ayes 1, noes 11, absent 1; Georgia, noes 5, absent 1; Kentucky, ayes 4, noes 3, absent 2; Tennessee, noes 6; Louisiana, noes 1; Alabama noes 1; Mississippi, noes 1. Total, ayes 8, noes 54, absent 16.

From this time no successful effort was made till the year 1824, when, at the recommendation of the President, a measure was introduced, and after a protracted discussion passed the House by a majority of five-yeas 107, noes 102. The Senate attached amendments with which the House would not concur. These differences were finally settled by a Committee of Conference, and the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 25 to 22.

The vote in the popular branch stood, by States, as follows: Northern States-Maine, yeas 1, nays 6; New Hampshire, yeas 1, nays 5; Massachusetts, yeas 1, nays 11; Rhode Island, yeas 2; Connecticut, yeas 5, nays 1; Vermont, yeas 5; New York, yeas 26, nays 8; Pennsylvania, yeas 24, nays 1; New Jersey, yeas 6; Ohio, yeas 14; Indiana, yeas 2; Illinois, yeas 1. Total, yeas 88, nays 32.

Southern States-Delaware, yeas 1; Maryland, yeas 3, nays 6; Virginia, yeas 1, nays 21; North Carolina, nays 13; South Carolina, nays 9; Georgia, nays 7; Kentucky, yeas 11; Tennessee, yeas 2, nays 7; Louisiana, nays 3; Mississippi, nays 1; Alabama, nays 3; Missouri, yeas 1. Total, yeas 19, nays 70. The votes of the two absentees, Mr. Ingham, of Pa., and Mr. Jenkins, of Ind., with that of the Speaker, Mr. Clay, would have swelled the affirmative to 110; while the one vacancy in the Massachusetts delegation diminished by so much. the vote of the negative. The unprecedented fulness of the vote evidences the great importance to which this subject had grown.

The vote is otherwise classified in Niles' Register as follows:

PROTECTIVE TARIFF.

103

Navigation and fishing States: Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, 23 against, and 3 for a protective tariff.

Manufacturing States: Rhode Island, and Connecticut, 7 for, and 1 against.

Grain growing States: Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, 94 for, and 9 against.

Tobacco growing State: Maryland, 3 for, and 6 against.

Tobacco and cotton growing States: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, 1 for, and 54 against.

Cotton and grain growing State: Tennessee, 2 for, and 7 against.

Sugar and cotton planting State: Louisiana, 3 against.

The editor remarks: "The navigating and fishing States opposed the bill from an apprehension that it would injure commerce; the grain growing States supported it from a belief that its passage would benefit agriculture; and the planting States united with the navigating, against the bill, for the reason that it would be injurious to agriculture; on this ground the two last classes are at issue; but if we deduct the members from the grain growing States, who, we may suppose, were influenced by other considerations than those especially favorable to agriculture, it will appear, that what may be called the agricultural vote on the tariff, was almost two for, to one against it: that is, 95 grain growing against 57 planting."

In the protracted and able debate on the tariff question, Mr. Clay, seconded by a strong array of talent, based his argument in favor of revision, not so much on the emptiness of the treasury and the necessity of raising money to fill it, as upon the distress of the country, and

the necessity of creating a home demand for labor, provisions, and materials, by turning a larger proportion of our national industry into the channel of domestic manufactures.

The considerations for and against a protective tariff are set forth with marked ability in the speeches of Messrs. Clay and Webster; the latter of whom was the then champion of the opponents of a protective system.

In speaking of the depressed condition of the country, Mr. Clay said:

"In casting our eyes around us, the most prominent circumstance which fixes our attention and challenges our deepest regret, is the general distress which pervades the whole country. It is forced upon us by numerous facts of the most incontestable character. It is indicated by the diminished exports of native produce; by the depressed and reduced state of our foreign navigation; by our diminished commerce; by successive unthreshed crops of grain perishing in our barns for want of a market; by the alarming diminution of the circulating medium; by the numerous bankruptcies; by the universal complaint of the want of employment, and the consequent reduction of the wages of labor; by the ravenous pursuit after public situations, not for the sake of their honors and the performance of their public duties, but as a means of private subsistence; by the reluctant resort to the perilous use of paper money; by the intervention of legislation in the delicate relation between debtor and creditor; and above all, by the low and depressed state of the value of almost every description of the whole mass of the property of the nation, which has, on an average, sunk not less than about fifty per centum within a few years. This distress pervades every part of the Union, every class of society; all feel it, though it may be felt at different

VIEWS OF CLAY AND WEBSTER.

105

places, in different degrees. It is like the atmosphere which surrounds us; all must inhale it, and none can escape from it. A few years ago, the planting interest consoled itself with its happy exemptions from the general calamity; but it has now reached this interest also, which experiences, though with less severity, the general suffering. It is most painful to me to attempt to sketch, or to dwell on the gloom of this picture. But I have exaggerated nothing. Perfect fidelity to the original would have authorized me to have thrown on deeper and darker hues."

"On

Mr. Clay substantiated his position by an elaborate array of statistics. To whom Mr. Webster replied, say ing that there was no cause for such general gloom and terrifying representations. In New England it was quite the contrary: That the distress which did prevail origi nated in other causes and demanded other remedies. the general question, allow me to ask," he said, "if the doctrine of prohibition, as a general doctrine, be not preposterous? Suppose all nations to act upon it: they would be prosperous, then, according to the argument, precisely in the proportion in which they abolished intercourse with one another. The best apology for laws of prohibition and laws of monopoly, will be found in that state of society, not only unenlightened, but sluggish, in which they are most generally established. Private industry in these days, required a strong provocative, which government was seeking to administer by these means. Something was wanted to actuate and stimulate men, and the prospects of such profits as would, in our time, excite unbounded competition, would hardly move the sloth of former ages. In some instances, no doubt, these laws produced an effect which, in that period, would not have taken place without them. (Instancing the protection to

the English woollen manufactures in the time of the Henrys and the Edwards.) But our age is wholly of a different character, and its legislation takes another turn. Society is full of excitement; competition comes in place of monopoly; and intelligence and industry ask only for fair play and an open field."

Mr. Webster stated his objections to the bill at length, and closed by saying there were some provisions which he approved; others in which he acquiesced; but the objections which he had instanced utterly precluded him from giving the measure his approval.

Little more than a year of Mr. Monroe's second term had expired before the contest over his successor commenced. Old party divisions having been broken down, the issue was now mainly a personal one. A great number of names were presented, but of these the contest ultimately narrowed down to William H. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury; John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State; Henry Clay, Speaker of the House of Repre sentatives; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; and Andrew Jackson, at that time a private citizen. Each of these candidates had given an ardent support to the Administration of Mr. Madison during the war, and were staunch adherents of the Democratic party.

Mr. Crawford had been a formidable candidate against Mr. Monroe, and a prominent member of his Cabinet; whether he was consequently entitled to it or not, it soon became evident that he was to receive the support of the old democratic politicians. He was considered as possessing great strength at the South, while there was not wanting encouragement at the North. Mr. Van Buren, Senator from New York, gave in his adhesion, and it was thought, with the aid of other men of prominence in the party, he might be able to carry the electoral vote of that