Newspaper Page Text
01 7. f PRINCIPLES AND MXASCBIS, AND MEN THAT WILL CARRY THOflB PRINCIPLES AND MEASURES IDfTO EFFECT. BY JA.MES R. MORRIS. WOOnSFIELD, OHIO, FRIDAY, OCTOBER il, 1844. VOLUME I. NUMBER 83. THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY IS PUBLISHED EVERT FRIDAT M0RKIHC, DY J. It. iMOItlilS. TERMS: $1,60 per annum in advance; $2,00 if mid within six months: 2,50 if paid within the year, and $3,00 if payment be delayed until after the expiration ot tne year. CO- No paper will be discontinued, except at the option of the editor, until all arrears are paid. (JO- All communications sent by mail must be post-paid, . . ' Advertisements inserted at the usual rates. POETBY. TWILIGHT MUSINGS. . from Blackwood's magazine. How beauteous is this summer eve I Remote, upon the western sky, The sun declines, and round him weave The clouds, a gorgeous canopy. From fragrant fields, and pastures nigh, With gentle murmur comes the breeze, Just kissing, as it passes by, The shutting flower, and leafy trees; A twilight gloom pervades the woods, Through all their blue-gray solitudes. And all is still except the lay Of blackbird, from the neighboring grove Clear hymning forth the dirge of day, In tones of warm, spontaneous love. And 'tween its margents flower inwove, .., The stream that gently murmurs on; Or rustle of the grass, above The crimson tinged sepulchral stone; The shadows of the church profound, O'erspread the eastward burial ground. How beauteous! but more beautiful The days of vanished years awake, In burning tints, that render dull . The charms of sky, and wood, and lake. Though far remote, yet I can slake At memory's fount my burning thirst, And feel no spells on earth can break The idol form I worshipped first; No second ties of love impart Such rapture to the vacant heart! TH13 TARIFF. Ilm. Silas tVright, Democratic Candiflaje for Governor in New York, said at the Watertown Mass Meeting: Every election brings with il to us matters of vast importance, dividing the two parties of our country. This election has brought along with it, with many others much discussed before you four years ago, one of pervading and universal interest. I refer to the tariff. It is a vast question a ques tion of great complication; but I believe, with a little of your calm, dispassionate reflection, and a fair draft on our candor, we can arrive at conclu sions clear and unquestioned even upon this intri cate subject What is 'the differi-nce between the two parties on this subject ? Our opponents tell us they are in favor of a protectioe tariff"; and that a tariff, as they understand it, is a source nl almost every blessing, individually and collectively, to every portion of the whoje country. That we may understand each other1 perfectly, let us first ascer tain, if we can, what we should properly under stand by a protective tariff; for I believe a brief ex amination will satisfy us that a confusion and mis application of terms has produced as much difficul ty on this great question as any other cause. But first, to remove from our way, as democrats, a stumbling block which our ingenious opponents place there let us look at what they mean and how we should understand them when they tell you that we are the free trade party of the country, and refer you to a portion of our brethren at the South who assume that name. II it a misappli cation of terms to us. We know and feel it. We are not in favor of free trade in the proper, fair and : legitimate sense of these terms. Are our south-1 ' era breth'eren so? Do they desires repeal of all duties, and that the necessary revenue shall be ran ed bv a direct taxation on property? I cannot ' answer any farther than I am informed; but I will give you in candor aud frankness the information I ' have. I admit when I saw this name assumed by those who acted politically with me, at the South, it startled and alarmed me. I could not conceive that men ot sense, information, of extensive prac- ' tical experience should have adopted notions of that stamp, as practicable under our government On repairing to Washington at the enmmencemeu. ' of the last session, finding that this subj ect must be " pressed on as for discussion and action, I went to some of these Southrern members of Congress whom I had known many years, men of truth and : Candor, and whom I had thought men of sound views, andsaid, "I beg you to tell me, if you have ' satisfied yourself that our revenue system is all wrong that we should do longer lax foreign im - ports to raise revenue to support government, but have a direct tax upon the property of the country?" ''No, said the first man I asked, "I entertain no 1 such "opinion never have, and I know of none who do." ' ''Well then will you be good enough to tell me what you mean. - Tou call yourself a free trade man?" "I do so, and mean this. Iam friendly to having the trade of the country kept as free as it cso be kept, and raise the revenue neces- ' sary for the suppoit of government; and when it is so. I call it free trade, because it is as free as our .; institutions will permit." "Then sir, you sre in I favor of s tariff for revenue, and of so much duty as may be necessary to support the government?" To be sure as much so as yourself." And here was the explanation. Though he called- himself a " free trade and anti-tariff man, he was in favor of a tarifTfor revenue; and opposed only to a tariff laid or the mere purpose of protection 'alone, Mr. W. went on to advert to another misappli cation of terms. Ha said to these gentlemen that ' he was in favor of a protective tariff, and the reply was, "you are in. favor of a heresy, an oppression, 'n inequality in the administration of the govern ment." But what was a protective tariff, in the proper sense of that term? It was a tariff, in his judgment, imposed for the great purpose of sup plying the general government with revenue, and so arranged as to protect, as far as they may be pro tected, all the great interests of the country the main and principal object of which should be rev enue for the public treasury. Even his Southern friend would tell him that he found no fault with that but what he understood by a protective tariff would be a tariff of duties imposed nut to raise rev eiuie for the treasury, but purely and simply to pro tect certain favorite and particular interests to the prejudice of other. Neither was Mr. W. in favor of such a tariff. Here then was an explanation of what Mr. W. meant by a protective tariff, and of what his Southern friend meant by free trade Where then was the difference between us? Mr. W. stated what his rule would be in arrang ing a revenue tariff. He would by no means lay the same rate of duty on every article of importa tion. The thing was impracticable in itself: be cause one article would not bear ten per cent, until you prohibited it, and destroyed revenue. Anoth er would bear 50 per cent, and yet the trade hold up, from the nature of the article. It was absurd, in a revenue sense, to say "put a uniform duty on both." Because do that, and you either fail to get the revenue you want, or you prohibit the impor tation altogether. Mr. W. would then discrimi nate according to the nature of 'he article. That would be one ground of discrimination. Another ground. Every community consumed of foreign imported articles, a portion which are .really necessaries of life, or have become soamong all classes. Another portion were emphatically luxuries. They weie purchased and consumed to gratify taste, the pride of dress, the pride of living, the style of our houses, equipages, JLc. Would ho tax these two classes alike to raise revenue? Would he tax the necessaries of life which every man, woman and child must consume, and the luxuries of the rich equally? No. He would tax the necessaries as lightly as he could, and secure the necessary revenue; and he would tax the luxu ries as heavily at they could be without destroying the revenue, without cutting up the trade. This was another ground of discrimination. But there was another, and a third ground. There were cer tain interests in this country, which came in com petition with similar interests in foreign countries and Mr. W. would discriminate in reference to them. When an importation came in competion with a domestic article, he would laise a tax on foreign articles, as far as revenue required, to fjvor the domestic. But he would not go so far as to defeat the object of the whole- the obtaining of revenue for the treasury. To see how far we might gr take first the agri cultural interest of this section of the country Where were the articles you could benefit by a tariff. What were our principle staple articles? Bread stuffs were one. Could you benefit the far mers and the grower of bread stuffs by putting a duty on foreign bread stuffs? No. Why not? Because ti e do 7iot import bread stuffs; but export them. We looked for a market not merely to our own country but to the whole world, and we sent ourflour to all quarters of the Globe. What then made the price of our flour, and where was it made ? In tht great markets of our country in New York, Boston and Philadelphia principally. What gov erned the price there? Was it the call of our own people on those towns for flour? No; but the en tire demand for flour in New York, governed the price there as well the demand lor exportation as for consumption. What good then did our duty on foreign flour and wheat do, when foreign flour and wheat did not come there? None whatever. The duty neither brought money into the treasury nor the pockets of the farmer. This was no fault of the law, but resulted from the impossibility of pro tecting an article so as to raise the price, while we regularly exported it. So with our beef. We did not import beef for consumption. vVe raised more than our own people would buy, and we looked to other countries for a market of our surplus. Then the duty under the present tariff (101) per centoD the preseut price of beef) did our farmers no good. It could not. Follow on with your cheese. The present tariff imposed a duty of nine cents a pound on cheese. Where was the farmer of this or any other county of the state, who could say that this has had even a little effect on his cheese this year? Laughter. Aye, said Mr. W., I fear it will prove to be true that the farmer will be glad even to get half the duly for the whole price ot his cheese. So the duty on these articles was of no practicable utility not because the f.iult was in Congress or the law, but because we exported these articles, and they therefore could nut bt pro tected. If then these articles were out of the reach of protection, so fai the agricultural interest was beyond the reach of protection. Where did the farmer come within it? On his wool. We never exported wool. We did not now. We did not grow as much- as ws consumed. Every year we imported foreign wool. Was it not easy to see how our duty protected our farmers? For when the Spaniard or the Belgian brought his wool here, he must first pay our duty and then meet our far mers on equal terms'. The duty then was i pro tection, and the article was subject to' protection. It would be reached by Congress in regulating this. tariff law. He would, then, raise theduty high on wool, in proportion to articles that required no pro tection. He would do this for the protection of one great interest. But would he go so high that wool could not be imported? Prohibit importa tion and thus defeat revenue from wool? 1 If he did what would be the consequence? It would give to the farmer who raised wool, a perfect monopoly of the market. They could command their own pi ice according to the demand for wool, the for eign article being excluded; and every citizen who did not raise wool, and must wear woolen cloths, must pay mortr And where was his remunera tion? If he paid a revenue duty, his remuneration would be revenue and relief from taxation. But if foreign wool was prohibited, it paid nothing into the treasury, and In addition to the price of woolen cloth something else must be taxed. This would be clearly not protection, but prohibition. And here was the difference between us and our respect ed opponents. They went for all the duty they could get all you could impose for prohibitory instead of protective duties. This Mr. W. was against. .He would not raise up a monopoly among our farmers, any sooner than among our manufacturers; and no sooner among our manufac turers than others. He believed in fair healthful competition in every trade and every thing. But he would protect the farmer where he could. See the inequality (continued Mr. W.) of this prohibitory policy. In reference to wool you ben efit thefatmcr and give him a monopoly. You get no revenue. His neighbor raises grain; another beef, another butter, cheese and pork. You can not protect them; and yet you must tax them on some other article of consumption, to supply the treasury, the revenue of which it is deprived by your prohibition of wool. Is this fair, equal, just ? To my mind it is not either. So long as you de rive the revenue, and your duty is a revenue duty, with protection incident, all other interests derive an equivalent, because you get revenue. But pro hibition sinks revenue and raises the price. In other words you establish a legal monopoly Carry this along to the manufactured article. Wool is the essential article of northern agricul ure which can be protected. Hemp in the south west and west can be protected, though I think the time is close by when that w ill cease lor al ready several cargoes of American hemp have gone to Europe, and the experiment has proved very fortunate. As the new S tales continue to open it will come to be an article of exportation. Now it is piotected. The sugar of the south is a protect ed article. It is highly protected. But protection there yields revenue. Itsoundly taxes us, as every body can testify. But suppose you carry the duty lo prohibition, and to protect the sugar growers of Louisiana, entirely exclude the foreign article. What would we pay for sugar? and what our re muneration for the three millions of revenue for sugar? We should be taxed on some other neces sary article, to support the deficiency in the treas ury. This is an illustration of the prohibitory sys tem, and if it is just and politic in one instance, one interest will demand it just as strongly as another. During the last session I was one of those who was willing to modify the present tariff. I would not have agitated this subject voluntarily, although I believed that while the law contained many good things, it also contained many unjust and bad ones. But I was willing, when the subject came up and I was compelled to act, to do what I believed to be light. I will give or.e instance in which I thought the law defective. As to this very article of wool; I think the duty on fine wool sufficiently high. I think with safety to our farmers it might be reduc ed some made to yield more revenue, and yet be an equally effective protection to thcin. Whether I am mistaken or not, time will determine. But I speak of the duty on co arse wool from abroad. There is a description invoiced abroad as costing not more than seven cents, which pays a duty of live cents on the dollar in value a practical duty of three mills on the pound of wool. It is said ibis wool don't come in competition with ours. We grow no wool worth seven cents it is true; but our farmers do raise wool that will answer the very same purpose that does, to every practical extent. With my own eyes, on my journey from Washing, ton, in the month of June, I saw in Vermont, a manufactory, surrounded by wool growers, em ployed busily and exclusively in working the wool of Smyrna, which paid five cents duty on tlieclol lar, or three mills on the pound. Another factory across the street was working American wool. Both makes the same goods, sattiiicts for the New York market. How stood these manufacturers with reference to protection? Precisely alike lh.eeotimadeby each is protected by a duty of forty cents on the dollar. But the wool manufac lured by the one is protected y a duty of Jorty cents on the dollar, and the other with a duty of five cents on the dollar. Is the protection equal here? It is not a protection to the manufacturer, equal in both cases. But if the coarse wool was charged with as much duty as the fine, would I have found one factbry working the wool of Smyr ua? No. If it is right to protect the manufac turer, it is right to protect the farmer also, and to the same extent. This is one defect. There are a vast many others. A great many defects under thislnw are what are denominated specific duties; not duties on the value, but duties on the pound weight of the goods. Take the strong, firm, black silks, which is an article worn generally in all our country towns and villages. Weigh apiece of it, value it. It will weigh about double the same num ber of yards of fine figured French silks. It will cost half as much money abroad. Yet the pound weight pays the same duty of two and a half dol lars, in the one case and in the other. What is the consequence? The pfain farmer's and mechanic's family, who do not or cannot indulge in silks be yond the plain substantial dress, of the description I have designated pay about double the duty that the family does that indulges in the extra fine and light silks of France. I think this is perverting the whole matter. If you favored either, you should favor those who purchase and wear the more ne cessary article. I do not pretend that a silk dress is necessary; but it is very desirable to our wives and daughters and sisters, and we desire them to have them; and because we do, shall we pay dou ble or treble what the lady does who is able to wear the rich silks and gaudy laces of foreign countries? Again our coarse cottons and I speak in the presence ol those who understand this better than I do take our duty on cotton manufactures. They are not specific; but there is another contrivance applicable to them, called a minimum duty, which may be thus explained. The law says, every yard of cotton, bleached or unbleached, shall be valued when imported, at twenty cents the square yard, and on that value, pay a duty of thirty Cents on the dollar. Now, of all the cotton worn by the mass of citizens ol this country, what does the square yard cost abroad where it comes from? What do you suppose is the average? We purchase I be. eve, in the retail stores at from G to 16 cents. It is a very fine and rich article, when you go beyond that. The average would be 10 or 12 1-2 cents. What would be the cost abroad? Some of it C or 7 cents the massof it. What is tho duty? Why you must value the yard at 20 cents, at that value pay a duty of 30 cents on the dollar. You value it at two or three times as much as it is worth, then add thirty percent thus making the duty sixty or ninety, and as the tables will show one hundred and twenty per cent. Take those who can affjrd the shirtings and sheetings that aluoad cost 20 cents. What do they pay? Thirty per cent duty. Here the true principle is reversed. The necessary ar tide is taxed the highest if not entirely prohibited. Take up the tab'es of importations, and you will find the bleached cottons coming in on the highest valuations. Take the calicoes. Value every square yard ot 30 cenfa, then charge a duty of 30 per cent, on that. All of you purchase calico What do you pay for the mass of wear in this coun try? Twelve and a half or sixteen cents. But the statute values it at 30, and then charges a duty of 30 cents on the dollar. Take calico which costs abroad 30 cents. That pays 30 per cent, duty; while the plain and cheap article, in common use, pay double and trtble that duly. Here the princi ple is again reversed. The cheaper and weessary article is the highest taxed. There is a discrimina lion but the wrong way. And here I think the law defective. I doubt if you don't discriminate enough on these goods, when you make a uniform duty on the value on all. If it is necessary to tax cottons 30 pet ceut. tax all the same. Not put an artificial value on the poorer article to increase the duty. Still, I would protect generously and go to the full extent of what is just these manufac turers of cotton and wool. They should be pro tected, but not in this unequal way. Let us consider (continued Mr. W.) as con nected with these articles, the prohibitory policy, for that is the policy of our opponents. Suppose we carry our duty on woolens and cottons up to prohibition and to protect our manufacturers, and incidentally in the article of wool, our farmers We go so high with our duty as to pron'ihit impor tation. We first gave our manufacturers a monop oly of the market. Then we have only domestic competition to protect us from exorbitant prices. But we lose six millions of reveuue, and we must be taxed on some other articles to make it up. And I ask any man who has tho curiosity to examine this subject to go to the tables of import ations, for any number of years, and see on what he can lay duties to supply this deficiency of six millions made by raising this prohibition. I know of none but the tea and coffee, which are now free. And would it be right to give the manufac turers of wool and cotton a monopoly of the market, and then tax the whole community on these necessaries of life? I believe it would be unjust, unequal, and impolitic. But, we are told, this policy is necessary to protect the labor of the country and that it is the productive labor of the Union which we desire 1... .1.:. . i j-M.Mci mis piumuiiory sysiem. i.et us see how far the labor of the labor of the country can be protected how far it is in the power of Con gress to protect it. We have already seen that labor employed in raising grain, beef, pork, butter and cheese, cannot be protected, because you can not by duties change the value of them. We ixport them. Then you cannot protect that class of U13 labor of the country. You can protect in this sense, the manufacturing labor. Let us see how it will operate, and how far labor will be benefitted Here alluding to the village of Watertown are manufacturers, I believe, of cotton and wool, and all about you are farmers raising grain, beef, pork, and making butter and cheese. Now the manu facturers are protected by a duty of say, 30, 40, 50, 60 per cent, on these articles at least an average oi 30 or 40. We will assume that they can afford to pay 20 or 30 per cent, more for labor. But the farmers all about them, the mechanics in the village, not engaged in these branches of manufacture, cannot afford to pay more. Will the manufacturer say, "Here is a farmer he can't pay more than seven dollars a month but I am pro tectedI can afford 15 dollars." Is that your experience? I doubt not there are many laboring men here. Or will the manufacturer come to you and pay just as little as will hire you away from the farmers? If the farmer pays ten dollars the manufacturer will pay eleven. But though he can afford it, will he pay fifteen? My experience is not so. My study of human nature teaches that it is not so. Every man will hire labor as cheaply as he can, and pay en ough only to hire the best labor. One farmer turns his attention to growing wool. He wants two or thrfe hired men. A neighbor of his raises wheat, and he wants one, two or three. Another neighbor raises cattle and keeps a dairy. Well, the wool grower is protected by 40 per cent, on wool. Does he pay 40 per cent, more for the labor he hires, than the man who hires labor for his grain or beef? No. All pay as little as they can command labor for. If there was a deficien cy of labor, the wool grower would most likely get it, for he can give most. Don't understand me to suppose that the farmer receives the same compensation for labor that them anufacturcr does but I mean according to the branch of labor in which it is employed. What controls the price of labor? The aggregate demand for labor in tho whole. All who want to hire will go into the same market, and all pay nearly the same rate of wages, in proportion to the description of labor they want. Now you can't protect but one out of several branches of agricultural industry. How then can you protect labor by extending a monopoly to them?' No further than you can extend the aggregate demand for labor and raise up the whole. And you can judge now far pro tection on wool will raise the price of the whole agricultural labor of tho country. But' our opponents tell us, you stop short There is another position that will help you out of difficulty. You must change youi system, and by your prohibitory policy turn so much labor to manufacturing employments that the manufactu rers and mechanics will eat up all the agricul tural products of the country. Then you give a home market to our farmers aud thus protect all their productions. That is true. If, by law, you can turn so much of the productive labor of the country to manufacturing and the mechanic arts, as to make these branches equal to tho con sumption of the agricultural products and we cease to export bread stuffs, beef, &.c. then you can protect ihe farmer in his whole iuterest. But bow will it then stand with the manufacturing and mechanic interests? Will the farmers be able 10 turn round and buy all the manufactures of the country? For if they can't, your system is just as bad only you have changed sides. Laughter Now the farmer cannot be protected, even though there are heavy duties 011 the agricultural imports. Then, the farmer would be protected to the whole extent, aud the manufacturer could not be protect ed at all; because for two thirds of their articles they must depend upon exportation and the moment'they are compelled to go abroad for a market, they are as much beyond protection as the farmer is now. Then, how will it stand? Will the country be the gainer? Will it be in a more prosperous and healthy condition? And espe cially will the manufacturing and mechanical interests be better off? We can answer this question if we will believe in experience and history The government of Great Britain, to which we are pointed for an example of the wis dom of this prohibitory policy, have gone through with this. They have tried the experiment and most effe.ctually. They commenced by protection to manufactures, by 70 and 100 per cent, duties. But they bad a more efficient system than we have. The British government, neither depends on public opinion nor on constitutional restrictions to carry forward its policy. What did they do? At tho start when it became the object ol govern, ment to protect a particular interest, they said in terms, "this shall not be imported." And for two centuries, the importation of woolen cloth into England was entirely prohibited no duty about it. It was made penal for any subject to wear cloth not wove and spun within the realm. Well, they forced enough of their population into manufac turing, to consume all the products of agriculture. What is the consequence? Population Increased. The farming interest turned back on' them and demanded protection against foreign bread, and foreign meat, and foreign provisions, aud now have got a protective duty of more than 100 per cent, on every necessary of life and the manufac turing labor of the country is starving to death. That is experience. There the thing has been tried. And now they have got to a point which is unchanging so long as the agricultural iuterest can control. Let me add a word which may be rele vant tn a state of things with us. How is it that tho agricultural interest of Great Britain, compos ing seven per cent of her population, is able to command tho legislative policy of that great coun try? It is because the government in the pursuit of this policy, has built up a debt resting on the land of the country the stock held by the land holders and landlords of the country which the government can't pay and through its crudit and its debt, the landed interest commands and must command, while that monarchy exists, its legisla tive policy. And it can command protection to its wheat and its beef and other productions while the laborer starves at his loom and spinning jenney, Do we, fellow citizens, and I am sure I address a people, a large majority of whom are farmers do we desire any monopoly to the agricultural interest? Cries of "no, no." Then the manufacturing and mechanical interests should not as wise men among them do not desire to drive the agricullu ral interest, by seeking a monopoly for themselves, to this result. Because the road is plain. It is a beaten track. Not England alone, but France, Spain, Au stria have followed it to the same con clusion. Now, the argument is "protection against the pauper labor of Europe." How has that pauper labor been produced? By carrying out the prohibitory policy. We should protect ourselves to the whole extent of the revenue of our government with the exception of what we enjoy without taxation by duties on imports. Beyond that it wuuld be impolitic, as it would be unjust, to go. But I am detaining you too long on this subject. Another word shall close. What is this system of benefits which our op ponents so urge upon us, and to oppose which they say is anti patriotic and anti American? Strip it of its imaginary qualities, and of rhetoric in which they dress it up, and it is a system of taxa tion on the people. And did our revolutionary fathers ever dream, when they were conferring on the federal government this tremendous power of taxation, that the people were to stand up in mass and instruct their representatives "taxuson tax us on because by taxation you can drive us into unexampled prosperity." Laughter. Fellow citizens it is a fallacy. Divest the human mind of prejudice, and it will detect the fallacy at once. It is not a system of blessings at all; and if your government required no revenue, no Con gress would be permitted to lay taxes to tax you into prosperity. This is all the benefit, all the honest part of the invention' that by a just regard to the different interests of the taxing power, you may relieve burthens on the community. Tax lightly the necessaries of life, and you relieve taxation on the poor and laboring classes. Tax heavy the luxuries, and you reach property that should bear the he heaviest portion of taxation. Where your interests conflict with foreign interets bear taxation on the article as hard as it will bear, consistently with revenue. You fill the treasury and relieve taxation from another Bourse. What I pay more for my coat or cotton, I do not pay on any thing else whilst I aid an impoortant interest. But the momeut you depart from that and con sider any system of taxation a blessing, I have shown you by the history of the old governments of this world where the mistake must lead. THE DYING FOX. ESSAY NO. VI. Republication ibom th Madison ux, April 8, 1842. . All the world agress from JEsop down, lha fable is admirable vehicle for conveying sentiment and truth. We will not dispute the matter at large with Rosseau. whether it be not ridiculous to make birds and beasts talk; but our own opin ion is, (hat, as reported by JEsop, La Fontaine, and Gay, they do often talk very admirably; far better, we think, (speaking with all possible deference and reference,) than more modern re porters are able, at all times, to make intellectual bipeds. But much cf this doubtless depends on the reporter. Among Mr. Clay's posthumous, or at least mor tuary resolutions, is one on the subject of the mileage of members of Congress, which is ex pressed iu the following grave, and solemn and patriotic language: 'Resolved, therefore, that Congress is called) upon to retrench its expenses by abridging the duration of the long sessions; by regulating and more clearly defining the mileage of tiie members; and by diminishing its contingent expenses, and especially those incurred for stationary, for print ing, for the employment of clerks for committees, and for folding printed matter to be transmitted through the mails, " &.C., &C. In reading this resolution, we were reminded of a certain account for mileage, rendered by s mem ber of the House of Representatives some eighteen or twenty years ago, and allowed and paid by Mr. Ctay, at that time speaker of the House; and this recollection was accompanied by a revival in our memory, of the fable of the Dying Fox. If we remember, the substance of the fable is as follows : A fox in life's extreme decay, Weak, sick, and faint, expiring lay; All appetite had left his maw, And age disarmed his mumbling jaw. IJis numerous race around him stand, To learn their dying sire's command; He raised his head with whining moan. And thus was heard the feeble tone: "Ah! son, from evil ways depart, My crimes lie havy on my heart. See, see, the murdered geese appear! Why are those bleeding turkeys here? Why all around this cackling train, Who haunt my ears for chicken slain? Oh gluttons!" says the drooping sire, " Restrain inordinate desire; So live in credit and esteem, And the good name you lost redeem." "The counsel's good," a fox replies, "Could we perform what you advise; But if a hen rcost be decreased. We shall be thought to share the feast; The change will never be believed, A lost good name is ne'er retrieved." "Nay, then," replies the feeble fox "But hark! I hear a hen that clucks G j! but be moderate in your food; A chicken, too, might do me good." So much for the fable. And now we present an account, from official documents, of the mi lea ire allowed to John Scott, member of Congress from Missouri. Our readers will note the elate. Mr. Scott, as is well known, in February, 1825, gave the vote of Missouri for Mr. Adams, and Mr. Adams being elected, Mr. Clay became Secretary of State., We impute no motives but here are the facts. Let it be remembered that all payments are made on the Sptakcr's warrant: 2d Sess. 17th Con. P. P. BARBOITR. Snpakpr John Scott, of Missouri, Mileage from St. Genevieve, 1100 miles at SO cents, $SS0 92 days attendance 736 $1616 1st Sess. ISth Con. - 1 H. CLAY, Speaker, 1824. John Scott, of Missouri, Mileage from St. Genevieve, 1100 miles at 80 cents, $880 179 days in attendance 1432 2312 Add 500 miles at 80 cents 400 500 miles short twice in trav eling in coming here by water, 1000 miles at 40 c. 400 600 miles short seven times in returning by water 3C00 1400 $4512 It will be seen by this that Mr. Scott was not only then for the first time allowed for travel by the river route, but that Mr. Clay kindly corrected the crrois of bis predecessors and advanced the small item of TWENTY TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EXTRAS IN ARREAR! . In connection with this document we see tho great piopriety, and congruity, and consistency of Mr. Clay's resolution. How charmingly it read as an admonition from the dying to the living! "Ah! sons, from wicked ways depart, . My crimes lie heavy on my heart." And yet, the moribund ii not entirely free from all regard of the vaiu enjoyments of this transitory life. He has some smack yet, some relish for the perishable goods of this mortal state. His heart fails him Khen he essays to advise absolute absti nence from the pleasures of power and place. He yields to the importunity of others, and consent to one more effort for the spoils. This is mainly to gratify the honest desires of others; yet why should self be always forgotten? "Oh, hark! I hear a hen that clucks! Go, but be moderate in your food; A chicken, too, miaht do me good.'" fJCj-A Mr. Collins, addressing a political meet ing in Maryland, was accosted by a drunken man thus: "Collins, you are a demagogue." The speaker pretended not to hear him. "Collins; I say, Collins, you area demagogue." Collins stop ped and looked the person in the face a moment, and said, mildly, "If you had a straw mat wrapped around you, you would be a dimijohn." The fel low staggered off. QJ-In New York the following sign was display ed: "Catchem &. Cheatem." The friends of the firm remonstrated at its significancy, aud proposed adding the Chrrstian names, Isaac and Upton, which was agreed to. The (artist, not being able to crowd the whole upon the board, abbre viated the names to read as follows : "I. Catchem fcU. Cheatemi"