Evansville Journal, Volume 10, Number 30, Evansville, Vanderburgh County, 5 July 1844 — Page 1

- lfl

V n J BY W. II. QIIANDLER. THE UNION OF THE WHIGS FOR TIIE SAKE OF THE UNION. WATER STREET, FOUR DOORS FROM JtfAIN. VOL. X. EVANSVILLE, INDIANA, FUIDA If, JULY 5, IS 14. NO. 30.

mm

E Y A K

T f. "J t' i r a 1 4 4

r , THE EVANSV1LLE JOCRXAL. " PUBLISHED EVERT THCRSDAT. i e TERMS: : ' ' -'- .$1 50, la A2caitce $3 00, at the end of the year. Advertisements inserted at . 1 OO.jfor Arce insertions o"12 f: line, and 25 cent or eadi " ' ' - continuance. " I- -

i t Front iAc IVew York American Ttjne "0, tho young Lockinvar has conie - out of the west." ' -.: Ohlour brave Harry Clay lias come out of the WeSt - : n : -Cf all our srood statesmen, his name is the best, : t ' Strong and firm as the tree of his lovely Ash land, " In hisglory unsullied, we see him now stand ; IVith his honor as bright as the sun m noon- ... day,. r ' - - "Who, who can compare with our brave Har ryClay? , v .,.- . .-,.:.r ... He stooped not for office he sought not for . s spoil,- . . . . - , . To his country he gave all his time and his toil Yet when, to that country, he looked for his part, . Cold, cold fell the thought of neglect on his : ' heart; For a traitor,who turned from his own friends away, Was found in the place of our brave Harry Clay 14 ' : '' " ' "Yet firmly he gazed on his triumphing foes, Wrho vainly his uptending path would oppose ; Undaunted unflinching unmoved as the .. ;rock, - . . . ; . Which bears of the ocean's dark billows the shock, . -.- i s. So bore he the brunt of the tempest and fray, And came out all scrathless -our brave Harry Clay. J. .. . . So boldly he stood in the Senator's Hall, Amid locos,Van Burenites,turn-coatsand all, ' That the people beheld, with delight and with awe,., ? The man who, their hearts, by enchantment could draw, And the Tyler men whispered "we'd bet- - teraway, " - 'And face right about for this bold Harry Clay." , ; , :.. Then rose from the nation a gladsome huzza, Beyond the Green Mountains it echoed afarThen floated along to the warm Southern vales, Where breathes the soft zephyr in odorous - gales And a voice of sweet music was heard on ; its way, , "No chief will we have but our brave Harry Clay." "Hurra for our Hero the faithful the tried And the son of New Jeisey, who stands by his side With our great Harry Clay and our good , Theodore, Oh! say gallant Whigs what could we have more i 7 Yet a still voice of warning is heard in the lay, , "Wo, wo to the Whigs if they loose Harry ' Clay!" Pale, pale grew the Locos with sorrow and tear, When first smote the sound of this joy on their earOne meteor waxed dim and the other went ' out, When they listed the words of the song and the shout " ' As the stars, when the sun comes to view, sink away, So fell they before Frelinghuysen and Clay. Then was racing and chasing for Tyler and V an - - : The Locos they rode and the Loco3 they -. . ran , " But all was in yain and they gave in des pair. ; ' Their votes and their voices to nothing and air; , , .. . , ...-: Stout hearts they must have who would hope for the day, When they hear the Whigs shout "Frelinghuysen and Clay." , . . . REVIEW OF MR. OWEN'S SPEECH ON THE TARIFF, BY JOHN W. PAYNE. Hon. Robert Dale Owex, Deak Sir: I have received by due course of mail, your speech, delivered in the House of Representatives, April 22d, 1844, "touching the claims and merits of a protective tariff system." I have endeavored to give the speech ad impartial reading. To do tin's, I founi it necessary to lay aside, as far as possible, the opinions of the Fathers of the Revolution, and most of our distinguish ed Statesmen of the present day. And yet, notwithstanding the ingenuity of yourspeech and the tone of confidence you assume, I still find myself compelled; in view of what I believe to be the best interest of this coun try, to adhere to "the policy of protection, and am constrained to reject your theory of free trade, as visionary, impracticable and un wise. ; " ; ' . .' ; lam glad to see you come out so boldly against the merits . of a prolectice tariff.

You are now fully committed, and I hope

until you"become a convert of the policy cf protection not to see you retreating from that position, and sheltering yourself behind some

general proposition such as that great truth, which you dare not deny, that , "protection is the chief duty which a free government owes toils citizens." It-is now avowedly your sentiment that that duty does not extend to a tariff. '' . '. The subject is one of vast importance to the people of this country. , In my opinion, it involves the question of our Independence. By tho adoption of yoar policy, we, Bhall make ourselves the tributaries of foreign powers, and particularly of Great Bri tain." By adhering to the protective system, we'maintain our independence, sustain our industry and promote the general prosperity of the country, Far be it from me to assaill your motives or impeach your , patriotism. - And yet your doctrines are so well suited to Ihe interest and policy of Great Britain, and so hostile to ours, that it taxes my credulity to believe you sincere. I hope you are; and I hope you will one day see your error, and acknowledge it. lean, see some reason why the exporter of raw cotton to British looms, should be j opposed to a protective tariff. ' Because, cotton, not being a product of Great Britain, and moreover indispensible to her manufactures, is let in at a low duty, about seven and a half per cent. It is natural, that he should desire to exchange his cotton for British good3,and to bring those goods to tho United States, and sell them with as little competition as possible. It would be to his interest, and that of the British merchant to destroy every loom in the United States. Their interests are identical, and it might be expect ed that their opinions would harmonize, and their feelings sympathize But that they should be able to transfer their opinions and' feelings to any portion of the great . body of consurners,South, West, North or East,whose interests are precisely opposite is to me a mat ter of wonder. , , , 1 r . You commence your speech by pronoun cing the protective system, "a singular system, and founded on a singular idea; the idea that taxes so they be indirect and paid at a custom house, are not a necessary evil, but a positive good, to the people taxed." Tariff , duties, laws of every kind, and even government itself may be considered "necessary eils'because, if it were not, for the evils that are in the world, neither tariff duties, laws, or government, would be required. No advocate of protection has ever denied this; and yet are you so bad a reasoner as to argue from hence, that no positive good, can result from the establishment of a good government (or is that a solicism ? Can there be no such thing as a good government?) or from the enactment of wise and wholesome laws (or is that a solicism? Can there be no wise and wholesome laws?) And if you answer these questions in the affirmative, how are you to escape the conclusion, that a wise tariff may produce positive good to the country, and thus find yourself, standing upright, cheek by jowl, with the friends of protection, founded on that very idea, which you thought so " singular. I will agree with you la part that a tariff such as you advocate, is a rosrrcvE, not a necessary evil, viz: that no good whatever could result from it. , ; . If you will examine yourself closely, I think you may find, that you are4by no means destitute of singular ideas yourself, and that your notion of protection, is very singular. Money in a man's pocket, may be protect ed; but this thing of protecting money ixto a man's pocket, as you quaintly express it, is to you unintelligible, you can scarcely see any difference between that and robbery. And yet in the second paragraph of your speech, you endorse, all that we counted for, that protection is due, "not to life and limb and liberty alone, but to property and the just means of acquiring property, labor." Now it appears to me, you might have saved yourself the trouble of hunting out a whimsical mode, ot expressing the same idea, and then invoking tho judgment of our grammar a gainst it. You step aside, to give Mr. Clay a dig under the ribs the man, whom you style, and style justly, the Father of the American System. You declare that almost the only protection, which the farmers of this country require, is a pre-emption law. And this law Mr. Clay opposed. Had justice to Mr. Clay been your object, you would have stated that his opposition to these laws, was produced, by the flagrant abuses to which they were exposed, and which were practised under them. Mr. Brown, Commissioner of the

General Land office, exposed these frauds

and abuses, in his report to Congress, docu ment 211 of the Session of 183G. He there states that - combinations of speculators, by threats and violence had secured to them selves-the best sites for towns, the best mill seats, and the - finest farming lands; in the country, and had actually defrauded the gov ernment, out of not les3 than three millions of dollars!! .And this-is all the protection the farmers need!! To seize the public lands, and by violence defraud the government out of millions. That kind of protecr tion, does look tc me a good deal like . robbery.. If the property belonged to anandividualwe would all say, robbery, instead of protection. .But as it is Uncle Sam's, perhaps that 'r may make some , difference. In those days, when his leg Treasurers, were stealing bis money and running away perhaps the farmers may 'have thought that v they might steal his land. My opinion, hovvever, is, that in placing the farmers, side by side, with the Leg Treasurers you do them great injustice. You estimate their morals too low. They have as littie relish for land, stealing, as they have for .stealing of any other kind. . , ,; . - And now, sir, let us como to the great question at issue, between us. Yo u say, and you say truly, that our doctrine is -"that a tariff-tax, does , not Taise to the consumer the price of the article taxed," you maintain that a tariff tx, does raise to the consumer the price of the article taxed." ; This is your doctrine; and to applly toyow, as we may with truth," the exprssion you apply to us, it is your"stereotyped doctrine" "the great tortoise on which the world of your theory'reposes.n Here then is a simple issue formed betveen us, you assert that the tariff duties, on the protected articles,does raise the price; we maintain that they do not. ' I And ought not ' a simple appeal to facts set this question at rest. We once had no tariff duties. We then contented ourselves with raising raw materials, and sent them across the Atlantic to be exchanged for manufactured commodities, and we ! werd impoverished by exorbitant prices. The work shops ofGreEt Britain, were sucking from us our life blood. Out government stepped to our rescue and influenced by the eloquence of our Clays and the common sense of the country, tariff duties were imposed, with a view to encourage and sustain domestic manufactures, and the result is our countrymen, went to work; the enterprize and. genius of our citizens was encouraged, and we now buy for ten cents, per yard, what before cost us 62, or 75 cents per yard, and other things in like proportion. "And our ability to purchase, instead of diminishing, has been increasing all the while. You admit these facts, but attempt to account for them, by pointing to the astonishing improvements, which have ben made in machinery. Suppose we admit that these improvements have had a happy effect, in multiplying the production of manufactured articles, and reducing the price. Are you right sure, that these improvements would have been made and these fiappy results experienced, had no security, no protection, no encouragement, been offered to our countrymen. Had your doctrine of anti-protection always prevailed, both in Europe and in this country, the in vention, the genius, the idustry, and enter prize of man, might have continued to slumber to this day; and our wives and daugh ters, have -been still, as" anciently, grinding our corn on a hand-mill, to make our bread. But under the influence of a briahter star; of that benificent protective policy which you so much condemn, the advance in the arts and sciences, in improvements of every kind, although visable to our eyes, is a tax upon our credulity and if that policy is con tinued, there is no calculating what the enterpise and genius of our people, may yet accomplish. You take great pains to prove, what is not in issue between us, and what no one will seriously deny, that ordinarily the consumer of the article taxed pays the duty. This is so, undoubtedly, uuless the seller sells at a sacrifice and sustains a loss. And hence you draw the conclusion, that high duties, invari ably make high prices, and low duties, low prices. It is this conclusion, which we deny, and is the bone of contention between us. If the duty fixes the price then you are right, if it does not, then you are wrong. And does it fix the price? Does the entire cost of the article sold, including all expen ses, freight, insurance, the tariffduty or any other outlay, including, if you must have it a reasonable profit to the seller fix the price? Does not your common sensn teach you better? Does not every man know the

contrary? If the cost, including a certain

profit, to the seller, fixed and regulated the price, our traders must always gain, and could never lose. They all know, every man knows that in buying and selling,it is not the cost of the article,' but the market price, that governs; '" '! ' "'' " " " " At the very threshhold of your argument you set out, with a- false conclusion. Is" it re markable, that- your subsequent 'reasoning should be false and deceptive? ; ' Surely every onewhacan think at all, and has been once to mill, knows, that there are other considerations, besides" the original cost,' that regulate the rriarket price and they are supply and demand, scarcity and abundance. As supplies, ebb and flow, prices ebb and flow.' Every farmer knows. that when crops are good, and a large surplus produced, prices come down; if the crops fail, and no surplus, prices run up. You com plain' of the market you say, it is'a spoilt child, full of whims." And that very com plaint, ought to have suggested to you, your grand error. ' If the cqst of the article sold, and a certain and reasonable profit to the seller, regulated the market, Ihe market would be a decent, well behaved, oenevolent conscientious old matron, full of years, and full of honor, Instead of being, as you assert that insolent, vain child, destitute of all ex perience, and full of caprices. But perhaps you carry youranathemas against the market too far.' There is less caprice, and more method, in her madness, than you seem to thjnk. High prices, denote scarcity, low prices denote what we western people call a glut. "'And these important facts, you leave out of view, and argue the question as though the duty fixed the price. , . . Our true policy, then is to ihcrease supplies at home For by that means, wes re duce prices. If we place cur source of supply at a greater distance, in a foreign coun try; say in great Britain, where our commerce .is restricted , if not prohibited by heavy duties,' it nj certain that our supplies must fluctuate greatly j the gulf of du1 ties that we would have to pass mustbe often times impassable, and the market would be a miserable rickety, whimsical spoilt child sure enough. And who would pay for all these whims? would it not be the consumers? A few fortunate adventurers, would amass great fortunes, but the millions would be trodden down. We have had a full experiment of your policy. We wers once the colonies of Great Britain. Our Fathers were compelled by the policy of the mother country to raise raw materials, and send them across the Atlantic to be exchanged for hats, shoes, coats, iron, and indeed for almost every article which was the product of manufacturing or mechanical skill. This was a free exchange. Surely, circumstances could not have been more auspic ous for testing the value of your doctrines. One would suppose from your argument, that our farmers must have grown rich very rapidly in those days. A rich virgin soil; no restrictive duties imposed by England on their farm produce; no manufacturers,few merchants, no artizans, scarce. ly any mechanics, and what was better than all, no abominable, mis-shapen, miscalled protective tariff, to pauperize the land.Why, sir, they must have been in the very midst of paradise. But let us see how they got along. And on this point I will intro duce a witness from Great Britain, a countryman of yours, a Mr. Joshua Gee, who wrote a book . not quite one hundred years ago, entitled, "The trade and navigation of Great Britaia considered." He testifies that - "New England, and the northern colonies, have not commodities and products enough, to send us in return for purchasing their necessary clothing; but under very great difficulties, and therefore any sort will sell with them. And when they are grown out of fashion, with us. they are new fashioned enougb for them." , . Old clothes, good enough, new fashioned enough for them. And not able to buy enough at that. In one particular, there was a similarity between their condition and that of our first parents in the garden of Eden, before tasting the forbidden fruit they were nearly naked. But, perhaps, you may answer, that it is not your design to break down the manufacturers and mechanics of this country,and with them the farmers for you may rest assured when one falls, all fall. And yet, I put the question, must not such be the necessary effect of your policy ? And in addition to the evidence already offered, may -we not call to our aid your own facts, to prove it. You show that one out of every ten of the

n habitants of England are paupers; that one

half the inhabitants of some of her mostopuent cities have but FIVE CENTS a day to ieep soul and body together; and that there are' instances of men dying in that country, leaving behind them, one, five, ten and even twenty millions of dollars. Capital abun; danf, labor cheap. Is that theslate of things in this country? Is not oursituation precisely the reverse? Here capital" isscarce, and labor scarce, and both .dear. ,: , , Withdraw the "protection "afforded to the labor and capital of this country and cannot the most shallow thinker perceive, that it is at once to hand both over, to the tender meri cies of British capital and British pauper labor. Could -not the British manufacturer sell cheaper, without sustaining a loss, than the American? And would it not .be his policy to do so until he had broken down the American? and got the command of the market. Whilst the short-lived and unequal contest would-be going on," 'the consumers might enjoy a few halcyon' days of cheap goods but the struggle over, 'our Tooble Eagle, deserted by its government," sunk to the feet of the British Lion then look out consumers; you will be in the lion's mouth sure enough. And after you have been crushed and trodden down, you, who, influenced by the cuekoo sound of cheap goods, have abandoned yeur own'. noble Bird, and sought the embraces of the Lion, may exjplaim in the anguish of despair, that Mr. Owen, in his speech on the 22d of April, 1844, told you at least one truth, and that is, that "it is easy to throw dust In some men's eyes, and persuade "shallow thinkers of any absurdity." ' ' " By way of Illustrating my views on this subject more fully, let me suppose that our politicians up to the present day' had been all free trade men: that tip to this tiqe we had no tariff to protect manufactures or any other interst. - That England 'was still sending tis her old clothes, and tattered remnants and selling them to us at high prices say they sold us her old fashienedremnants of calico, at 50 cents per yard. And suppose that we had just made the important discovery, that this state of things was giving wealth to England and nakedness and poverty to us? What would be the first thing thai would suggest itself to a sensible man, in order to remedy the evil? Would it not be to shake off this disreputable dependence on England, and to do this would he not 'ascer tain what it cost to make a yard of calico in England and what would be the probable cost of making a yard here? He makes the en quiry, and he ascertains that the yard is made in England for five cents, for which we are made to pay 40 or 50 ce nts, and that it could be made here for ten pents. The govern ment takes the matter in hand, levies a duty of 100 per cent, on the British calico, and thereby places a barrier between the British and the American mancfacturer, which secures the latter from destruction. All go to work, sheltered by this tariff. . The American consumer, is now enabled to purchase by means of increased competition and of increased supplies, for ten cents, what before cost him fifty. The country rapidly emerges from, povert y and nakedness, to wealth and comfort. But in the midst ofour prosperity.. British emissaries,aided by southern sympathisers, come among us and tell us that our government is oppressing us very much, by means of the tariff duty; that if that were out of the. way, we could buy British calicoes for five cents a yard, and here we are paying ten, an enormous monopoly, a bounty to our citizens, with the whole rigmarole of free trade sophistries. Might not a plain man make a sensible answer to this, and say 'I know we pay ten cents; one half is paid into our treasury for the support of government is paid out in the various departments of the public service; enters the general circulation, and promotes the industry of our citzens The other half goes to England. We know that without the duty England could sell the articles for five cents. Our manufactures cannot sell for less than ten, labor being high in this country and capital scarce. If we take off the duty Eng land will undersell our citizens, drive them from the business break them up. From necessity they must become agriculturalists. This will depress the price of farm produce; and besides, it will give England the con-; trol of our market for her manufactures, and enable her to buy cheap and sell dear. It will bring us back to that ancient state of things, when"she could impose upon us, at exorbitant prices, her old fashioned merchandise, not fit for her market, hut good enough for ours. She would then sell her old calicoes

not worth five cents, for fifty as she once did.' We get a better article new,:fiom bur own citizens, for one-fifth what it cost us then. Our. population, instead of being , depressed and discouraged are active and enterprising. r All branches of labor find encouragement . all are busily and actively employed, , our supplies of every kind are rapidly increasing f in every thing, which is calculated to promole our national character, and give our people comfort and independence." Would that not be a plain and a sensible answer. I do not pretend to say that Great Britain can in any . case ' manufacture 100 percent cheaper than we can, or that it ., would be expedient for as to- lay a, duly, in

all c'ises, as high or even half as high, as, 400 per cent. The friends of protection do not ask that.. All we, contend tor is, , that such duties may be laid da the products of foreign labor, as will compensate the Amercan citizen the advantages which.the foreigners possesses over him, and afford to him fair and adequate protection. - . This "will explain my views of the subject. I dbnot pretend to "go into details. But I would place such duties, on foreign good?, coming into our market, in compelion with similar goods,made in this country, as would enable tliem successfully to compSle vvlth the " foreign j and if the ' "foreigner was illiberal 'towards us, I would be. willing to shutout such commodities altogether, as could "supply to ourselves on fair terms. And I would do this for the bencfi t of the whole country upon the "same prin- " ciple that I would vote to pay out of the public treasury, a premium for killing wolves ttatVere destroying c-ur sheep and cattle." I am obliged to you," sir, for the minute statistics wuh -which you embellish your speech jand espe Tally for the detailed accou n t of the pauperism" of John Bull's dominions. Now, it no doubt is an interesting qiiestiou to John, how he is to dispose of all these paupers. "It is a question, wnich has no doubt occupied your thoughts. Did itnever occur to you, that your theory of free trade," adopted in this country; would enable John io support these paupera, at our expense, on much better terms, than if he were to colo-' nize them on our shores? In reflecting upon this subject, I was struck with the appropriateness of your interesting anecdote, of the chimneysweep, the old hidy, and the goose and two ducks. The benevolent old lady could not bear the idea1 of the goose being dragged through Ihe chimney, but tho't. . a couple of ducks would do just as well. These paupers must be supported, that chim- ; ney must be swept. It is an ugly business for John. It hurts his eyes and turns his stomach. He can't bear the idea of using the goose. What a happy thought. Let us preach free trade to brother Johnathan ; show him that we make cheap goods, and that he ought to quit the business and buy of us. . . That he is too much of a ninny to carry on workshops and manufactures. Satisfy him of that, and instead of a rival, he becomes our customer. We can then make more goods, give employment to our paupers, and ,. brother Johnathan's consumers will pay their wages and us a profit on their labor besides. The Parliament rnd Congress acting in concert, by way of relieving the no-' bility and gentry of England, most benevoeutly decree, that the numerous, class of buyers and consumers, in the United States -shall suffer in their stead. Truly "that is very clearly the case of the ducks." General Jackson did not relish this policy when in his letter to Doct. Coleman be pronounced it a British policy, and declared that if we continued to feed the paupers of Great Britain, we should soon become paupers ourselves. . You understand, that much often depends on the name you give things, and when you cease to make a show of reason you com mence calling names. This , doctrine of protection say you is a British system ! And . it would be better, say you, to" import a world of British linens, broadcloths, and calicoes, than one British system! No doubt John Bull will shake bis sides when he reads that, in the speech of a member of the American Congress. He will say to himself: "That surely, will catch the yankees: I have had several skirmishes with them, and ue7er had much to brag of in the contests. They don't like me, and they hate my systems. Just tell them it is my system and they will reject if, at once. But what do I care" for that. Brother Jonathan may abolish all my systems, if -he chooses, and along with them the very language he specks, and which he inherited " from me. All that wont hurt me, so long as he buys my goods, and affords profitable emConcluded on second page.) . ,: .