Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

poimcit. air. Crawford’s lc«er to :Cv. Bia-Ker-.oa. WOOD LAWN, 4th IT.!’. 1 " :! - My Drar Sir.— Your esteemed favor of»h> 4th Onto her, 1.822, vyasreo, ived by <]ue course ot m -and wou.d have Ucen ausivercdVooticr, but 1 have boon imß.>lc, uu* tii a few days past, to obtain the Journals ot tiic rcoeral Convention, Yates’ secret debates of that Convection, and Luther Martin’s rtport to the legislature of .Wary land of the part he had acted in that Convention. <no perusal of these boohs were thought to he indispensable to a full and satisfactory examination ofthe various am. important topics :r -• tdin yo r letter. ’» n the Federal Government tvas first organized, the statesmen of the United Status were divided in opinion touching the | constitution. The Fcdcjal party belt.;. I the powers granted in the constitution were not sufficient to enu.ue the Federal Govr rnment to fulfil die objects for which and had been created. They then fore endeavored to infuse into it by legislation, that vigor which they b< In-v and ne cessary to enable it to answer file end for which it ban been devised. To succeed in this, they resorted to ulat itudinarv construction of the constitution, but they fell far short of tlic republican party when they came into power. This party, while the federalists wefe in power, had Contended for a strict construction of the constitu tion, and opposed with talent and eclat, the efforts of the federal party to make,the Federal Government, in prac tice, a consolidated government. It was piincipaiL oi iug to tiii% opposition, and to the ( xtremes to which the federal party carried their construction of the constitu tion, that the republican party obtained a triumph ov< r the federal party in iSOI. and obtained possession of the Federal Government, and have retained it, at least nom inally, over since. At lheconclusion of the war in 1,15 the debt of the Union exceeded $120,000,000, and re quired that a large revenue should shoul I be collected to discharge the interest of the debt, and provide for the gra dual extinguishment of the principal. For that purpose the Tariff act of 1810 was enacted; and although it was strictly a revenue act,and was voted for by a large majo rity of the members of Congtess as a revenue measure, and was strictly justifiable as a revenue lanfi, yet ope member from too .South supported it as a measure tor protection of manufactures, and openly contend) and that Congress not only was vested bv the ( onstitution with power to protect manufactures, but was under the most solemn obligations to exercise that powernt that time. - Yet strange to tell, that very member is now at the head of the Nullifying party in South Carolina, ami that party has nullified the tariff acts of and 1832, because they were intended to protect manufactures. Shortly after the w ar which terminated in eighteen hun dred and fifteen, there was an effort made to amalgamate partibs in the Union Many men of doubtful political principles assumed the political garb of republicanism, and were adinittr and into the republican ranks. These men uniformly voted for ext ending the federal rule as much as possible, and aided by men who had always been known in the republican ranks, but who hud always shewn a marked predilection for a splendid National Government,among whom the gentleman before alluded to, shone conspicuous. In addition to the piotective turilf, a splendid plan of Internal Improvement was do vised and supported, not only by the gentleman previ ously referred to, but U,v a gentleman from the West, who lus had the address to appropriate to himself the credit of the system. Under the guidance of these two distin guished gentlemen, the doctrine of latitudinury construc tion has so deformed the constitution, that if its framers could arise from their tombs, they could not be iipide to believe that the present government'existed under the Constitution they had formed. Posterity will he placed in the same situation. W hen they shall read the con stitution, (if indeed it is destined todesceud to posterity) they will he unable to account for many nets of the gov ernment under that constitution, and will be ready to conclude that those acts have resulted from a very did' r ent constitution, which has been lost in the lapse of a ges. The strict principles of construction contended fur by the republican party, from the year 178 t) to the year 1801, when Mr. Jefferson was elected President, w here arc they at this day ? Do the republican party occupy the same ground this day that they occupied in 1801 ? No. They have abandoned that ground, and have adop ted the most visionary and wild theort sos construction that ever degraded the human understanding. 1 recol lect to have hoar.! a member from Pennsylvania, when i was a member of .Mr. Monroe’s cabinet,<f< rive the power to make internal improvements from lit power to regu late commerce. As I consider your letter presents the grounds upon which a protective tariff rests, and as I am not convinced that those grounds ere defensible, 1 feel it my duty in the present crisis, to endeavor to prove, by evidence, il not demonstrative, at least morally certain, that the fra mers of the Constitution did not intend to invest Con gress with the power to protect manufactures, and did not believe that they had invested Congress with tiiat power. In-page 130 of the Journals of the Federal Con vention, the following proposition u is submitted to tin consideration of the Convention :—“ To establish public institutions, rewards and immunities, fur the promo:ion of agriculture, commerce, trades and manufactures.”— Here the question was distinctly brought mulct the con sideration of the Convention. The proposition, nor any thing similar to it, was sanctioned by tin Convention, as is proven by the journals and by the Constitution. I presume you will admit, that generally, where a grant of power has been proposed to the convention, and has not been granted in the constitution, it is evidence that tl(,u convention did not mban to grant it. Now, unless the refusal to grant this power can ho ho shewn to be an ex ception to tlie general rule 1 have laid down, the power to protect manufactures must be abandoned by Congress. The onus prob,nidi in this case lies upon the party rely ing upon the exception. But if am not greatly mistaken I shall bo able to shew before this letter is concluded, that the case under consideration is not an exception to the general rule. In your lettcrto mo you state, that you have not attempted to prove the constitutionality of the protective tariff, because yon are satisfied with Mr. Ma dison’s opinion upon that subject. You at the same time inclose me a speech of yours, in which the constitution ality of that measure is defended. Mr. Madison’s opin ions and yours are entitled with mo, at least, to as much deference and respect as respect, as the opinions of any two men in the world. But upon a question like this. I cannot resign my judgment to any authority except rea son. Now, as lain not satisfied with the reason assigned by Mr. Madison, I must bo excused for did’, ring, even with such a great and good man. Mr. Madison’s opin ion i's partly the result pf reason, and partly of memory, 1 shall here state my objection to the r asouiog part of it, and then the evidence to shew that his memory has de ceived him. I have not his letters to Joseph 11. Cabs!!, Esq. before me, but if tin’ recollection be correct,- lie treats the idea, that the power to lav duties upon imports by a State with the consent of Congress, were intended to enable the States to protect manufactures with some thing like derision, lie savs the imposition of such du ties would destroy itseo.um . e, which no state can Lk presumed to desire, Now it so happens that the manu facturing states are precisely in the situation to desirt to saci ilice their qonimeroc to their manufactures, pro vided the commerce of their co st ates is sacrificed at the same time. It may be well conceived, that when to: revenue Congress shall have: levied duties nearly to the point of prohibition, a state having a large amount of capital ii rested in manufactures, equal, at lens!, to sup ply of its itvn consumption, may bo disposed to levy du ties sonsn prohibit, the importation of Uiose articles that item rappi vSuch n measure will exempt il from con tributing nn. hingtotlio treasury ofthe I S,mid willutl ly subject it ti payment of tlioiiuties which it shall have fmpajsd which 1 '.pay to tit; manufacturers n'-eordiruj to inv theca v ; but according to the manufacturing theory, 1 which you seem to have adopted, will subject them to no| hfoher once, but absolutely procure those articles at a , cIuMiKT rate than they obtained them before the imposi tion of the prohibitory duties. I think Mr. . ladiso i efonrly wrong in his reason. Let us now see if he is more fortunate in his memory. Luther Martin in Ins retort to the Legislature of Maryland, page -If, 4l!i vol- Elliott’s edition, says: “ By this section (10th of Ist art.; everv State is al=o prohibited from laying any imposts or j duties upon imports or exports without the permission, of the General Government. It v.as urged, that, as al most all sources of taxation were given lo Congress, it would be but reasonable to leave the Plates the power of bringing revenue into their treasuries by laying a duty upon exports, if they should think proper, which might be .so light as not to injure or discourage industry, and yet might Le productive of considerable revenue. Also, that there might bo cases in which it would he proper for the purpose of encouraging manufacturers, to lay du ties to prohibit the exportation of raw materials, ami c ven in addition to the duties laid by Congress on imports for the sake of revenue, to lay a duty to di.seourrgc the importation of particular articles into u State, or to ena ble the ’manufacturer here to supply us on ns good terms as they could be obtained from a foreign market. How ever, the most we could obtain was, that this power might he exercised by the States with, and only with, the con sent of Congress, and subject to its control ; and so anx ious were they to seize on every shilling of our money for the General Government, tiiat they insisted even, the little revenue that might thus arise, should not be ap propriated to the use of the respective States where it was collected, but should he paid into the Treasury of the U. States: and accordingly so it is determined.” 1 his report is dated the 27th January, 1788,0n1y a few months after the adjournment of the convention. Mr. Martin was an active and intelligent member of the convention ; remarkable fur his comprehensive and tenacious mcnio rv ; was dissatisfied with the constitution formed by that convention, and particularly, because ho could not ob tain a more efficient protection of manufactures, as ap pears by the foregoing report to the Maryland legislature. The clause of the Constitution giving to Congress the power to regulate commerce, is in a section of the con stitution preceding that which Mr. Martin says was in stated to enable the States to protect their manufactures, •nndjiad been adopted previously. If the convention had believed tiiat the power to regulate commerce carried with it, the power to protect manufactures, Mr. Martin would have been told that the power had bccncnnfcrrt and upon Congress, and there was no need of vesting the pow rin the States. But the provision was inserted, which proves, I think, satisfactorily, that the convention did not believe that the power to ■regulate commerce d-J invest Congress with the right or the power to protect manufactures. If this report of Mr. Martin proves that the convention did not believe that tlmj had vested that right irt Congress by the grant of the power to regulate commerce, thctxtract from the journals of the conven tion previously cited, proves as conclusively that the convention did not intend to vest any authority in Con- fess to pro’ect manufactures. It appears to me, that the extract from the journals,and that from Mr. Martin’s report, cover the whole ground, and tiiat there is no room for doubt or hesitation upon the subject. It is true that the evidence is principally dehors the constitution. The journals ofthe federal convention is hut one degree re moved ftoin the constitution itself, and in all cases of ’doubt is the best evidence that can he ottered to remove that doubt- The evidence of the journals then in the present case is the highest evidence of which the case admits, and that evidence is conclusive against the right of Congress to protect manufactures. The testimony of Mr. Martin is supported in some degree by the constitu tion itself. The provision which--he declares was insett ed to enable the States to protect manufactures, is in that instrument, as be represents it, and was not in any original proposition presented to Congress, and no at tempt has been made to account for its insertion for a different purpose than that ascribed to it by Mr. Martin, has within mv knowledge been made public. Mr. Madi son in rejecting Mr. Marlin’s account of it, has not at tempted to assign any other office to the provision.— Considering that Mr. Martin’s report was made shortly after the adjournment of the federal convention; tiiat in the report ho accounted for his conduct; to his consitu ent, the Legislature, and that he slates a transaction in which he appears to have taken a deep intetest, there can I think be no room for doubt in receiving Ins account of the transaction in preferanceto Mr. Madison’s, which is made known more than 40 years after the adjon" .incut of the federal convention. A careful consii' .atiou of the federal constitution will lead to the same conclusion as the evidence winch I have jgst submitted and examin ed. Upon a deliberate cmamination of Umt instrument, 1 think it is apparent, that its powers were given princi pally forexterior objects, and those which are necessary for the proper management of those objects.; That there do not appear to me more than two grants of power in the constitution which authoize Congress to interfere with the great mass of individuals, ami their interests or concerns. The reverie, or rather that part of it which authorizes Congress to lay taxes and excises, and the power given over the militia; both thes ■ powers are necessary to the management ofthe exterior relations of the United States. The State Legislatures, in the scheme of the federal government, were considered as exclusively charged with the domestic relations and in terests of individuals, except in the two cases before mentioned. When the convention first met. very differ ent views appear to have been entertained ofthe powers which ought to be vested in the federal government, than were finally vested in it. As 'he federal govern ment has been administered it would have been much better to have adopted Mr. Hamilton’* plan of the legis lative powers of Congress, which was to pass all laws tiiat titey should deem necessary. If that plan had been adopted- I verily believe but one law would have passed, which has not been enacted, Under Mr. Hamilton’s plan it is possible, nay probable, considering the fanati cism which has been displayed in some States, that a law would have passed fertile emancipation of slaves.— In the enactments of Congress they have devised the means of passing ail the laws, which in their fantacy they deemed necessary.' i admit that if the United States were governed by a consolidated government, the power to regulate com merce would, in the abs-.-ncc ofthe journals of the con vention and Mr. Marti)s’srepoit, have authorized the protection of manufactures. If the state government and state lines were obliterated, the protection of manu factures might be effected under the power to regulate commerce, because it has been dono by rno.-i of the. ci vilized states in the world. But the ’i'liritf is clearly a measure of consolidation, and so are measures of internal improvement which have been carried on by Congress without a shadow of authority. It is this reckless legis lation Congress tiiat has produced the present alarming crisis in the alf.iirs of the Union, arid the present is hula commencement of difficulties of that kind, unless a speedy return to the true principles of the constitution is t fleeted. The difficulty of warding off the blow aimed by South Carolina, ought to admonish the fcdctal gov ernment of I lie necessity of moderation, and a rigid ad herence to tin- powers granted, and such as are necessa rily incident to them, ami without which they cannot be carried intocfilct. The publication of (lie journal of the federal convention and other documents connected j with it, has thrown much light upon the powers of the I !• der.il government. I verily l> -lieve if th< v had been 1 published before the organization ofthe federal govern ment, neither the Bank of the United Slates, the iissump.! lion of the state debts, or a protective tariff would have ever been fount! in the federal statute hook. Vv lieu I made up my opinion upon the hank question in I K II, tiiat opinion was founded exclusively upon the constitution. Tile publication of the journr.U whicn I h iv- row parsued for the first time, has changed that opinion. You formed your opinion upon the protective svg icin' {'ic si!me way, before the publication oi thejottl’n* j, me! probably without having seen Luther Martin If - vi 'v, I beseech you, the whole ground ; lay asolc during the review ofail prc-concoived opinions upon the subject, and I entertain a hope that vve shall agree in the conclusion. You say the revenue may be reduced to the necessary expenses of the government by reducing or entirely abolishing the duties upon unprotected arti clcs : that tnis course will relieve the nation from a large portion of its burthen, and ought to lie acceptable to ah the states. This is a mistake. Such a reduction will only increase the inequality which already exists. But the Tariff States are wholly mistaken if they t, ink the murmurs of tftc south are principally produced by the revenue collected for the use of the government. No, the people of tile south have never complained of paying what is necessary to support the government ; but they do complain, and will complain as long as Congress by its Legislation shall enable the manufacturers to levy Contributions upon them equal to those they pay to the government ; ami rest assured, if these exactions are continued much longer, the Union will be dissolved, ihit ydu say if the protective system be abolished the l - nion will l»e more certainly dissolved, than by its con tinuance. This is possible. I can offer no opinion up on it ; but if .1 be so, look at the difference in the situa tion u( the southern and tariff states. The former say hands <;!f, “Laissez nous faiae.” The latter say it we are not authorized to fleece the southern states ad libi tum, -.r<- will dissolve the Union ; or aa»Hezckiah Niles says, ‘ vve w ill present a million of muskets in defence of our rogil rights secured to us by the tariff.” You disbe lieve t?at the tariff docs operate oppressively. You say no aontjduiut arises against it any where but at the soul!), for the simple reason that there is no oppression. I can verily itiagine many reasons why there is no excitement agaiiistthe ta ri IV in the tariff states. Most of the men of wealth n.d influence in those stales have capital inves ted in manufactures. Wherever there is a manufactu ring establishment, a market is furnished to a certain distance around it, for every article that can bo raised on a farm. All those who furnish the maiket arc com pensated, and more than compensated, for the burthens of the Tariff. I ajn not sufficiently acquainted with the location or extent ofthe manufacturing establishments in those states to determine upon the relative proportion of the population thus benefitted by those establishments. Besides these two classes, all those who are employed in those establishments, and their families, are recon ciled to flic tariff. But, independent of these classes, there can be' little doubt-that the popular name with which the tariff has been dubbed, has had a tendency to render it popular. In Kentucky, there can be no other cause for its popularity, aided by Mr. Clay’s address ami influence, it may be Safely laid down as a general rule,that manufactures cannot be beneficially introduced into any country except where there is labour and capita! w hich cannot find employ withou their introduction. In Ken tucky there is neither a superabundance of capital or la bor. Manufactures can only exist there as a hot-house plant, and must be supported at an expense greatly be yond the value of the articles pro*need. The tariff sys torn has been introduced in disregard and defiance of the principles of sound political economy. You say that manufactures to the amount of 12 or fifteen millions of dollars, purchased by the produce ot the southern states, are annually consumed by the nor thern and middle states, anil triumphantly ask if that is not a benefit derived from the Union; and add, that -those states arc desirous of furnishing those articles themselves, but the southern states object and insist upon their consuming that amount of British manufactures for the benefit of British manufacturers. In reply to these serious allegations, I will say, in the first place, that the South never has objected, and docs not now ob ject to tint tariff states furnishing themselves with all the aritcles necessary for their convenience and comfort. They have never insisted that the tarifl states should consume 12 or fifteen millions annually of Britssh man ufactures or any other amount. I will say, further, it is the lirst time in the world, that n party, who lias been o hligcd, at his own request, with an advance of 12 or 15 millions annually, should conceive that he had laid the party making the advances under any obligations, or that the party receiving was aggrieved, by receiving vo luntarily such advances. The true state of the question is this : the tariff states not only insist upon furnishing themselves with these articles, but also the southern states; and that the southern states should pay them, not only to enable them to supply themselves but the southern states also. The southern states have never requested any thing’to ho done for them at the expense of a sister state, whereas the tarifl’ states ask that the whole people of the United States should he enormously taxed lor their special benefit. But you deny that the tariff has operated to raise the price of manufactured ar ticles : on the contrary, you allege the tariff has reduced the price of protected articles. In other words you have adopted the theory and opinions of the manu facturers. Actions speak louder than words, and when words and actions are contradictory, actions arc to be believed in preference to words. During the last ses sion of Congress Mr. Appleton, of Boston, 1 believe, allcdgcd,that cottons under 10 cents the yard were not protected by the tariff of 1828, and needed no protec tion. One provision of the hill under consideration directed, that all plain cottons costing less than 30 cents should "be estimated, in calculating the duties, as having cost 30 cents. A motion was made to strike out all cottons costing less than 10 cents. This motion, was resisted successfully by the friends of the tariff. I am informed that cottons are made in England as low as 0 Cents. A duty of 25 per cent, levied on such cottons, estimated as having cost cents, would amount to o;m hundred and twenty-five per cent, ad valorem.— This single fact proves conclusively that no reliance can he placed upon the representations of rite manufacturers and ought to discredit tin ir evidence with all impartial men)of common sense. For what would they desire to keep on tin enormous duty upon an article that needed no protection ; was it merely to insult the people, or to shew them the absolute power that they wielded over them 1 If this was their object, they have certainly succeeded in if, and if protection, in order to vend their goods at an i normous profit was their object, they have equally suc ceeded. 1 hope, after considering this fact, the advo e. !, sos the protective system v, ill cease to tell us, that the tarifl'reduces the price of manufactured articles.— It'this bo true, the tariff is injurious to them and benefi cial tons. Wo do not think so. We wish it repealed, and they ought so to wish it. Why, therefore, is it not repealed? Simply because it enables the inuiiiif.ictu rers to levy contribution upon the people. All their de clarations of this kind are hypocritical and faiae. 1 reject Nullification. I equally reject Mr. M’Duffie’s doctrine, that the producer pays all the duty. 1 admit, that this doctrine hasaggavated the discontents of the South. 1 admit, also, that the oppressions ofthe tariff upon the South arc aggravated, and yet, I assert, that tlie South is oppressed beyond the Eastern and Middle States—that the tarifl’ is unequal, unjust, as I Lope ! I have proved to your .satisfaction, unconstitutional, or I ot least .-in abuse of the Constitution. * It operates more : oppressively on the Southern than upon the people ofthe j i tariff States. Ist. Because there arc no manufacturing [ establishments in those States, consequently no loeui I market created. 2d. Because none of the laboring class ! are employed by means of the tariff. 3d. Because enpi. j talisU have invested po capita! in them; and Ith, we are i at n greater distance from the workshops which supply us with tiie necessary article*. Tito freight, insurance j commissions, and other necessary expend s, inhancc the J price of those article % <o the consumer in the tioutltcrn s, in a {uglier degree, than in tho tariff States, la j I these four particulars, the tariff is iu'ore oppressive to tnoji citizens of the Southern States than of the 'tariff States < Kvru in IY-nnsylvania, 1 was informed by an intelii. pent gentleman of that State, the people are begin- : ning to open their eyes, to* the oppressions of the ta riff. lie informed me that the member of Congress elect from his district, was elected under a written pledge, to reduce the tariff". There can be no doubt that the tariff is injurious to the interests of the great body of citizens in every part of the United States..- It is a measure for the benefit of the few, at the ex pense of the many. It is worse still, it is far .the bene fit of a few rich men, at the expense of tite great bo dy of the people, it is calculated to make tin? rich I richer and tlic poor pdotcr. inequalities in wealth, in civilized communities, will necessarily arise, fe'o tor as this inequality is inherent in the nature of man, it must lie submitted to, but any system of legislation whic h has a tendency to create or hasten tiiat inequality, deserves j the execration of the human race. Such is the tarill j svstem. Hut this is not all the objection to it. If it were constitutional and exempt"from the tendency to produce inequality between the citizens of the Republic, it would still he injurious to the United States. The atanufttetu. ring state of society will arrive in all well regulated civil society. It is as natural for such a society eventually to become manufacturing, as a boy in due time to become a man. When the period arrives it ought to be submitted to us all other dispensations of providence, and then tl»y are introduced without any effort to sacrifice, and is pro ductive of no other inconvenience than.what results from sedentary instead of active laborious employment ; and even this should not he considered aji evil, for on my i supposition-, it only employs those who, without the in troduction of manufactures, would he idle, and any em ployment, nut absolutely mischievous, is better than idle- j ues3. If this theory be correct, and it is believed to be j so, is it not mischievous to hasten this state of things by legislation, to the great injury of the existing state of so- | cicty ? Conceding tho constitutional powers to pyiss such j laws, is it not apparent, that the order of nature, and na-i lure’s laws, arc deranged by such legislation ? That a I state of society is prematurely forced upon (lie nation, to the injury of its national force, and to the destruction of capital that would otherwise have been tnoic profitably employed. But you justify the tariff on the ground of retaliation upon England, because she refuses to receive the bread stutfs grain growing States. Let us examine this proposition. Great Britain, in order to encourage agri culture and to product,"if possible, bread stuffs enough to support the people, prohibits the introduction of bread stuffs, generally, except when her crops fall short of a supply. This prohibition extends to us in common with other nations. Every nation has a right to manage its own internal affairs in its own way, and other nations have no right to complain, or interfere. But as Croat Britain docs not receive the grain of other nations, we have no right to complain or adopt measures of retalia tion. We have no right to say to Great Britain, take onr grain, or you shall not have our Cotton and llice, es pecially when she is almost our only customer, and cer tainly our best in those articles. The grain growing States have no right to jeopard those great interests with a view to force Great Britain to abandon a policy which she had a perfect right to adopt, if she. thought proper. Commerce between nations has been properly defined to he an exchange of Jose articles of which oric nation has a redundancy, u#l the other a deficiency. When two nations have or deficiencies of the same article, there can be no beneficial commerce be tween them, in their indigenous products. In the pre sentcase, if the grain growing States make a redundancy of grain, and Great Britain feels no deficiency of grain, there can be no beneficial commerce between them in grain. But there is no cause of complaint, no cause of retaliation, least of all a retaliation in which a mutually profitable commerce is carried on to a very great amount. The Tariff cannot be justly supported as a measure of retaliation. I think I have shewn—first, that the protection of manufactures was not confided by the constitution to Congress ; second, that it lias been confided to the States; third, that the tariff is unjust and oppressive to the great body of the People of the United States; fourth, tiiat it is still more oppressive to the people of the Southern States; fifth, that it tends directly to produce inequality of wealth in the Republic, which is unfriendly to ltcpuh lican Government, and that it cannot be supported as a measure of retaliation. If all or even one of tiiese points are made out to your satisfaction, I hope you will con cur with rne in the result at which I have arrived. Jn discussing the various questions presented by your very interesting letter, 1 have endeavored to avoid every thing calculated to irritate or offend your feelings, or <he feel ings of any persons with whom I differ upon this all ab sorbing question. Before I conclude, 1 think it neces sary to state, that by the term manufactures in the pre ceding pages, no allusion is made to the household man ufactures. To them lam decidedly friendly. It is ow ing to those manufactures that we have been enabled to withstand so long the injurious effects oflbc tariff, i had intended at one time to say something about Nullifi cation, hut I will say'only, he temperate and resort to force only to repel force. It is in times of high excite ment that the most vital stabs arc given to liberty. Cod bless you, and direct your counsels at thia'alarming cri sis. Contrary to my predictions of last spring, you are permitted once more to deliberate within the walls of the capitol, on the tariff. The question now presented to the manufacturers is, will you he content with tho incidental protection afforded by the collection of duties for reven ue, or will you dissolve the Union ? If the Union is dis solved, the tariff will he worthless. It is true, your re spective States can afford you protection within your States, except against smuggling. They can afford” the same protection tinder the Union* Why w ill you, there fore, insist upon dissolving the Union, since its dissolu tion cannot benefit you ? In this controversy the South ern States have acted on the defensive. You have h» n, and now are, the aggressors. Will you cease to oppi <ss ? If you say no, I cannot say God speed ; but I will sav, upon your heads fall all the evil which I lip dissolution of the Union will inevitably cause. 1 am, my dear sir, your friend and most obedient ser vai,t > WM. 11. CRAWFORD. The Hon. Mahlon Dickerson, Washington City. II.. REVE.NUE COLLECTION BILL. The Senate then proceeded to consider the bill to provide further for the collection of the duties on im ports. Mr. Tyler of Virginia, addressed the Renatc- Hc thus concludes—There was ambiguity about this bill. The prophecy bad already rorie forth. T|, e Pre sident had said that the laws will he obstructed. The prophecy, therefore, had gone out, and tuc President is said to he armed with power, which he will probably call | into operation before his prophecy shall bo fulfilled, j He had not only prophesied, but lie’had already assem bled an army. The city of Charleston was attliismo | ment almost entirely blockaded, and bore flic appenr j ancc of a beleaguered city. The cannons of Fort I’inc! j " rB directed against it ; and although tney arc now jqmetly sleeping, they arc ready to open their thunders I V'T7'u ! 10 vo,cc °f authority shall give the command, i -* nt * llicsi’ horror* be let loose? on tint peaceful cit\ 7 * lie hoped that Smith Carolina would give no cause for c.iHiiig the bj ll ""o operation. I hope, ronlintn-d Mr. I 1. that a voice winch has gone forth from my Slate w ill 1 reacl, he. in tin r. | have heard Virginia iianu and slight. ' mg )ns the mediator State. Wc are ,And I could i wir,.., sir, cm I hi.- floor to act spas to sustain that cliirae. I .►rfmcwiy .Slat,, here. Insucl.a cause 1 would joy- ! fully press foiward whenever there was an oocmnir success. I trust, sir, that South Carolina will ' no t s °,r C our mediation to be unsuccessful, but that she will s *- pend her--ordinance and her laws until after the |, U * session, if things'‘should not be previously restore/* tranquility. He. found, however, that the course ofjhb me-n meat had not be-, n calculated to prevent a rupture. £ cry tiling which bad been done was calculated to'ch f tiie spirit of that honored and lofty State. An army h ' been sent, thither, revenue cutters, an armed ship* •, :i proclamation bad been issued. These were not' ci y culatml to allay the excitement which had been duced. A belter course might have been pursued.' t the President bad followed up the sentiments oflf I im ,-s-igrt at the opening of the session, the Tariff Wou i !by this time, have been shivered to atoms, hut it « j l he nature of man, and, be was sorry to admit it, t u (j„i | lor morn y. Sonic of tile advocates of the Tariff wei j ready to yield a portion, but lie feared that the tcis'-atk, j presented by a high rate of duties was too great t 0 j resisted. It the recommendation of the message • been acted on, these disquietudes might have ben a j settled. It was a bad mode of settling disputes to set out soldiers in uniform, to threaten to hang up citizei is traitors and the like. Let it be disguised as it n,i„[, -tlie bill was a declaration of war against a sovcrei/ , -State ; • and be would not give to the President the po, i cr, at his will and pleasure, to declare war againsta fra • i eign country ; and be called on the Senate to say iftj, . j was not a more important question which gave power" I i' if dare v. ar against a Sovereign State. J li the majority should pass this hill,they must Join tlit-ir own responsib : -.ty. lie.could have no part in Still the I>\ tleral Union must he preserved. Could g« tletr.cn hope to preserve it by force? Was that them to preserve it! Suppose that they were to goon an suppress the State of South Carolina, and reduce Itef the situation of a province, and hang tip her goVerno and her Legislature ns traitors: and suppose that herd iy.i-ns were hunted ii -o those morasses into which Sing ter and Marion r ti'cd, when they were obliged to tj relieve from tho British army? Would they after a have s:iv, ,1 the Union by striking out one of these StaU and Umt one of the Old Thirteen/ Gentlemen lit boaster! of the flag of our country, with its thirteen sta and stripes. Would that any longer be the flag mu] which onr farthers fought when we shall have oblitci ted one_ oS-thesiT-statcs? If wo were to go striking a star after star, what would finally be left but this cent) and burning sun, withering anil consuming every thin The flag, said be, which 1 wish to wave over me, ist flag of my fathers, which waved over them during th Revolutionary war,and which btrrewpon it the tlsirtei Slavs, of which South Carolina was one. I hone s™. Carolina will listen to lior friends, give us her confident and abide in the conviction of returning sense on th part of the I‘cop'uof the United States. llis mode of preserving tbo Union would have lee different from that which had been pursued. lie tou have taken the principal remedy which he had point out. There is an excess of six millions of dollars ii t Treasury. He would destroy that excess. Yel would not rashly anil rudely lay hands on tho TariQ, f | had power to do so. While restoring harmony ton section, fie would he cautious not to produce discord another. It was a poor way to appease discord in o section, arid to raise it in another. The manufacturt desire time. lie would give them lime—ample tin If they would come down to the revenue standards abandon the protective principle, he would allow tin foil time. He presented these amendments, for he -« anxious to preserve tire country from civil wars. 1 begged the Senate to bear in mind, that there was great difference between preserving the Union and p serving the Government. They might destroy t! States, and still preserve the Government, lie was! preserving the Federal Union, and for bringing bat that peace u bid) seemed to have fled freftn us j It bad been said that it would not do loofler ten while 80. Ca. maintained her menacing attitude. H was a wrong view of the subject. lie would thro South Carolina entirely out of the question. The were ottn r Southern States wliish coiled for inodificatio lint even in it wasSoutb Carolina alone, pride was ii worst of all counsellors, and its counsels were usual product i vc of evil. Against this pride Lord Chatham'! Mr. Burke lifted their-voices in the British Parliami at the time of the revolution. The besotted Govri ment of England said it did not comport with their and; ntty to make concessions. The last of all monit should be pride. The statesman can offer terms to! weak, am! by concession exhibit bis magnamiinity. 1 it is with Government: This principle of pride, ( caused more bruised bones, than any other princij which lias ever iriflin need the actions of men. He wo rather adopt the suggestions of prudence, and exhilitj willingness to do justice. By such a course, Pol* might be saved to Russia—lreland to England—! South Carolina to the United Slates : not asaprovioi with her Palmetto trailing in the dust, hut as » Sot reign and Independent State. If wc conquer Sbj Carolina, what can we do with her? If we drive lieivciliz-'iis into tlie morasses whore M lion and Sumpter found refuge—after we had trodd her in the dust, destroyed her citizens, slaughtered tb wives and children, and established a military dcspolil ill South < "arolina, where should wc find the glory a| honor of the enterprise? Gracious God! said he, is necessary to urge considerations of this sort on the. mcrican Congress? Have the days of the revolutio passed, without leaving any of its .spirit behind! W had darker days than the present—some ofthcmintli course of the war'.but an appeal to the spitit of the J mcrican people had pffcventc 1 any disastrous result! and wo had gono on happily until now. But away fort —it is the madness of the times that suggests fore Are wc to satisfy the discontents of the people by son —t>y shooting some, atid bayoneting others? Y’ou make slaves by force, anti by tho application of fort convert tree men into, laves ; but after ypu have ISM them slave* will they look with complacency ontwj chains? V. ben you have subdued South Carolina, lo* crcrl her proud flag, and trampled her freedom in t! dust, will slu- love von for the kindness you have shout hir! No : she will hate and despise you. Mould yo follow the example of that miserable despot thoEtnpfif of Russia, who lias exiled some of (be bravest of the sol ol Poland, in order to win the hove of South Carolina Pol ini will fiate Russia until she is again free ; so would lx; with South Carolina. 1 tvpuld,said he, that; laid moral in/Itiencc enough to save my country . in tin hour ol pcial. i know myself, I would peril ail—Hl nml strength—could I be the means, in the retnotc,fj| grew, of pacify inn- t | ic agitated billows. 1 have no Mid I>o»ver. I stais.'! here. m uiacLd in a minority, fbrlcai count but I -j \ otc,i in this Senate. You, who are th majority, have the destiny- of the country in yottr liantl?. It war should grow out of this measure, you will be res pon. ibl . j u iil wash my htindsof the business- JuWj or than give !:iv aid i would surrender my station ncre, for I aspire not to imitate the rash boy who set fire to “' o ' Ephesian dome. No, sir, I would lend no * V* 8 passage of this bill, 1 bad almost said, ‘1 would rather be a dog,and bay the moon, thansuclia Roman.’ IhfflJJ had her Uurti —Alliens,"her Leonidas— atid Sjwrt* : band el dev oft .'! m i!rints : and, no matter who the j may h. wlm> .-top. forward to r-cscue us i"ini our pen situation, though he may never wear the crown. j I--tine sir.ll w the an evergreen around bis Lro", 3 ■ | k's iiHilo -ball tank with that of the proudestp«m*i iel I pi. Old. St diint-s. I 'mlrr these circumstances WM \\ as iipjm ;< rl bill. ]|c was devoted to liwcoub*®* and tin In r nli.iis in,on tins peettsirtn, offered up sol/isli i-nii-i ■ ! in.! inn. 1 ‘ irClirit.topl.cr flatn.u, we are fidii. owed §*» prem***' “ 1 «" M " ’ ,u ,n * * ! i!! in :