of an article which costs only 5 1-2 cent* per
yard —now is not this too poor, too piece of so
phistry to come from a man who has filled the large
•pace in the public mind, which, for forty years, has
been accorded to Henry Clay ! Does not the duty
of six cents per yard amount to prohibition 1 are not
foreign idler* thereby excluded, the competition les
sened. and thus the buyer*, instead of having a large
and extended market in which to choose, forced into
a contracted one! W# quote from the speech deli
vered by Mr. Martin at the Court House on the 13th
of last month:
•‘When the manufactures of all the world are left
open to the purchase of American consumers, they
have the opportunity of selecting the best and cheap
est from the whole of the goods manufactured; but
when that market is circom6cribed by restrictions Up
on a vast majority of Ihe sellers, the consumer is left,
for article* of necessity; at the mercy of a compara
tively petty class of holders. The producer, altho'
not directly restrained from sending his crops where
be please!, Is nevertheless, equally injured. By ex
cluding from the markets an immense class of sellers
Os manufactures, those sellers are rendered unable to
become purchasers of our products, because not being
able to find e. sale for the fruits of their labor., they
have not the Wherewithal to purchase the productions
of ours. It is thus, that the immense body of the
American people, which unites in itself the classes
both of producers and consumers, is deprived of its
natural resources, for the purpose of enriching the
artificial interest* of a few moneyed monopolists.”
But let illustratioAineet illustration—Eggs arc
fashionable here, ktia We Will lake thrift—they are
now worth about ten cents a dozen ; suppose the
corporation of Petersburg should pass an ordinance
declaring that on all Eggs not produced in the town,
a tax of twenty cents per dozen should be laid—eggs
should rise, say to eighteen cents a dozen; some “Lo
co Foco” might, with “great gravity,” discourse up
on the Impropriety of making the egg buyers pay 100
much for their eggs, snd Mr. Clsy’s friend with the
shirt would answer, “Oh no, the duty is only twen
ty cento, and you get your eggs for eighteen.” This
argument would not pass on any housewife rn the
town; and bad Mr. Clay brought it to the attention
of the lady to whom in the course ot his speech he
appealed as to the price of “humieca;” we would
jNO. 52.
venture to say,' lhat not even the captivating smile
of the “«pfendid orator” would have secured assent.
15. Frfefe Trade, a! understood and every where
proclaimed by it* advocates in this Country, means
nothing more nor lets than the duties shall not be
higher than necessary IS raise a .efficient revenue
for an economical administration ofthe Government,
and In no manner or form Could lead to the necessity
of direct taiaiioh. But let ui see With What sort of
holy horror Mr. Clay regards direct taxation. We
quote from his speech of April 26, 1820:
“We all anticipate that we shall have shortly to
resort to softie additional supply of revenue within
ourselves. 1 was opposed to the total repeal of the
internal revenue. 1 would have preserved certain
parts of it, at least, to be ready for emergencies, such
as now exist. And I affi, for one, ready to exclude
foreign spirits altogether, and substitute for the rev
enue levied on them, a tax upon the spirits made
within the country. No other nation lets in so
touch offortigh spirits as We do. Ely the encourage
ment of home industry, you will lay a basis of inter
nal taxation, When it gets strong, that will be stea
dy and uniform, yielding alike in peace and war.—
We do nit derive our ability from aboard, to pay
taxes —that depends upon our wealth and our indus
try—and it is the same, Whatever may be the form of
levying the public contributions.”
“Internal taxation” is the term here used. We
suppose no one will lie quibbler enough to deny that
it, and direct taxation, are one and the same thing.
Mr. Clay is not only in favor of this sort of taxation
—but to the “encouragement of home industry/’ to
the Tariff he looks as Ihe ‘basis of internal taxation.”
We ask the earnest consideration of our readers (0
the remarks we have quoted. Every sentence is food
for consideration and for comment —the latter our
limits forbid.
16. That prices are lessened by competition, We
believe that no one will deny—but how that desira
ble effect is to be attained by lessening the namber
ol com pet iters, it is nut in our power to understand.
How, by depriving us of a choice among all the man
ufacturers ofthe world, and confining us to those of
the Uni’ed States, We are to be benefitlcd, is a re
sult at which the imagination of a Poet might arrive,
but Which Cannot lie attained liy the reflection of a
practical man. As to the Democratic Party’s agree
ing with Mr. Clay’s Tariff notions, it is a more dif
ficult matter to decide—die has, of late, made so ma
ny extraordinary and conflicting declarations in re
gard to them. See iiis Chambefshurg letter, his Geor
gia letter, his Pittsburg letter, his letter to Merri
wetber. all written since the last Presidential Elec
tion. One thing, however, is certain, the Demo
cratic party do not agree with his “notions,” if those
“notions” were truly expressed in his speech of yes
terday.
17. In his Georgia letter he said :
“The sum and substance of what I conceive to be
the true policy of the United States, in respect to a
Tariff, may be briefly stated. In conformity with
the principle announced in the Compromise Act, I
think that whatever revenue is necessary to an eco
nomical and honest administration of the General
Government, ought to be derived from duties impos
ed on foreign imports. And 1 believe that, in estab
lishing a Tariff of those duties, such a discrimination
ought to be made, as will incidentally afford reason
able protection to utir national interests.
“1 think there is no danger of a high Tariff being
ever established ; that of 1828 was eminently deserv
ing that denomination. I was not in Congress
when it passed, and did not vote for it; but with its
history, anti with the circumstances which gave birth
to it, I am well acquainted. They were highly dis
creditable to American legislation, and 1 hope, for
its honot, Will never be again repeated.
“After my return to Congress in 1831, toy efforts
were directed to the modification and reduction
of the rales of duty contained in the act of 1828.— 1
The act of 1832 greatly reduced ami modified them;
and that of 1833, commonly called ihe compromise act,
still further reduced and modified them. The act
which passed at the extra session of 1841, which I
supported, Was confined to the free articles. 1 had
resigned my seat in the Senate when the act of 1842
passed. Generally, the duties which it imposes are
lower than those in the art of 1833, and without in
tending to express any opinion upon every item of
this last Tariff, I would «ay, that I think the provi
sions, in the inalh, aie wise and proper. If there be
any excesses or defects in it, [of which I havp not the
means here of judging,] they ought to be corrected.”
Here is the attempt made to place him in the posi
tion of a defender of Si.uthern producers against the
oppressions of the bill of 1828, which he considered
“highly discreditable to American legislation.” He
refers to his conduct In 1832 as a proof of his claim
to this distinction. Let us see how his acts or his
Words justify the Claim. We could'wish to present
oUr readers with a full extract form the Register of
Debates—that is impossible—listen, however, to the
testimony of an eye-witness:
“The paroxysm with which Mr. C lay closed the
struggle for the high protection ofthe act of 1828
was copied from the Register of Debates. The exhi
bition on paper is nothing, compaied with the actual
scene in the Senate, and all who were present can
bear witness. The courtesy of the National Intelli
gencer always sets bounds to the extravagances, and
softens the violence es its favorite actors; and hence
the report only evinces an ungovernable irritation
and stuhliorn resolve on the part of Mr. Clay not to
yield even the paltry half cent on bagging, the cent
on sugar, the seven cents of the almost cent pr. cent,
on woollens, and the other trifling reductions made
by tariff men, to show some small disposition to ap
pease the oppressed, galled, harrassed spirit af the
injured South. We were present, and witnessed
Mr. Clay’s discomfiture and disappointment when
the Senate’s committee reported that they had con
sented to make the slight co icession tendered by the
House, as an evidence that the majority had net ta
ken the resolution to exasperate to the uttermost,
and drive to desperation a high-spirited people, whose
wrongs had well nigh arrayed them in arm#.”
"In July, 1832, Mr. Hayne offered an amend
ment to the tariff, providing that the duties on no
protected article should exceed 100 per cent ad valor
em! This was to limit the excess to which the im
post was increased by the operation of tbs mini
mum#, Mr. Clay and his friends voted down the
limitaiion of 100 per cent.”
100 peroml. even, was not enoogh to satisfy the
craving appetite of Mr. Clay! The same foot, al*
1 tiding to the American System, he eaid:
“I have been represented as the father of (bis sys
tem, and ! ass charged srfth an unnatoral abandon
ment of my own offspring I have never arroga
» ,■* oaM