Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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