OCR Interpretation


Boon's Lick times. (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, May 04, 1844, Image 1

Image and text provided by State Historical Society of Missouri; Columbia, MO

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83016957/1844-05-04/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

.. v. n .,(r. i . ,. i- '.
TOE BOOK'S LICK TIMES.
1 BENSON & GREEN,1
";i ! ' Editor l and Proprietors'.
if '
.'.: .: .v-,l TERMS. '' ' , ;,
- Published' every Saturday, at 3 in advance, or
4 at the end of the yet r. No paper diseontinoed
but at Urn option of the editors until all arrearages
are paid and failure to give notice (before the
end of tbe year) of a wish t discontinue will be
considered a aew engagement. . ',.!).,.
", - , 1 KATES OF ADVERTISING. . , ;,
One dollar per square, of twelve lines or less for
tbe first Insertion, and fifty cents a square for
each subsequent insertion. ,
' Where the insertion of ah advertisement is or
dered, without the number of insertions being spe
oified, it will be Inserted, (at the discretion of the
proprietors) until forbid, tod charged for accord
ingly, i .' - : i I;,, i i.
i All-, advertisements from strangers, a well as
all orders for jeb-work. must be accompanied with
the cash, or a reference to some responsible and
convenient acquaintance. '
' AUTHORIZED AGENTS.' , ' ,
Speech of Mr. Stewart, of Fenn.
, . ,1 ,11;.. 0 r .gj, DEfBWCE or "
THE TARIFF AND DISTRIBUTION.
Delivered in the Itouti of Representatives of the
! 1 U.S., March, 13, 1844.
cOKCLTJDED.J
. But, sir, if more revenue is wanted, why
not increase the duties on luxuries con
sumed by the rich, rather than thus strike
down the poor man's labor, and take the
bread from the mouth of his children, to
make room for the importation of fifty
millions of dollars worth of foreign goods?
Is this, sir, an American measure, can it
receive the support of an American Con
gress, or the representatives of the Ameri
can people? I call on the authors of this
ruinous measure to come forth in its de
fence. I call on them to assign some rea
son for its ' adoption. I can readily dis
cover reasons enough why England should
desire its adoption, but they are the very
reasons why we should reject it; just so
far as it benefits them it injures us; this
is a contest between foreign and American
mechanics, farmers, and manufacturers, for
the American market, and the question is,
which ' side shall we .take?. The tariff of
1242 shuts out the foreigner and gives the
Americans the market; this bill proposes
to repeal the tariff of 1842, and give it to
the foreigner; to open our ports and again
flood our country with foreign goods, and
export money by ship-loads to pay for
them; and why?. I again ask ' the com
mittee upon what a principle of national
policy this measure is sustained? .
, The Tariff Democratic--Frce Trade
. Monarchical.
Mr. Dromgoole replied to enable bare
headed people to buy cheap hats! .
To enable bare-headed people to buy
cheap hatsl Sir, let me, tell the gentleman
if he carries, this measure, the poor people
of this country would not only go bare
headed but bare-backed; they would be
doomed, like the paupers of Europe, to go
half fed and half clad. The tariff, sir, is
"the poor man's law;" it is this and this
alone that gives him employment and
wages. . Just as the tariff goes down, the
wages of labor will go down with it. Re
peal tbe tariff adopt the gentleman's fa
vorite plan of "free-trade," and you will
bring down the labor here, in every de-
fiartment of industry, to the level of the
abor of the serfs and paupers of Europe.
This is certain it is inevitable. As cer
tain as the laws of gravitation as inevita
ble as that the removal of an obstruction
between two unequal bodies of water, will
reduce the one to the level of the other
Repeal the tariff, and what is there to pre
vent our country from being instantly in
undated with the productions of the low
priced labor of Europe. When hatters,
shoemakers, blacksmiths, and all must come
down and work as cheap as they do, or
give up the market! With the present fa
cilities of intercourse by steamships, you
might as well attempt to establish higher
wages ana mgiicr prices on one siuu oi a
street than on tne otner, as to establish and
fiUBtain higher prices and wages here than
in Europe, under the delusive andEuto-
plan scheme of "free-trade." But, sir, this
scheme would bring in its train other and
more . fearful consequences. Adopt this
scheme, and you will soon bring down and
degrade Ate now free and prosperous labor
of this country, not only to the moral, out
to the political condition of the slaves and
serfs of Europe. By reducing their wa
ges, you deprive the poor man of the
means of educating his children and fitting
them to be free. By thus depressing one
class of your people, you necessarily ele
vate another. You divide society hori
zontally into upper and lower classes
distinctions and titles supervene jealousies
and finally hostilities follow, and liberty
itself u in the end swallowed up in mon
archv. Such are the political and moral
tendencies of every step in the direction of
free trade. Jhe protective policy ts there
fore democratic in its character and ten
dencies, it is a policy which promotes
equality, not by depressing one class, but
by elevating all by elevating, sustaining,
and protecting the labor of your own
country against the ruinous and degrading
effects of a too free competition with the
low Driced and depressed labor of Europe,
These are views which belong to this sub-
icct. and should not be overlooked or disre
carded by those who represent the free
labor of this country, and especially oy
those , who make professions of democracy
and love of the people. Now is the time,
and this is the question, to test their sin
cerity. Those who represent slaves may
La excused, dui inose representing tree
men will be held to a strict accountability,
The duties added to the price, not true.
The great' and leading objection to the
protective policy is that the duties are aa
led to the price, and paid by consumers.
This objection lies at the foundation of the
opposition to mis poucy; ana, u umounacu,
this opposition aught to cease. The dut
, ; ' : . . , V ERROR CEASES TO BE DANGEROUS. WHEN REASON IS LEFT FREE TO COMBAT 1T. jErrsiwos.
'y,', 'Viiff." ,, , ';: ;..-.::.;.."f ;f , - fayette, missovri, satukday, may;.4, tsii. . iv.
is . added to the price; this is the theory.
Now, sir, how is the fact; what says ex
perience? All experience proves that this
objection has no existence, save in the inv
aginations of those who make it. -,
Now, sir, I lay it down as a general
proposition,' that there never was a high
protective duty imposed upon any article,
from the foundation of this Government to
the present day, the price of which has
not been in the end reduced greatly re
ducedin many instances to one-half, one
third, and one-fourth of what it had been
before these protective duties were im
posed. This, sir, may seem to gentlemen
on the other side to be a strong declara
tion; but, sir, I make it deliberately, with
a full conviction of its truth, and I chal
lenge gentlemen' to disprove it I defy
them to point out a single instance to the
contrary. Let them examine, and they
will find invariably that, wherever the du
ties have been highest, the prices have
ultimately come down the lowest, and for
a ; very obvious reason high duties pro
mote competition, and competition never
fails to bring down prices... This effect is
invariable and universal; but unfortunately
the duties always run up as the prices run
down; hence the trigbttul lists or duties
exhibited by the Committee of Ways and
Means, amounting to 200, 300, and 400 per
cent. When first imposed these duties
were but 30 or 40 per cent.; but now,
owing to the reduction of prices, they have
run up to 200 or 300 per cent. Byway
of illustration take the article of glass, on
which a duty of $4 a box was imposed at
a time when glass cost 912; this was then
a duty of 33 per cent., but now when
home comDetitton. induced bv this nrotec-
tive duty, has brought down the price to 82
a box, the duty, owing to this reduction of
price, is 200 per cent, instead of 33; the
same is true of many other articles on
which the duty, when imposed, did not ex
ceed 20 or 30 per cent., but now, owing to
reduction of price produced by home com-
petion, they amount to 2 or 300 per cent,
When four cents per pound duty was put
on cut nails, the' price was twelve cents
per pound, and this duty, of course, was
33 per cent.; but now, when the effect of
this protective duty has been to reduce the
price of nails from twelve to three cents
per pound, the duty is increased to 100 per
cent.; this is equally true of spikes, rods,
wood screws,, &c. Again: eight cents a
ard duty was imposed on coarse cottons
when imported at 20 cents, being a duty
of 40 per cent., but now, when the price
has come down to five cents per yard, the
duty goes up to ICO per cent.
fcir, 1 could go on and enumerate more
than twenty such instances where the du
ties, though moderate when imposed, now
actually exceed the price of the article;
yet we are told that in all cases the duty
is added to the price, and paid by the con
Burner! That is, that the consumer pays 84
box duty on glass that he buys for 82;
cents a pound on nails that he buys for 3;
and 8 cents a yard on coarse cotton goods
lat he buys for 5. Such are the absurdi
ties into which these stale anti-tariff theo
ries involve their votaries; but suppose
what they allege were true in point of fact,
and that the , duty is really added to the
price, the cost of cotton goods being 20
cents when the duty of 8 cents was im
posed, add the duty, the price would be,
of course, 28 cents a yard, and the duty
only 28 per cent, instead of 1G0 as stated
by the committee; hence, if you raise the
price five fold, then the duty is quite rea
sonable, and there will be no objection
whatever to its payment. Let the manu
facturer, then, run up his price from 5 to
25 cents a yard, and he at once silences all
tbe objections ol the Committee of Ways
and Means, as this would fix the duty at
30 per cent., just what tbey want it. But
suppose the manufacturer were to reduce
his price to one cent a yard, then, the duty,
being 8 cents, would be 800 per cent.
Horrid oppression! who would submit to
pay a duty of 800 per cent.? Who could
then refuse to go with the Committee of
Ways and Means for reducing such cnor
mous duties?
'- Absurdities of the Report.
But the Committee of Ways and Mean
say that the object of this bill is to increase
the revenue by reducing the duties; yet,
in the very same paragraph, they say, that
should the revenue be found redundant, to
avoid ; the horrid evils of deposites or dis
tribution among the Mates, the duties
shpuld be instantly reduced, so as to reduce
the revenue to the wants of the uovern
ment; at this time, the committee say, there
is not revenue enough, and they propose
to increase it by reducing the duties; but
should it turn out that there is too much,
then they say reduce it by reducing the du
ties. Thus a reduction of duties is alike
effectual with the committee for a reduc
tion or for an increase of revenue. Ex
cellent disciples of Dr. Sangrado, who had
but one remedy for att diseases, "bleeding
and warm water. How such a palpable
contradiction is to be reconciled or ex
plained I am at a loss to conjecture.
The committee proceed next to say that
it is the true policy of every interest in
the country, except manulacturers, to aa
vacate the nroDoaed reduction of duties,
and they especially name agriculture. Now,
sir, in my opinion the reverse of this prop
osition is true; agriculture is much more
interested in the maintenance of the pres
ent protective tariff than the manufacturer,
and for the most obvious reasons, high
protective duties are calculated to induce
increased investment in manufactures; the
effect of this ts clearly to increase the do
mand for the raw material and bread stuffs
produced by the farmers; and the nccssary
consequence of this increased demand is
to Increase the price of every thing the
farmer has to sell, and, by increasing the
quantity, reduce the price of manufactured
goods. Thus the protective policy enables
the farmers to sell higher and buy lower;
while, on the other hand, increased com
petition obliges the manufacturer to sell
lower and buy his supplies at higher rates;
yet it is asserted in this report, and in
every anti-tariff speech, 1 that high protec
tive duties are imposed for the benefit of
the manufacturer at the expense of the
farmer. Now I submit whether practically
the opposite of this proposition is not the
truth; and whether such is not the neces
sary and unavoidable result of the great
laws of demand and supply which regulate
and control prices throughout the world.
Uut agriculture is still further benefitted
by the protective policy. By increasing
manufactures, it withdraws a portion of
the capital and hands from agriculture, and
converts them into consumers instead of
producers, into consumers instead of ri
vals; thus diminishing the quantity and in
creasing the demand for agricultural sup
plies, and at the same time increasing the
supply and reducing the price of the manu
factured goods which they get in exchange.
Thus, in every point of view in which the
subject can be considered, the farmer is
more benefitted than the manufacturer by
tne adoption and maintenance of the pro
tective policy. By way of illustration
suppose in a village there is one manufac
turing establishment of woollen goods; here
the surrounding farmers sell their wool and
other agricultural supplies; the manufac
turer, having a monopoly, regulates his
own prices, as well as those of the farmers,
a t a .
he demands what he pleases, and gives
what he will; but suppose a high protective
tariff on woollen goods is passed, and in
stead of one woollen factory there springs
into existence hve or six in this village,
the existing monopoly is at once destroyed
there is six times the demand for wool and
provisions; this increased demand ncccssa
rily increases the price of every thing the
farmer . has to jell, and by glutting the
market with six times the quantity ot wool
ten goods the price is necessarily reduced
Such are the plain and obvious benefits of
the protective policy to the farmers; yet
politicians would have them believe that
they are oppressed and ruined by this pol
icy, which can alone render them prosper
ous.
Mr. Van Bureris opinions on the Tariff.
And here, sir, it may not be improper to
remark, that Mr. van tturcft entirely con
curs with the Committee of Ways and
Means. In his letter to the Indiana con
vention he says: "The great body of me
chanics and laborers in every branch of
business, whose welfare should be an object
of unceasing solicitude on the part of every
public man, have been the greatest suffer
ers by our high protective tariff, and would
continue so to be were that policy per
sisted in, is to my mind too clear to re
quire further elucidation;" but he further
says, what is much nearer the truth, that
high duties are injurious to the manufac
turers themselves, for whose especial bene
fit we are told by the committee these high
duties are imposed. Air. Van Buren says;
"Excess of duties, which tempt to an un
due and ruinous investment of capital in
their business, is injurious to the manufac
turers;" and how by promoting competi
tion, and reducing prices? but is not this
for the benefit ot the consumers;
But this is not all Mr. Van Buren says
against the protective policy he says, "the
period has passed away when a protective
tariff can be kept up in this country," that
the tariff "increases the poor man's taxes
in an inverse ratio to his ability to pay,"
and that direct taxation is a more equal
and just system of revenue than duties on
foreign goods. These, sir, are Mr. Van
Buren 8 opinions upon the taritt, as pro
claimed to the world in his Indiana letter.
But let us look into the details and prac
tical operation of this bill on the great agri
cultural, manufacturing, and mechanical in
terests of our country.
In the first place it greatly reduces the
duties on wool and woollens of all kinds;
three-fourths of the duties, and more, are
taken from coarse cottons and calicoes;
lead is robbed of more than nine-tenths of
its protection. But Pennsylvania seems to
be singled out for destruction. Her iron,
her coal, her glass, her paper, her salt, and
leather, are all struck down together, and
we are to go to England for iron, coal,
class. &c. Yes, sir, in 1842 we imported
more than four millions of bushels of coal,
under a duty of 81 75 per ton. This bill
reduces it to one dollar. Of course you
must double, and doubtless you will treble
the quantity imported; and for what? To
increase the revenue. - A few days ago
Pennsylvania passed a resolution unani
mously instructing us to go for protection
"without regard to revenue. Yes, sir,
theso are the words, protection "without
regard to revenue; and here we are re
versing the rule, going for a bill for reve
nue without regard to protection; voting
for 20,000 copies of a report in favor of
this anU-tarift, anti-American, and tSritisb
bill.
But this bill greatly, very greatly, re
duces the duties on whiskey, brandy, gin
and wine. We must import whiskey and
brandy for revenue, and give the rich their
wine at one hall toe present duty, and they
must of coure drink double the quantity
or we lose revenue. What say you tern
pcrance men to this? You must all get
drunk on foreign spirits to increase the
revenue. Tax the poor by direct Slate
taxation, and let the rich indulge in wine
brand v, silks, and laces, at lower rates.
- ...
No, put the duties high on luxuries, and
distribute the proceeds of the land among
the states to relieve the poor from taxa
tion. Sir, pass this bill to lighten the bur
dens of the rich, while you double the
burdens, reduce the wages, and destroy
the labor of mechanics and the poor, and
go home and hear what they have to say
on the subject.
The following abstract from tahle C, in the
appendix to the report of the committee,
will show the practical operation of this
bill upon Uie mechanical.agricultural, and
manufacturing interests of the country:
S "2 m
3 9) N o
s o
S "
C
Per cent Per cent
50 30
30 20
30 25
55 25
43 SO
35 25
60 30
30 20
30 30
188 30
80 30
82 30
43 30
43 30
30 25
30 25
53 25
37 25
25 15
30 25
01 30
30 20
35 25
120 25
70 25
54 25
67 . 30
44 30
3 c. pr. lb. off.
43 30
132 42
180 38
9)1 75 $1 00
40 30
87 30
42 30
45 30
40 30
30
120 30
53 30
62 30
54 30
77 61
77 31
72 50
56 30
45 30
63 30
36 21
186 30
62 30
165 30
63 30
51 30
Names of articles.
EFFECT UPON MECHANICS.
Clothing, ready made by tailors
Mits, caps, binding and hosiery
umorenas parasols and sun
shades - ,
Silk bats, bonnets, Sic.
Hat bodies -
Hats and bonnets of vegetable1
substances -
Childrens boots and shoes
India rubber shoes
Clocks
Untarred cordage
Iron cables or chains
Cut and wrought spikes
Cut nails
Brass kettles, (hammered)
Japanned, plated, and gilt ware
Cutlery ol all kinds
Sole leather
Calf skins
Bricks and paving tiles
Metal buttons
Hard soap -
China ware
EFFECT UPON FARMERS.
Wheat
Beef and pork
Cheese
Vinegar
Pearl or hulled barley
Whale or fish oil
Wool cos tine over 7cts per lb
Linseed oil - -
Spirits from grain, 1st proof
Brandy, Sic., trom otner mate
rials -
Coal, per ton
EFFECT UPON MANUFACTURERS
Wool, all manufactures of
Carpetinc, treble grain
Brussels
Venitinn
Other inirrain
Coarse cottons, (being a reduc
tion of three-fourths)
Cotton bagging
Uil cloth furniture
other kinds
Iron, bolts and bars
rail-road
pigs
nail and spike rods
vessels cast
wood screws
Steel, cast, shear and German
Glass, cut
window, a by 111
12 by 10
Lead, pi 9 and bars
Gunpowder
The 12th section of the bill provides that
after the 1st of September, 1845, all the du
ties above 25 per cent, is to be reduced to
that horizontal standard, 25 per cent.
In 1842, we imported more than four
millions of gallons of wine, and nearly two
million gallons of distilled spirits." England
imposes 2,700 per cent, duty on our whis
key, and we, by way of reciprocity, now
propose to reduce our duties on English and
Irish whiskey (1,650,000 gallons of which,
with other distilled spirits, was imported in
1842) to a mere nominal duty! The duty
of 25 cents on wheat would also be affected.
This bill brings all duties above 30 percent
a horizontal taritt, except on a lew spc
cifie articles: and in one year more, it
brings the duties down to 25 per cent., dis
criminating for revenue below that stan
dard. This was bringing it nearly down
to Mr. Van Buren's standard, established in
his famous Indiana letter. His maximum
25 per cent, till the debt was pajd, and then
20 per cent., discriminating tor revenue oc
low that amount, but in no case above it
for protection. This was Mr. Van Buren s
plan, as laid down in that letter, to which
he referred gentlemen who might be dis
posed to doubt it.
Here Mr. S. was interrupted by a call to
order from a Van Buren man.
Mr. S. said gentlemen seemed very soli
citous about order when their favorite men
and measures were assailed, but nothing
was out of order when it suited their pur
nose. Wbv was not the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Duncan) called to order, when,
on a bill to fix the time of holding elections,
he had introduced a coon, a dead coon, and
had dissected it professionally, discussed it
scientifically, inside and out; he had intro
duced all the whig banners and flags of the
campaign of 1840, and displayed them with
creat iomp, circumstance ana ceremony;
and all this, in the estimation of gentlemen
and of the Chair, was then perfectly in
order.
Distribution Advocated.
From recent intelligence, coming in from
all quarters, it is now manifest that we shall
have a sumlus revenue at the end of the
year, independent of the proceeds of the
Dublic lands. If then the tariff yields rev
enue enough, as I doubt not it will, why
not distribute the land proceeds among the
States, to relieve their people from opprcs
sive taxation? Pennsylvania, air, owes i
debt of forty millions of dollars, contracted
in the prosecution or a stupenduous, but
ill-advised, system of internal improvement
equally important to Ohio and the whole
West, and hence she had claims for assis
tance on this Government.
Mr. McKay said, if she has contracted
a debt of forty millions let her pay it'l
Sir, if you withhold her share of the pub
lie lands, how is she to pay it? Her debt is
now increasing, by the addition of two mil
lions annually, on account of interest. She
could not pay it by doubling and trebling
.
tne piesentneavy taxation, wnicn now crush
her people to the earth., Yes, double the
taxes of rennsyivania, and it would not
pay the interest of her debt, let alone the
principal.
As a I'ennsylvanian, therefore, 1 go for
the proceeds of the public lands to aid the
people of Pennsylvania to pay their debt
Pennsylvania has a clear, legitimate, un
doubted right to one-tenth part of the land
or its proceeds. The population of Penn
sylvania is one tenth part of the population
ot the union; and if we were to distribute
the land itself to-morrow among the States
ot this union, rennsyivania would get
more than one hundred million acres of the
public lands. Would not that be an ample
fund in the end to pay off the debt of Penn
sylvania thrice told? Now, I claim, as a
lieprcsenlalive from Pcnnsylvama.hcr share
of the proceeds of the pulic lands; and I
hope no Representative from Pennsylvania,
who looks at the condition of his constit
uents, crushed under this weight of taxa
tion, of unceasing and increasing taxation,
would vote against it. He thought that no
gentleman from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Louisiana, Alabama, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, and other indebted States, some
of them more, and others almost as much,
indebted as Pennsylvania, in proportion to
their population and means, ought, and he
hoped none of the Representatives of these
States would vote, to withhold from their
people their share of the land, and by so
doing, rivet taxation on them and their pos
terity forever. Uy the terms of the grants
or deeds of cesssion, these lands had been
ceded by the States to the Union. And for
what.' lo pay the Revolutionary War
Debt. And when that was paid, the lands
were to go to the States, including the new
States, and those which had made the
cessions.
What docs this Government want with
this fund? It has an abundance of reve
nue, and if we relieve the people of the
States from taxation by giving them what
they are entitled to the proceeds of the
public lands do we not relieve the peopie
of these United States? Do we not relieve
the people of this Government from taxa
tion, when we relieve the people of the
States from taxation? (For the people of
the Mates and the people of the United
States are the same people.)
I submit whether it is not right and fair
to relieve the indebted States of this Union
from the heavy burden of taxation which is
crushing their people, by giving them their
share of the proceeds of the public lands.
Ihe tantl, so tar as it operates as a tax
upon the people, is the lightest form, and
least felt, inasmuch as the payment is en
tirely voluntary; but the chief burden of
taxation in this form is thrown from the
people of this country upon the foreigner,
who is obliged to reduce the profits and the
prices of his goods, in order to get them
into market, wherever there is an Ameri
can price established bv American labor.
But, sir, there is another argument in fa
vor of distribution so long as the proceeds
of the public lands come into the Ireasury
of the General Government, wc never can
have a firm, sestled, established revenue pol
icy. The fluctuations in the proceeds of
the sales of the lands in past years, varying
as they have from less than two millions to
upwards of twenty-four millions per an
num, if they are suffered to remain in the
general Treasury, we must raise and reduce
the taritt ot the country correspondingly, i
would take the proceeds of the lands and
give them to the States, if for no other rea
son than to relieve the Treasury from this
unsettled policy, and to give the country a
firm and established revenue system.
In 1836, the public lands yielded upwards
of twenty-four millions, a sum sufficient to
defray all the expenses of Government, and
of course creating an immense surplus;
then we heard the cry of "repeal the tariff
down with the taritt too much reve-
nue.
But in two or three years the pro
ceeds of the lands sunk down to less than
two mil,:ons of dollars; then was raised the
cryp' -,up with the tariff." Thus, so long
as the proceeds of the lands, this uncertain
and fluctuating source ot revenue, goes into
the Ireasury, nothing can be settled or tix
ed in the tariff policy of the Government
1 hope, therefore, the representatives o
the indebted States will go with me and
vote down this bill to repeal the distribu
tion act, and thus relieve their tax-ridden
people from the burdens of direct taxation.
and at the same time relieve the Treasury
from this source of revenue, which unset
ties and deranges not only the finances, but
the trade and business of the country, air
this measure of distribution is equally im
portant to the non-indebted States; they
receive an equal proportion of the pro
cceds of the lands', which could bo applied
to purposes of education or of improve
ment, or to whatever the wisdom of their
people may direct.
this measure of distribution is a meas
ure of relief to the States, and I now pre
diet that we will have two parties in thi
country the "relief party," going for dis
tribution. and the "anti-relief and tax par
hi." i:oinc azainst distribution and for direct
taxation. I here were only two ways oi
paving the State debts Distribution or
Taxation; Taxation, unmitigated Taxation
Now. Henceforth and Forever. Which
are you for is tho question, and gentlemen
must meet it. They must either go for dis
tribution and relief, or for taxation and no
relief. They have their choice, they must
make it and be responsible to the people
The improvements made by the Slates
and which bad been the great cause of in
voking them in debt, are highly beneficial
to the United States, in connection with the
transportation of the mails, the promotion
of commerce among the States, and the de.
fence of the country in time of war; and
hence, the United States was bound to help
pay for them, by giving the proceeds of
the public lands.
General Jackson advocated the distribu
tion of the surplus revenue among the.
States, on this ground. He contends, in his
message of 1830, with great truth, that the
improvements made by the States, "consti
tute the surest mode of conferring perma
nent and substantial benefits on the whole
Union." - Besides, he contends that the
money distributed by the General Govern
ment among the States, "would be more ju
diciously applied and economically expen
ded, under the direction of the State legis
latures." Such were some of the argu
ments urged by General Jackson in favor
of this policy which Mr. Van Buren now
denounces as a "preposterous proposition,"
the mere agitation of which, he says, is
disgraceful to the character of the Ameri
can people, and which his friends on this
floor are now voting down, without a word
of explanation or debate. What will the
illustrious Chieftain of the Hermitage say
to this?
The Whig and Van Buren Systems.
But, sir, we are told that "the Whigs arc
a parly without principles." Sir, are not
their principles known and avowed every
where? On this subject the Whig system
is this: Remove from the National Treasu
ry that disturbing source of revenue, the
Public Lands, and give them to the States
to which they rightfully belong, to pay
their debts, and relieve the people from tax
ation. Then regulate the Tariff, so as to
supply revenue enough for an economical
administration of the rederal Government,
by imposing protective duties on such art.
les as we can and ought to supply at home,
and revenue duties on luxuries and articles
not produced, sufficient to supply the wants
t Government, lhis is the Y hicr system.
Now, sir, what is the Van Buren system?
Just the reverse. It is to refuse all relief to
the people and the States, by distribution
or otherwise; to reduce the Tariff, and let
in foreign goods to the destruction of our
own industry; exhaust the wealth and cur
rency of the country to pay for them; dou
ble the expenses of Government, to enrich
office-holders and favorites, and leave the
Government again as they left it in 1840,
after twelve years administration, impover
ished, and overwhelmed with bankruptcies
and debts, State and National, amounting to
more than two hundred and twenty millions
dollars. How was it, sir, during the
twelve preceding years, when Whig policy
prevailed? Look at the official reports
from the Treasury, and you will find, sir,
that during that period we paid off 141
millions of the war debt, expended 12 mill
ions for internal improvements, and left
the country with a surplus revenue of
more than 12 millions a year, a sound cur-
ency rnd universal prosperity; but in
1828 there came .a change. The next
welve years was a period of disastrous ex
periments, resulting in the excessive in
crease of banks, the ruin of the currency,
the inordinate importation of foreign goods,
the consequent destruction of agriculture,
manufactures, and the mechanic arts, and
the involvement of the States and people
n a foreign debt of more than 250 millions,
which now hangs like a millstone about
their necks. The people could stand it no
longer; they determined in 1S40 to have a
hange to throw off this incubus but, bv
an unfurseen event, this was defeated. The
period is, however, rapidly approaching
when the people will again come to the res
cue, and achieve the great object they then
haii in view. .
But wc are told, sir, by Mr. Van Buren
imsclf, that this glorious revolution of
1810, was the result of infatuation, foil v.
and madness, on the part of the people.
Sir, is this true? Is it not a foul slander
on the American character? Is it not a
gross insult to the people, and will it not
be so regarded? fcir, that election was the
csult of a deep and deliberate conviction
of the ruinous effects of Mr. Van Buren's
policy effects seen and felt, severely felt,
throughout this land. The people saw
that nothing but a change a thorough
changj could save the country from hope
less bankruptcy and ruin. That convic-
ion has sinco been strengthened and con
firmed; and the beneficial effects of the
Whig tariff of 42, now rapidly restoring
the national prosperity, furnishes new and
powerful motives to stimulate and strength
en the friends of reform. Sir, if you want
evidence, look to the unequivocal indica
tions of public opinion throughout the coun-
try. Is not the "handwriting upon the
wall, in characters so large and legible
that "he who runs may read?" In 1810,
the people, by the unprecedented majority
of 145,000, pronounced judgment against
Mr. Van Buren. Can this be overcomo
without a change? And where arc the
changes in his favor? Where ts the man
who voted against him then, who is for
him now? or if there beany such changes,
are there not two to one the other way?
But, sir, if there were nothing else, the pas
sage of this bill, withholding from the peo
pie,
ple, in their time oi nccu, tueir snare oi mo
Public Lands, and the attempt to repeal tbe
Tariff of 42, and again inundate tbe coun
try with foreign goods, break, down our
own farmers, mechanics, and manufactur
ers, by the passage of this destructive, ami-
American, anti-tariff bill, would or itself
be abundantly sufficient to condemn any
party, however popular, with a vast ma
jority of the free, enlightened, and patriot to
people or this country.
Tho people will not permit any man, or
party of men, Jong to trample upon their
rights and interests with impunity. 1 know,
sir, they have borne much for the eako of
party; they have excused bad actions by
the ascription of good motives. But there
is a point where "forbcarnnce ceases to bo
a virtue;" that point has been reached and
transcended. The people have decided
upon a thsnge, and they will have it. Thry

xml | txt