« ForrigeFortsett »
few per cent. is the only difference between them. As to principle, they agree precisely— Domestic industry must be protected. But where the “base and bitter faction” want 90 per cent., the disinte. rested patriots who come forward so nobly to “preserve the Union,” think that the manufac. Where one contends for 40, the other is satisfied with 30.
no discordancy in that.
turer can get on with 70 or 80.
they will forgive the bizarre compliment, and that as good, faithful and loyal subjects of him, who, as the Globe tells, us, was “born to com: mand,” they will yield to its entreaties, and not “suffel opinions entertained without anticipa. ting the present crisis in our affairs to remain unmodified by the pressing exigencies of that crisis.” Stripping this of its verbiage, and expanding the ideas, let us see what it amounts to. Certain friends of the administration, who have heretofore sanctioned the views of this “base and bitter faction,” by their opinions relative to the tariff, are called upon to change their opinions. Now what were their opinions? Unquestionably they were, that the duties imposed by the tariff of 1828, were necessary for the protection of the domestic manufactory, and that without that protection the domestic manufac ory could not withstand the foreign competition. ... Upon these grounds, and upon these alone, did Mr. Van Buren, and those who voted for the tariff of 1828, vote for it and defend it down to the present time. They are now called upon to change their opinions, and to confess and show by their votes, that they do not think that the domestic manufactory requires a protecting duty to the amount they
One is for 20 per cent., and the other for 15–Phave all along been contending that they did
and this is undeniably the whole and sole difference between the “base and bitter faction,” and the Van Buren tariff men; and in this very article under consideration, it is indirectly ac knowledged by calling on “those friends of the administration,” who, from “local irterests, or party views,” have hitherto sanctioned “those fell and ultra pretensions which threaten to become the turning point between peace and dis
cord,” no longer to do so.
We wish our readers to reflect a little upon What are they? They are neither more nor less than the tariff of 1828, and the universally acknowledged Mr. Van Buren voted for the tariff of 1828, which i.e and his northern friends have ever since defended upon policy as well as upon principle, thus completely identifying themselves with the “base and bitter faction,” whom they are now calling upon to desert in the “present crisis in our affairs.” That is, lower the tariff a little, to get Mr. Van Buren madec Wie President, for as the editor of the Courier tells us, “without tha', we can never make him President.” We think that those gentlemen, “whether among the constituent or representative body,” who have been so unceremoniously charged with having “suffered themselves for local interests and party views,” to sanction these “few ultra pretentions,” must be little gratified at being thus identified with this “base and bitter faction.” And they are “friends of the administration,” too! This surely out-Herods Herod! What! the “friends of the administration!” (the friends of Van Buren of contse,) sanctioning the ultra
“those few and ultra pretensions.”
principles of the protective system.
pretensions of “base and bitter faction.”
do not exctly, know who are the gentlemen alluded to by the Globe, either in the con
require. In other words, to confess the falsehood of all they have been saying relative to the tariff since the passing of the act of 1828. And this they are to do, not beacause they really are convinced that their opinion was wrong, but they must change their opinion, or confess they have changed it, on account of the "pressing exigencies of the crisis.” Now, what are the “pressing exigencies of the crisis,” which is to cause this change in their opinion as to what amount of duty is requisite to enable the domestic manufacturer to withstand the foreign manufacturer? It is nothing more nor less, than
mit to the tariff of 1828, or to any tanff approxinating closely to it. It resolves itself then, simply to this, that so long as the south will patiently submit to a certain rate of duty, so long will it be the opinion of these tariff “friends of the administration,” that the rate of duty is indispensably requisite for the protection of domestic industry; but when the south comes to a determination no longer to submit, then, and in that case, these friends of the administration will “modify their opinions,” and agree with he south, that it does not require that amount of duty. So much for the honesty and morality of the Globe and the tariff friends of the administration! If it is not a very flattering piclure of the latter, they must not be very much dissatisfied with it, since we have merely filled up the outline sketched by a devoted friend and servant:
MR. WAN BUREN AND THE TARIFF, In looking over the editorial matter in out exchange papers, we are often struck with the oscordant opinions expressed by the organs of Mr. Van Buren, as to his feelings with regard
stituent or representative body, but we hope
that the south are determined no longer to sub
to the tariff. In one place, we find, is strenu. ously inculcated, that the election of Mr. Van Buren is alike important and indispensable, for the favorable adjustment of the tariff, as the election of General Jackson This, of course, is for the south, and is predicated upon the well known inclination of Mr. Van Buren and his friends to such an adjustment as will satisfy the south. In another place we find Jackson, Van Buren & Co., defended from the attack of the tariff party, who charge them with a wish to diminish the protection afforded, and thus wea. ken the protective principle. This is for the meridian of Pennsylvania and New York. * Then comes the Baltimore Republican, and tells us that the bill of the committee, as passed, meets the approbation of the President; and the next paper we pick up is the Pough keepsie Journal, complaining, harshly, of the tarisite: for calling it a Jackson Tariff Bill ! And so' we go—blowing hot or blowing cold— tariffman here, and anti-tariff there, just as the writer happens to be north or south ! But the Albany Argus, the organ of the Regency, feeling uneasy at the conflicting opinions upon this subject, has kindly come forward, and made as plain as daylight what was previously enveloped in obscurity . We have now his two columns before us, (which we shall attend to before long,) and we find that he has arrived at the singular conclusion that all parties have been in error, and that, in fact, Mr. Van Buren is neither a partisan for or against the tariff In other words, he is nei. ther in favor of, nor opposed to it ! ! This is, surely, the sublime of mystification '. And if it prove satisfactory to the good people of New York, they must excuse us from expressing our opinion, that their noble school-fund, that does so much honor to their State, has been sadly misapplied *--—THE NEw TARIFF (BiLL. The Courier and Enquirer, and the Evening Post, echo the notes of the Globe. No amend. ment No amendment is the cry of each. And every exertion is making, by the threats and intimidation on one side, and humble entreaty on the other, to prevent any attempt being made in the Senate to amend the bill. We feel very little anxiety upon the subject, from a full conviction that, whatever amendments may be made, they will be such as will render the bill very little more satisfactory to the south than it is at present. We are, however, willing to see attempts made to amend it, as it will have this good effect, to open more widely the eyes of the south to the delusion under which they have hitherto labored, as to the wishes of Mr. Van Buren and his friends to modify the tariff, in accordance with the views of the south. The people will very naturally be inclined to ask, what is the reason that the Globe, Courier and Enquirer, and the Evening Post, all warm partisans of Mr. Van Buren, are so sensitive upon the subject of attempts at amend
ing the bill The two latter assign no reason. They had not the hardihood (although one would suppose that the Courier and Enquirer was shameless enough to advance any tiling to take the ground occupied by the Globe, and contend that Congress “had not time to amend the bill 1**
The real cause of their sensitivenes, on the subject, and which induces them alternately to threaten and entreat the Senate, is, that any attempt at amendment will compromit, either Mr. Van Buren in the south, or his tariff friends in the north. Should any amendment be made, rendering the bill more agreeable to the south, they will be in a worse dilemma than that from which they are now congratulating themselves that they have just escaped. To vote for it, then, would ill comport with their professions of devotion to the tariff, which they have to make to sustain themselves at home 5 and to vote against them, would be little consonant with their reiterated professions of conciliation made to the south.
All parties to the south, now begin to see that these professions were faithless and deceptious. The course pursued by the Union party of South Carolina, and the declaration made in Congress, by gentlemen of the south, a few days prior to the passage of the bill, made this apparent, and no doubt have had a powerful effect in procuring its passage.
The following extracts from the Courier and Enquirer and Evening Post, will fully confirm all he have said :
FROM THE N. Y. court IER AND EN QUIRElt.
“The eyes of the whole nation are now turned to the Senate. After the overwhelming majority in the House, is it to be supposed for a moment that the Senate will dare to reject this bill? During the present and the last session, the hitherto dignified Senate of the United States has sunk immeasurably in the estimation of the people. Its factious and unprincipled course in relation to the best interests of the country, and the reputation of high-minded and honorable men has destroyed every confidence the people formerly reposed in its virtue and its patriotism. We have not the least doubt but an attempt will be made in the Senate to defeat the bill by amendments or postponement. Will the people of this country be trifled with? will the great majority of the House of Representatives admit for one moment the senate to impair the efficiency of their “Reform Bill” by any amendment impairing its usefulness? The people insist upon the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill. To a future congress ought to be left further improvements.”
other branch of the national legislature. Let us see if the upper House dare reject this Reform Bill, on which the people of the United States have set their hearts—on which their very exis tence as one and a united people depends. Let us see if Mr. Clay and his partisans dare set themselves in opposition to that measure of conciliation which has for its advocates the moderate and patriotic of all parties. Let us see if Mr. Calhoun dare cast away this peace-offering, on the pretence that it does not extend a balm to all the wounds of the south. Let us see if the two “rule or ruin” leaders of opposite factions—the two heads of political antipodes— will venture, in pursuance of those measures which have hitherto proceeded from their unholy alliance, to act together to defeat this bill, ostensibly from opposite motives, but in reality with a single view to the Presidential question. The eyes of the nation are upon them; let them beware how and with what motive they act. “And shall it be mentioned in censure of Mr. Van Buren that his friends have come forward almost to a man—those in favor of the protective system and those against it—to preserve the Union? Had Mr. Van Buren been in this
framed on the principles of the constitution, strictly rendered, and with a single view to the revenue wants of the Government.” No amendments now! A future Congressis to remedy all grievances. The tariff is to be brought down to the revenue wants of the Government! And all these fine promises made to the south by the warmest partisans of Mr. Van Buren, who openly claim the merit of hating passed the present bill by desetting those whom they have hitherto acted with. Now, if any dependence is to be placed in all these fine promises, why not “attempt,” at least, to carry some of them into execution now. You boast that you can “control the tariff,” and we believe you can. You can certainly amendabill, passed by so large a majority. At least, you need not show such sensitiveness on the possibility of a attempt being made to amend itNone but a sinister motive can produce such a course, and what that sinister motive is, we think that our remarks have made too plain to be doubted.
country at this interesting crisis, his direct, personal influence, we doubt not, would have been most earnestly exerted to ensure success to this measure of conciliation; and if his friends and political supporters, acting in his spirit, and in pursuance of his own views, have been the means of carrying the great Union Bill so trium. phantly through the House, shall this be set down as another of “the wily magician’s” sins? The country, or we miss the mark, will give the matter a different name. “The bill is far from being such a bill as we could wish to have passed; it has many imper fections; but under the circumstances, we consider it a great triumph. We consider it the precursor of a course of measures which will finally end in the establishment of a tariff law framed on the principles of the Constitution, strictly rendered, and with a single view to the revenue wants of the government. In the mean while, the positive benefits secured by the present plan of reduction are very considerable, and it should be borne in mind that another session of Congress will take place before it goes into operation, if concurred in by the Senate, and it may undergo very important amendments next year. Let us hope for the best.” From the above extracts our readers cannot fail to discover the strongest evidences of a des. perate attempt to continue the deception. The Courier and Enquirer tell us that “the people insist upon the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill.” This is in perfect accordance with the customary veracity of that press. It ives us positively the opinion of the people relative to a bill, of the particulars of which not one in ten thousand are acquainted with. But “to a future congress ought to be left further improvements.” We consider it, says the Evening Post, as the “precursor of a course of measures which will finally end in the establishment of a tariff law
Those who profess to know the President's intention, assert that he will veto the bill for rechartering the qank of the U. States. If we were to form an opinion, from his oft repeated assertions, we would expect him to do so; but, with the certainty of a loss of power before him, we think that the kitchen cabinet, who are hostile to the bank, will hesitate long before they advise him to take so dangerous a step. As to General Jackson himself, he is deeply committed, and his flatterers have so long kept him in the dark, that we doubt whether they dare sudnenly to throw upon him the glate of truth relative to public opinion, and it is questionable bow far it would act on his irascible temper if done. They have taught him to be: lieve that Pennsylvania “dotes" upon him, and that he may with impunity practise upon her loyalty—they have taught him to believe that his “popularity can stand any thing,” and most severely has he testedit. Under all these circumstances, it is not within the power of any one to say what he will do.
That his dilemma is well understood appears from the following article which we extract from the Lancaster (S.C.) Beacon:
“ The Great Carolinian at Washington” seems to be in a sad dilemma. He is between sylla and Charybdis, both of which he cannot possibly avoid. The bank bill, under consideration in the House of Representatives, will be passed by a majority of twelve, or more, and then the unwilling duty of sanctioning or rejecting it devolves on the President. He would blow up the cabinet again sooner than pass sentence upon this bill. If he rejects it, then farewell, a long farewell, to that influence which now-a-days supervises and controls the most important events. He dare not, then, turn his back upon the bank party. If he sanctions the bill, then adieu to the support o the democratic, southern, constitutional party that elected him before. He dare not turn his
back upon them. What is he to do? He has been pledged by his friends to both courses. Mr. Ritchie says he will veto the bill. Noah swears that he will not—and as Mr. Ritchie said that Martin Van Buren would not be a candidate for the Vice Presidency, and that if he was, he would “certainly not support him,” both of which pledges developments have ut: terly falsified, we are of opinion that Mordecai Manassah Noah's givings out form the true in. dex of his master's views upon the subject. The President may be expected, we think to sanction the bill. The Clay party have played their cards most dexterously, if they do not win the game. -* THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER AND THE GLOBE.
The former of these journals, in an eloquently .vritten article on the very extraordinary appeal made by the latter to the friends of Gen. Jackson to come forward to the polls and vote for Mr. Van Buren, as the only means of preserving the “moral power” of the President, and “saving him from dishonor,” has avowid its belief that the appeal was made with the knowledge and consent of the President. May not the Intelligencer have committed some little injustice, in attributing to Gen. Jackson conduct so grossly inconsistent with his previous declar. ations, and with those principles universally supposed to be entertained by him, when he received the support of the republican party Would it not have been more charitable to sup. pose that it was a movement of the Van Buren kitchen cabinet, who seeing their real chief in no little danger, were willing to compromit the pride of character, and consistency of principle of their nominal one, and by a desperate effort relieve the former from the danges which sur. rounded him? They had received so many convincing proofs of his acquiescence in their views, that they could hardly doubt forgiveness for their fault. We are the more inclined to take this view of it, when we reflect on the adulatory strain contained in the article alluded to. Parasites of power namrallty bestow the most ser. vile adulation, at the instant when they are committing acts most calculated to throw disgrace on those they adulate. Many persons may be inclined to suppose that . gross adulation would not be very acceptable at the White House, but as we have not heard of any solid mark of disapprobation behg expressed, and neither the editor of the Globe, nor any of its wire-workers, are ruled out of the republican party on account of it, we may remain satisfied that the offenders have been graciously pardoned.
CHANCELLOR KENT .
No character or talent is too pure or exalted to escape the abuse of the New York Courier and Enquirer. The higher an individual stands in the es ination of his fellow-citizens, the more pleasure it seems to give that mendacious jourmal to bring him into disrepute with his fellowcitizens. Every little circumstance that can,
by possibility, be distorted to the discredit of the individual is immediately seized upon with avidity, and particularly, if "that individual is not supposed to be very friendly to Mr. Van Buren. That seems to be the touchstone of the Courier, for the pure gold of political honesty. We are led to these remarks, from the attack made by the Courier of the 30th ult., on Chancellor Kent. After acknowledging, for even the Courier was not shameless enough to refuse the acknowledgement, that none were more honored, beloved, and respected, it openly charges him with want of “consistency” and “honor,” and of being before the public in the “quadruple attitude of opposing and supporting a high tariff, and of supporting and opposing anti-masonry.” That the Courier and Enquirer should prate about “consistency,” and “honor,” is really astonishing. One would naturally have thought that there would have been some little sensitiveness in using those terms. The charge against the Chancellor of wanting “consistency” and “honor,” is founded on the circumstances of his being the chairman of the union tariff meeting in New York, and subsequently suffering his name to be put at the head of the Utica ticket. The former circumstance having so far identified him with the new tariff bill, that he cannot, without forfeiture of “consistency” and “honor,” allow his name to be upon a ticket, the persons composing which may probably vote for Mr. Clay. Upon this flimsy pretext does the Courier and Enquirer assail Chancellor Kent!! How far the union meeting may have operated in producing the new tariff bill, it is impossible to say. We are, however, strongly inclined to believe that its effects, if any, were rather the reverse of those intended by it. The meeting was evidently a failure. Gotten up as it was, partly from electioneering considerations, and in some, from patriotic motives, it might have produced some effect, could it have been considered as expressing the views of any considerable portion of the citizens of New York. But we all know that the resolutions were passed, if passed at all, amidst confusion, and that the proceedings were totally interrupted by a host of ultra tariffites, assembed, no doubt, expressly for the occasion. Resolutions, indefinite as they were, and passed in such manner, were not much calculated to produce an effect upon the Congress of the United States. The charge against the Chancellor is founded upon some imaginary inconsistency between the new bill, (which he is also imagined to have had some effect in producing by his presence at the meeting,) and the political principles of Henry Clay. . Now the practical effect of the different principles thus attempted to be brought into contra-position one to the other, is exemplified in the two bills—Mr. Clay's bill, and the new bill which has just passed the House of Representatives. Few persons who have exanined the bills can perceive any very great
advantage which the bill of the Committee has
over that of Mr. Clay. Some persons think the latter preferable, and that a bill drafted upon the principles of his resolution, would impose a smaller burthen upon the south. But it is now the policy of the Globe, Courier and Enquirer, et sic genus omne, to sing ho sannas to the new bill! The Jackson Van Buren bill! And to denounce every one that does not come up to, or who dares to go beyond, their mark of tariff orthodoxy. The new bil for ever! And whatever it might be, was to be the standard. It was to be the Jackson Van Buren bill, whatever might be its provisions.
Whether it was Mr. McLane’s bill, or the bill of the committee, as originally reported, or
'the bill as it finally passed, with alterations; it
was the same bill, the very bill on which, as the Van Buren organ tells us, the “people had
set their hearts.” And this nonsense, false
The above is from the Executive organ of
yesterday morning, and contains a gross misrepresentation of the tendency of some of our late remarks, as well as a strong confirmation of the truth of them. No one could have misunderstood them, except him who should read them with a predetermination to misunderstand. we did not wish to make the impression that the Globe was unwilling that an attempt should be made to amend the tariff bill, lest it should be made “more favorable to the south.” Far from it. We believe that the Globe cares in reality very little about the provisions of the bill, whether they be more or less favorable to the south. The sole object which the Globe has in view, is its bearing on the Presidential election, and more particularly upon Mr. Van Buren's popularity, necessarily so intimately connected with that of his friends in New York and Pennsylvania, who, in the House of Representatives, have been screwed up —we use the term advisedly—to vote for the bill, although inconsistent with their former opinions of the operation of the bill of 1828. The impression which we wished to make
is just the impression which will be made up. on any reflecting reader of the article before us. It would almost seem as if it had been written to confirm our views of the subject. It dreads that the bill, if “changed at all, will be changed for the worse,” and when it comes to the House “it will undergo such modifications as will entirely defeat its object." The Globe forsees the dilemma in which the friends of Mr. Van Buren, in both Houses, will be placed in attempting to “amend the bill,” and he is perfectly willing that all chance of affording greater satisfaction to the south shall be taken away, rather than that Mr. W. B. should be compromitted, either with the north or with the south, by his friends in the House of Representatives being called upon to vote upon any proposition to amend, let that proposition be what it may—favorable or unfavorable to the “objects of the bill.”
Let us suppose an amendment made, as the Globe supposes it would be made, unfavors: ble to the south, why should he dread that it would pass, so amended, the House of Representatives when returned to them. Is this the
wishes of the majority for “compromise" and “conciliation.” Is it not a full confession on the part of the Globe, that although the bill passed by a majority of more than sixty, he has such distrust of the kind feelings of the House towards the south, such a distrust of their real wish to conciliate, that he declines giving them another opportunity of showing the extent of their wishes. And the reason assigned by the Globe, is too inadequate to induce any one to believe for a moment that it is the real reason. “ the absence of so many friends of peace and moderation!” And are none absent but the “friends of peace and moderation” And how comes so many of the “ friends of peace and moderation” to be absent at this, what the Globe terms, “present crisis of affairs”
is a majority of 60 to be changed by the ab" sence of a few “friends of peace and modem. tion?” The confession of this distrust, on the part of the Globe, must satisfy the people of the south that they also have no little cause to distrust. *
If a bill, amended unfavorable to the south, should be returned to the House of Representatives, the friends of Mr. Van Buren must either vote for or against it. This is what the Globe dreads. If they vot against the amendment, Mr. Van Buren suffers to the north. If they vote in favor of it, what will the south think of the sincerity of their professions of a willingness to conciliate and compromise? We perceive by the proceedings in the Se: nate, that the “friends of the administration,” who were so pathetically and earnestly besought not to “ attempt to amend the bill,” hove not responded favorably to the call in the Globe. Mr. Dickerson, from the Committee on Manufactures, Las reported the bill “with amendments.” What effect the amendments will have, time will show.
view which he wishes the south to take of the