wm 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 

 
 ^'^*'a'^ <>. "•'»^-'»* -.0' 
 
 -^^ 
 
 
 ^' 
 
 <& 
 
 
 .0^ c ° " " * ''^ 
 
 » I < 
 
 ' <f> " o N ■' 
 
 » ( 1 
 
 .^' 
 
 '/■<■ 
 
 <»-_ '*"'*i^ 
 
 <-.V 
 

 
 a V 
 
 
 ' 
 
 .0^ 
 
 o N a 
 
 
 X^^^i^^^^^Xc^';: 
 
 
 
 
 * • * ^N. ^v* 
 
 
 
 7^' 
 
 V .^^"^. ':W 
 
 'iv 
 
 
 J'.* >" "^, \\ 
 
 ' .^' 
 
 0" o°_l'*. 'O 
 
 
 ^0^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 °/?^. 
 
 R'" "^b ^"^ 
 
 Hq 
 
 v<> 
 
 o. 
 
 
 .0' 
 
 
 o^ ^:<4Zi^'^.* .Q> -v.'.'^^^^^i^/ ^K 
 
 S;"-«'' '-'''; ' 
 
 vV-^^ 
 
 * > V 
 
 
 
 '^^ ^^^ '.^ 
 
 -^^ '- 
 
 ^o cS9^ 
 
 » "*-■ ^--V^'*/''-. jr- 
 
 O H O 
 
 ,-^ .<^^ 
 
 >■ 
 
 ,=3] 
 
 \/ 
 
 V^* 
 
 ^o. ^^T»\o^ 
 
 ^♦^ .^^''^. * 
 
 •^ 
 
 .' f^^ 
 
 
 
 o - 
 
 
 '^^' .1'.- ^"^. 
 
 V<^^ 
 
 C^°< 
 
 v^ 
 
 ■« • o 
 
 .0- 
 
 :. -t 
 
 
 
 
 0' .!/,: 
 
 ♦ .-^^ ^. 'A 
 
 ' • o. 
 
 "^-^^ 
 
 
 J ^ ♦■ e D 
 
 ^^. 
 
 ..V 
 
 
 
_. /> fy^i-^^-^^e^ 
 
 j11.'«^3ff \A\ 
 
 OF 
 
 EX-C^of. POMi, 
 
 O ) SERIES OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUND^ 
 
 FD TO HIM AND GOV. JONES, THROUGH 
 THE PRESSES OF MEMPHIS; 
 
 
 T©« ETHER WITH A 
 
 I."]ETTEM 
 
 
 ISCLOSING HIS VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE 
 PUBLIC EXPENDI I'URES. THE PUBLIC DEBT, THE 
 TARIFF, AND BANK OF THE UNITED STATES; 
 WRITTEN IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT BE- 
 TWEEN HIMSELF AND GOV. JONES, ENTERED IN- 
 TO DURING THE PRESENT CANVASS. 
 
 PRINTED AT THE "APPEAL^' OFFICE. 
 
 MKMPIIJ-S: 
 I8i:i 
 

 I' 
 
 'QOV. POLKAS Al^SWERS. 
 
 ColumUa, May 15, 1843. 
 To H. Van Pelt, Esq. Editor of the Appeal : 
 Sir: — At the earliest moment of leisure 
 %vhich I have had, since I received, through 
 ihe Memphis papers, the two series of inter- 
 rogatories propounded to me by a portion of 
 my fellovir citizens of Shelbj county,! have 
 prepared my answers, and herewith trans- 
 mit them to you, that they maybe published 
 ihrough the same papers which conveyed 
 to me the interrogatories, 
 
 I am very respectfully. 
 
 Your ob'dt serv't., 
 
 JAMES K. POLK. 
 
 To Messrs. G. W.] Smith, R. E. Titus, C. 
 Stewart, and others: 
 
 Gentlemen: My attention has been call- 
 ed to the interrogatories — addressed by your- 
 selves and others — to Gov. Jones and myself 
 through the columns of the Memphis Ap- 
 peal — and ( respectfully submit to you and 
 ihrough you to the public my response: 
 
 Your first interrogatory is as Ibllows: 
 
 Ist. Are yoia for or against the first Bank 
 Charter passed at the extra session of the late 
 Congress commonly called Clai/s Bill — which 
 was vetoed by Mr. Tyler? 
 
 I answer that I am "acainst the first Bank 
 Charter passed at the Extra Session of the 
 late Congress, commonly called Clay^s Bill, 
 which was vetoed by Mr. Tyler." In a 
 speech delivered at Pulaski on the SQth of 
 September last, and which was afterwards 
 published in some of the newspapers, I sta- 
 ted the character of the Bank which was 
 proposed to be estabished by that Bill. I beg 
 leave to refer you to the following extract 
 from that speech, to wit: 
 
 •'The time vras, and but a fewr years ago, 
 ■when the avowed bank party in this state was 
 exceedingly small. All the prominent and lea- 
 ding men of the party who were now its advo- 
 cates, including members of Congress, members 
 of the Legislature, and others, were opposed to 
 a National Bank. They supported with great 
 unamity General Jackson's Veto of the Bank 
 bill in 1832. They surported Judge White and 
 this'eame Mr. Tyler for the Bresidency and Vice 
 Presidency in 183B, with their known and pub- 
 licly avowed opinions against an incorporated 
 National Bank of any kind. They had since 
 that time changed their opinions. That, cer- 
 
 tainly they had a right to do; 'o% _ ; .^ ,vi 
 
 an ill grace from them tocensuve iuose \/ho hir 
 not changed with them — one of the ^reate 
 difficulties which the opponents of a birtk hi 
 had to encounter in this St;;le, had lieen . 
 meeting the vague generalities i'j vv^ich tl 
 Bank advocates had dealt. They all, \s\ih. pe 
 haps rare exceptions, professse^' to coud.-.mn ai 
 oppose the late bank of the United Ststes,]- -. 
 any other bank organized onsniiJar principjji 
 They would say, we are opposod to \hi;A 
 Bank, but we are in favor of a new Bank, ^ 
 suitable restrictions and modifications. .Wm 
 these modifications and restri';t)ons were tWi 
 would not specify. They tal.vfirl of ihemli 
 general and vague terms, but their plans of 
 Bank they did not and would- not give. Sonj 
 to be sure, had in their minds rn imcert.'iin ui 
 undefined notion of^the plan of s. bunk w(i 
 which they would be pleased, such as that thgi' 
 should be no private s"tockholilef.s. iiiul thf-t. 
 should be owned by the Gen.^r&l Governmeii 
 and the States. Many hones; men had tiet 
 made to think that a proper sort of bark '.nij' 
 be framed that might be useful. He said he r 
 garded it as fortanate in the future diaeuss\o^ 
 of the subject that the party advocating a Baiii" , 
 in this state at least, had at length ben drivt 
 from their vague generalities. Thoy baj» - 
 brougiit in and passed a Bank c^?.rter at the i^; - 
 tra Session of Congress. Mr. Clay v.. s its ar 
 thor— President Tyler vetoed it, and tJecausejl; 
 had done so, they had denounced him as a tra; 
 tor, and had burnt and hung- hiai in effigy. | * 
 President Tyier bad signed that bill they sai 
 the whole scheme of Federal ii.f^asures woui 
 have been complete. That bill, thra we onii 
 presume, contained their plan of a Bark, andil 
 get it they were nov/ prepared to eiect Hen^ 
 Clay President of the United States." 
 
 "Now, what was that bill, and whs! wat tb 
 kind of bank which they promis".! hy it to v\ 
 country if they continued another Preridenil 
 term in power? A siigni inspection oi its pi- 
 visions would show that it was an old fashion 
 incorporated Stock Bank, to be owned in psi 
 and in fact controlled by private stockliolde; 
 retaining all the bad features of the late bao 
 ar.d embracing others that made it even mo 
 objectionable than that Bank, bad as it was. 
 Its capital stock was to be thirty millions , 
 Dollars, with power reserved to increase it ' 
 50 millions after the year 1850. One third c 
 the capital stock, or Ten Millions of Dollar, 
 was to be subscribed for by the United State! 
 and two thirds or Twenty millions of dollar; 
 was to be subscribed for by individuals, compa 
 nies, corporations, or States. The Ten million 
 of dollars to be subscribed by the United States 
 was to be raised by borrowing the money, i 
 public debt of Ten Millions of dollars was b 
 the charter authorised to be created, and fo 
 that purpose a public stock of the United Stale ' 
 was to be issued, bearing interest at the rat'J c 
 five per centum per annum, which was not t 
 be paid until after the expiration of Cfteei 
 
e*as. This loan must most probakly, he might 
 afely say, certainly have been made from for- 
 iffners. Thu3 presenting a nation of seventeen 
 iiillions of freemen in the humiHaliog, if not 
 legrading^ altitude of borrowing money o« in- 
 erest from foreigners to make a bank upon.— 
 fhe interest on the loan which was to be paid 
 lalf yearly, was five hundred thousand dollars 
 lyear, and would have amoncted for the fifteen 
 rears (sooner than the er^piration of which it 
 lould not be redeemed) to seven millions five 
 jundred thousand doMers. The Bank was to 
 le located at Washington City, and was to be 
 foverned by nine directors, three of whom were 
 lO be appointed by the United States, and six 
 )r the private gtoc'kholders. All know that six 
 rould control three — so that the bank itself 
 vould in fact have been under the absolute 
 lontrol of the private stockholders. Indeed 
 .his seemed, to have been designed by the char- 
 er itself — for it was provided that "not less 
 ,han five directors shall constitute a board for 
 .he transaction of business, of whom the Pres- 
 dent shall always be one, and at least three of 
 jhe five shall be of the directors elected by the 
 itockholders." This provision made it absolute- 
 y impossible even in a thin board, for the three 
 3overnmeat directors in any poesible case, to 
 2onstitute a majority. The principal board 
 ivere empowered to appoint the directors or 
 managers of the branchss. The public monies 
 were directed to be deposited with the bank, 
 ind as a considerable amount of it would neces- 
 larily be always on hand, it would be used and 
 traded upon as banking capital. The taxes 
 paid by the people for the support of Govern- 
 ment would constitTjte a part of the banking 
 sapilal, to be loaned out, and upon which the 
 private stockholders would make proffit. This 
 was the outlias of Mr. Clay's Bank Bill which 
 president Tyler vetoed- He had searched in 
 ra.\n through its provisions for those restrictions 
 i;;d limitations which ^^-ere so often and so 
 vaguely spoken of, and which were to prevent it 
 from running into all the corruptions and abuses 
 of the Ittta Bank of the United States. The 
 United States was made by this charter to go in- 
 to partnership with the private stockholders, to 
 place all the revenues in the concern, and was 
 yet placed in a minority in the directory, and 
 was therefore deprived of all power or control 
 ovjr therai. Who v;ould probably have become 
 the private stockholders in such a bank? In 
 the West and South, where there Vfas but little 
 surplus capitrtl, and where money bore highrates 
 of interest, but little if any would have been 
 taken. Scarcely a share of the Stock in the 
 late Bank of the United States was at any time 
 owned in Tennessee. There could be no doubt 
 that much- the larger portion of it would have 
 either been taken at first or been ultimately 
 owned by the Federalists of the northern and eas- 
 tern sections of the Union, who v;cre the lar- 
 gest capitalists of the country. This v/as the 
 case with the old Bank. And though stock 
 eould not be taken directly by foreigners, there 
 was no doubt but that much of it would have 
 been ultimately held by them under cover of 
 •ecrettrasts in the name of others. He could 
 have no doubt that if it had been eatablisljed it 
 T«>ould have soon become aa immense political 
 
 engine of deadly hostility to the purity of elec^- 
 tioos, and to the liberties of the people, and^ 
 would have been wielded by a corrupt faction, 
 as was the late Bank of the United States, and 
 for the worst of purposes The thanks of the 
 country, he had no hesitation in saying, wera 
 due to Mr. Tyler for having arrested it as he did 
 by his Veto. 
 
 "Was this the kind of Bank which the body 
 of the party in this State wanted. He thought 
 he could answer with certainty that it was not. 
 And yet this was Mr. Clay's Bank, and to get 
 it, they were now told by leading- public mea 
 and newspapers, they, mtistvole for him to be 
 President of the United States. He did not deem 
 it necessary, and if he did, time would not allow 
 him to enter upon the general discussion of tho 
 Bank question and the currency on that occa- 
 sion. He would only add that neither a Na- 
 tional Dank or any other Bank could prevent 
 commercial revulsions or furnish a remedy a- 
 gainst hard times. When we had a National 
 Bank we had witnessed such times, and when 
 we had none we had witnessed them." 
 
 Your second interrogatory is as follows, to. 
 wit:: 
 
 2d. Are you in favor of restoring the princi- 
 ples of the Compromise Tariff Bill of 1833T 
 
 I answer that I ara< 
 
 Your third interrogatory is as follows; to. 
 
 wit; 
 
 3d. Do yov: approbate the course of the Whig 
 nominees for the Senate of the United States at 
 the lasUegjilar Session of the General Assem- 
 bly, to wit: E. H. Foster and S. Jarnagin, iii re- 
 fusing to declare their opinion upon the subject 
 of the Bankrupt Law, and other subjects, and 
 the right of instruction when called upon by oae. 
 branch of the elective power? 
 
 I answer that I cannot approve the "course- 
 of the Whig nominees for the Senate of the 
 United States, at the last regular session of 
 the General Assembly" or of any other 
 aspirant or candidate for public station, in 
 refusing to declare their opinions freely and 
 without reserve, upon all public subjects,, 
 upon which they may be interrogated by a 
 portion of the constituent body. The right: 
 of instruction by the constituent body to tha 
 Representative or public agent,, and ths du-^ 
 ty of the latter to obsy in good faith or re- 
 sign, is one of the cardinal principles, held 
 by the political party of which I am a mem- 
 ber. Destroy this principle, or permit the 
 candidate for ofSce by his silence to evade 
 it, and bo thereby at liberty to act as he 
 pleases, after he is elected, is to place the 
 servant above his master. No man in my 
 ;opinion who denies the right of instruction^ 
 or by his silence, refuses to admit it, ought 
 to be intrusted with the care of the public, 
 interests. 
 
Your fourth interrogatory is in the follow- ' 
 jn^ words, to wit : 
 
 4tb. Do you believe that, under the constitu- 
 tion of the "United States, Senators in Congress 
 may be elected by the separate actions of the 
 General Assembly? 
 
 I answer 1 do. Some of the States e'ect 
 in that mode; and the constitiuionality of 
 such elections has never been denied or 
 questioned. 
 
 Your fifth interrogatory is ns follows, to 
 
 vvit: 
 
 5th. Did the proposition made by the Demo- 
 crats in the last Legislature to elect one mem- 
 ber of the Senate of the United States of the 
 Whig party, and the ether of the Democratic 
 pariy meet your approbation, or did you appro- 
 bate the refusal of the Whig members to ac- 
 cept sucti proposition? 
 
 I answer, that under the circumstances as 
 they existed, the proposition of compromise, 
 in the election of United States Senators 
 made by the Democratic party in the last 
 Legislature, did meet my approbation . By 
 the popular vote, it was apparent, that the 
 political parlies in the State, were very 
 nearly equally divided. Bv the elections of 
 members of the General Assembly, it ap- 
 peared that one party had a majority of three 
 in the popular branch, and the other of one 
 in the Senate. There being three times as 
 many Sepresentatives as there are Sena- 
 tors, it follows, that one Senator renresented 
 precisely as many people as three llepresen- 
 tatives; and that the majorities in the respec- 
 tive Houses, were precisely equal. I was 
 desirous that the State should be represented 
 in the Senate of the United Slates, and be- 
 lieved at the time the proposition of compro- 
 mise was made, that it was fair and proper; 
 and that if it had been acceded to it would 
 probably have been satisfactory to the mod- 
 erate men of both parties. When the prop- 
 osition of compromise was rejected, my opin- 
 ion was and is, that the majority of the Sen- 
 ate acted properly, in insisting upon a mode 
 of election conceded lobe constitutional, by 
 which the rights of their constituents could 
 he preserved, and the election of Senators 
 be prevented vtho concealed their opinions 
 on public subjects, and refused to avow 
 them when respectfully asked by a portion 
 of the constituent body to do so. 
 
 YourGlh. and 7th. Interrogatories are 
 as follows, to wit: 
 
 6th. Are you in favor of withdrawing Die 
 proceeds of the public lands from the support 
 of the Icderal tJovcriiment, and supplying the 
 deficit occasioned thoicby in the iNalional Trcas- 
 virv bv an iiicrca'icd TanlT—arc you in favor of 
 
 appropriating the proeeeds aforesaid to mec 
 the current exjienses of the Government, an( 
 reducing to that amonnt the Tarili'? 
 
 7lh. If you are in favor of distributing ihi 
 proceeds of the public lands amon? the Slates 
 are you of opinion that such distibulion sliouh 
 be confined to the lands within the limits of th 
 cession of V'irginia and other States to the Un- 
 ted S?atcs--or are you in favor of distributir 
 h1?o the ])roceed8 of the lands piircbaoed by t 
 United States from France, including Louisia 
 and the lands purchased by the United Stat 
 from Spain, including the Floridas? 
 
 1 answer that I am opposed to the poli 
 of "withdrawing the proceeds of the pub 
 lands from the support of the Federal Gos 
 ernmenl" and distributing them to the Siatiis 
 but would retain the moneys, derived fronr 
 the sales of the lands in the Treasury, ant 
 apply them to the payment of the necessary 
 expenses of the General Governnieni. 
 would retain and thus apply the moneys 
 derived from the sale of the lands, whethei 
 embraced in the cession from the States, oi 
 the lands purchased by the United States 
 from France »nd Spain. It has been some' 
 titnes assumed (erroneously as 1 think) tha: 
 ihe lands, embraced in the cession frot)! 
 the States, were cotiveyed in trust, and up 
 on that ground it is said the moneys deiiv 
 ed from them, may be distributed. I do no| 
 regard the acts of cession as containing sue', 
 a trust; but if they did, the cost of exiingi ^'j 
 ing Indian title, of Indian wars, rend »iii 
 necessary to get possession of them; of <^- 
 veys, of salaries of officers, and other ^'" 
 penses ofbringing them into market, it 7' 
 be found on examination, have cost i 
 than the United States have ever rect i*'.' 
 from the sale of lands, — bringing the 1 U, 
 actually indebted to the Tieasurv. ji- i 
 lands purchased fiom France and ^pa wl 
 is not pretended constitute a trust fund /' 
 it cannont be maintained that upon ij 
 (Tfound the proceeds of their sale cii br 
 distributed. For my views on this si; '■ 
 I refer you to my published address U ^ j 
 people of Tennessee/' bearing date o i^^ 
 '25lh March, 1841. In that address I f ^ar 
 "The distribution of th« proceeds of thi (tc 
 of the public lands among the states, ar iarJ 
 consequent increase of the Tariff to sup -npa! 
 amount of revenue equal to (hat which n Ijon 
 abstracted from (he common treasury, w j^tef 
 doubtedly be among the measures of tli , ^ 
 administration. This is not a new quest -g b 
 It has been repeatedly before Congress. ^ fd 
 biouglit up by Mr. Clay during the admi ic! 
 tion of G,3n. Jackson, and was delibt c 
 considered nnd settled at that (ime. ' ■■•' 
 
 sef-sionof i&32, 3, a Bill for that purpose pn-v-ei 
 both HoNsos of Concress, and was sent to tl 
 Prcfidcnt for hi" approbation and signature, t 
 
(he liiEl day of the seBKlon. The President did 
 not approve it. but not having time, before the 
 adjoururncnt to prepare liis reasons, witliheJd 
 it until the opening of the next session io De- 
 cember, foliwwing, wiicn he communicated a 
 message containin;; ihem, to the Senate of the 
 Uunited States. The President phiced his ob- 
 jections to tho measure upon Constitutional 
 grounds, as well as upon the grounds of its in- 
 experiieucy. All the members of both Houses 
 of Congress from this State, who were present 
 at the vote, except one* of (he Representatives, 
 voted against it. Judge White a.nd Judge Grun- 
 dy voted against it in the Senate; (see Senate 
 Journal, 2d Session 22d Congress, p 138.) John 
 Blair, William Hall, Jacob G. Isaacks, Janus 
 Slartdifer and myself voted against it in the 
 House; (see Journal of the House of Represen- 
 tatives, 2d Session 22d Congress, p 460.) Three 
 of our Kepresentalives were not present at the 
 vote, but It was well knovi'n at the time that 
 Ihe^' concurred in opinion with a majority of 
 theircoiloagues, and would have voted against 
 it if they had been present. The veto of the Pres- 
 ident was every where approved by the Republi- 
 can party, and by none was it more heartily or 
 generally approved than by the people of Ten- 
 nessee. Tlu measure had been recently revived, 
 was the subiect of protracted discussin in the 
 late Congress, and from the developments be- 
 fore us, will be passed as an administratin 
 ineafure in the next." 
 
 "The proposed distribution is in (ruth, but a 
 branch of Mr. Clay's famed 'American System' 
 a system embracing as its primary and lead- 
 ing objects, a high protective tariff: a profuse 
 and wasteful expenditure of public money for 
 objects of Internal Improvement, and high 
 prices of public lands; a system which operated 
 so unjustly and oppressively upon the Southern 
 and planting slates, as to compel its advocates 
 reluctantly to yield to the 'Compromise Act' of 
 1833. Mr. Clay is the author of of the measure, 
 as he was of the 'American System.' The lim- 
 its of this address will not allow me to enter up- 
 on an extended argument of the question. A 
 few of the principal points of objection are all 
 that can be here stated. If the receipts from 
 the sales of the public land?, amounting to sev- 
 eral millions annually, shall be abstracted from 
 the Treasury and given to the States, it follows 
 , that an equal amount must be raised by an in- 
 , crease of the tariff, or by a lax in some other 
 ' form, to supply the deficiency ; and if raised by 
 '" an increase of the tariff, it requirers no argu ■ 
 ' menl to prove that the ta.v will be paid in un- 
 ; equal proportions by the people of the different 
 
 • sections of the Union — the Southern and plant- 
 liuT States bearing niuch tlie greater part of the 
 .burden. To avoid this objection, and to con- 
 Jceal from tho tax paying portion of the Union, 
 
 • the fact, that the ultimate effect, if not the main 
 .object of the measure, will be to afford a plans- 
 ■ible pretext for an increased protective tariff, 
 
 _it is said that the increased tax may be levied 
 .on Wines, Silks, and other luxuries. Still it 
 
 ii^will be a tax upon labor, and will naturally 
 .afl'ect the value ofour products given in exchange 
 orthem. Must it not strike the advocatcG of 
 
 t 
 
 "!' D. AnioM. 
 
 distribution too, that the power of tins argu- 
 ment is lost, wlien they refisct, that if luxurios 
 are not suSiciently taxed, tlial the better plan 
 would be to leave the monies arising I'roui lands 
 in the Treasury, to defray the public expenses, 
 as far as they will go, and to lighten the duties 
 on necessaries and increase them on luxuries? 
 
 "In anollier view, the proposed distribution 
 isa tariff measure. Ifit prevail, Massacusetts, 
 Vermont and other States, containing within 
 their borders no portion of the public lands, 
 will be immediately vested with a local pecuni- 
 ary interest in them. The public lands will, 
 in effect be mortgaged to (he several Slates, in 
 proportion to the Federal reprcseillation in Cor:- 
 gress, and they will have an interest in having 
 them sold at the highest possible rates. They 
 will have an intereat in opposing the gradua- 
 tion or reduction of price, and in oppOL^ing thu 
 grant of pre-emptions at lov/ rates to that hardy 
 and enterprising race of pioneer occupants who 
 have gone with their families to the West, built 
 their "log cabins,' opened their little far.nis i^ set- 
 tled upon them, because they Vv'ould apprehend 
 that the amount of their respective dividends in 
 the distribution v/ould be thereby diminished. 
 The manufacturing states would have a })cculiy.r 
 interest in resisting the reduction of price or 
 the grant of pre emption to settlers at a low rate, 
 because to keep up the price of the lands, and 
 withhold grants of i)ro-emption would hd'io 
 check emigration, retain tho laboring popula- 
 tion at home, and thus reduce the wages of la- 
 bor, and increase the profits of the capatalists 
 engaged in manufactures. Tho manufacturing 
 interest would be advanced by another reasou. 
 They would receive (heir federal proportion of 
 the distibution, and would not contribute in 
 the same ratio in the payment of the lax to eup- 
 ply the deficiency. They would in audition to 
 this receive the bounties to their nianul'alurcs, 
 which an increased tariff' would afford, whilst 
 these bounties would be paid by tiie South; in 
 every view of the measure, it is an auxilarry to 
 the protective policy. It is presented, it is true, 
 in the seductive, but at the game time deceptive 
 and disguised form, of s;iving money to the 
 States out of the Fcdc-al Treasury, when it is 
 in truth laying new burdens ..^on the people. — 
 The manufacturing States so understand it. and 
 hence the Legislatures of Vermont, Rhode 
 Island, Coimecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware and some oliicr Stales, have duruig 
 the past and present year, passed Legislalivo 
 Resolves instructing their Senators and reques- 
 ting their Repesentatives in Congress to advo- 
 cate the measar". The State of Connecticut 
 publicly declares tliai such i.^ her object by 
 passing Rosolve.f, at liu; same time instructing 
 her Senators and Representatives in CongresJ 
 to "resist by all constitutional means every at- 
 tempt to destroy or impair the protective poli- 
 cy," and to use their exertions to procure the 
 passage of sucli laws as will effectually protect 
 the labor of tins country, the manufacturing 
 labor of course is mcnt. The Legislature of 
 Pennsylvania, in the month of January last, 
 avowed in direct terms, that an increase of Itic 
 tariff was their object. They passed a Resolve 
 iostructiEg their .Senators siic4 Rcprcsentalivo:^ 
 to ad', nrale and voU; f..r th? ;l:Jl.*-il>ut;o;i, and 
 
passed a seconJ RcsoItc in the following word* 
 VIZ: 
 
 "Resolved, That our Senators he further in- 
 structed und our Hep? esentatices rKquesiedto tote 
 for suck I ertiod'ficatiun or adju^tinenl of the tariff, 
 as may increase t/ic lerenue. dericed from imports 
 equg-t to the. wants of the Nattunal Government, 
 so that at no time hireojtcr. under any pretext 
 whattver, shall any money arising from the sales 
 of the Puhhc lunds be used by the General Gov- 
 ernment ■' 
 
 "Ail the Resolves refered to were passed by 
 Legislatui-os, a inajority of whose uiemhcrs 
 were the polilical friends and supporters of the 
 present INutional Administration. They have 
 all been officially comtnunicated to the Execu- 
 tive of this State, (as 1 presume thej have been 
 (o the Executive of all ihe Ststes,) with a re- 
 <iuest that the same ma> belaid before the next 
 Genral Assembly of Tennessee. The Stales 
 of Alabama a fid Mississippi have passed Resolves 
 responsive to the Resolves of Coonecticut, in 
 which they maintain the old ground of the 
 Soulh against the "protective policy." That 
 this Stale will maintain similar ground with 
 her southern sister Ststes, when the Resolves of 
 Connecticut como to be considered by her Le- 
 gislature, 1 cannot doubt; in the face of this evi- 
 dence before us, hone can be so blind as not to 
 see that the measure lo distribute the pro- 
 ceeds of the sales of the public lands among the 
 States, is but the pioneer step to the revival of '; 
 a "protective tariff." 
 
 "But there are other reasons which are con- 
 clusive agaist it. If the money derived from 
 the public lands be taken from the Treasury, 
 und abstracted from the use of the Government 
 to be distributed among the States, the States 
 would receive it in sums diminished not only 
 by the cost of distribution, but would be sub- 
 jected to the additional cost necessarily inci- 
 <lent to the collection of an equal sum by a ta.x 
 in another form. In a more fiscal point of 
 view, therefore, tlis policy of the measure can- 
 not be justified. But there is still a higher and 
 u Weightier objection. The public lands are 
 the common property of all the States, and 
 when the money derived from them is collected 
 and placed in the Treasury, it goes into the 
 »;otunio'n fund of Ihe Nation, and is subject, as 
 all other public monies collected from other 
 «ourc«s are, to be applied to defray the nccesa- 
 ry expenses of (jovernment — Wlien in the 
 'I'rcasury. it cannot be dislmguised from money 
 collected by duties on imports, and the Gov- 
 ernment posses.ses the fame power to distribute 
 or give away money derived froir. the one source, 
 as the other. What would be thought of a pro- 
 j)Ostion to distribute or g:ive to the States, as a 
 mere donation, the money collected by duties 
 on imports, thereby cre-Uiug (Iib necessity for a 
 new Ih.v, or increased tariff, to supply the defi- 
 ciency, and yut there is tlie same coiistilutional 
 power to do this, that there is to distribute Ihe 
 money derived from the lands. To distribute 
 or give away toihe States money in the Treas- 
 ury derived from other sources , would be in ef- 
 lact lo make the Fedeial Government Ihe tax 
 ^•alhncr for the Slates, a power jiot conferred 
 \ip(in that Government by the Constitution; and 
 111 llii.- vi»w tlie lanisnrF prrccnts svicli in:-!upcr- 
 
 able objections to my mind that f cannot yieJd 
 to it my support. 
 
 "Should the policy of distribution prevaW, 
 another consequence which will follow will bo 
 the revival of'that splendid and wasteful and 
 corrupting System of Internal Improvements 
 by Federal authority, which was checked and 
 arrested by the Veto on the Maysville Road 
 Bill. Indeed, a System of Federal internal im- 
 provementa is the hand-maid of a protective 
 tariff, and furnishes the absorbent or spunge 
 which is to suck up the revenues neees?arily 
 collected by a high protective laiiff and wheth- 
 er prosecuted in the form of direct appropria- 
 tions from the Treasury, or though the agency 
 of the States, iho effect is the same." 
 
 Your 8lh. Iriierrogatory is as follows, to- 
 wit: 
 
 8th. Are you in favor of restoring to Gen. 
 Jackson Ihe line imposed on him by Judge Hall 
 at New Orleans, imraedialGly after the siege of 
 that city and if so, are you in favor of doing' so 
 without conditiun or restiction — op would you 
 impose as a condition of such restoration a pro- 
 vision in the act approving- the conduct Judge 
 Hall implying a eonsureof Gen. Jackson? 
 
 I answer that I am in "favour of restor- 
 ing to Gen. Jackson the fine imposed on him 
 liy JurJije Hall immediately after the siege of 
 New Orleans, and I am in favor of reslorinsj 
 it, without conditjon or restriction. I would 
 not in the act of restoration, approve the 
 conduct of Judge Hail, and thereby imply a 
 censure of General Jackson. 1 believe that 
 (he declaration of martial law by General 
 Jackson was probably the only means of 
 saving New Orleans. I believe that the act 
 which was charfjed against Gerveral Jack- 
 son to be a contempt of judicial authority, 
 was one which was necessary and proper for 
 the continual saiety of New Orleans. 1 be- 
 lieve that the conduct of Judge Hal I was un~ 
 patriotic and vindictive, and the fine which 
 General Jackson was required to pay under 
 his sentence, ought to be restored to him willv 
 inifrest from the date of its payment. 
 
 Your t)th interrogatory is as follows, lo 
 wit: 
 
 9th. Are you in favor of the bill reported by 
 a Whig committee of the Senate of the United 
 States in Ihe last Congress, proposing to pay llio 
 heirs of Gen. Hull his salary as Governor of 
 Michigan, from the time he surrendered himself 
 and the American army to the British comman- 
 der during the last war, until he was exchanged 
 for, tried liy a Court Martial of American offi- 
 cers, sentenced by them to be shot, and par- 
 doned by President Madison? 
 
 I answer that I am opposed to "the Bill 
 reported bv a Whig committee of ihe Sen- 
 ate of the United States in the last Conorres'', 
 for ihe benefit of the Heirs of General Hull, 
 not being enabled to perceive any principle 
 af ^>atijotisin or of justice, >\hich would eii- 
 
'<iii[e t1iem to the donation which ii proposed 
 toniaketo ihem. In striking conlrnsl wiih 
 the proposition made for the benefit of the 
 heirs ol Hull, is tlie refusal of (he same 
 committee of the Senate, to restore to Gen. 
 Jackson, ihe 'fine imposed on him at New 
 Orleans, withnut accompanyinii it with a 
 provision, acquilliiig Judge Hall of all im- 
 })roper conduct, thereby implying a censure 
 on the conduct ef General Jackson, 'i'he 
 tliflTerence between the conduct of General 
 Hull and General Jackson is, that the lorjn"> 
 cr commenced the war with disgrace to 
 himself and the latter closed it with honor 
 to himself and his country. The Whig 
 <*ommittee of the Senate, proposed to reward 
 the heirs of the former and refused to do 
 justice to Ihe latter by restoring to him his 
 own money, improperly taken from him, by 
 a vindictive judge without accompanying, it 
 with a condition, implying a censure, and 
 1 hereby inflicting a wound upon his reputa- 
 tion. 
 
 Your lOih interrogatory is as folIowF, to 
 wit; 
 
 Iflth. Are you of opinion that it was constitu- 
 tional or expedient to pass the act which was. 
 passed at the rxtra session of Congress donating 
 to Mrs. Harrison, widow of tlie late President 
 Harrison, a'^^t twenty-three thousand dollars 
 of the public^oney? 
 
 1 answer that in my opinion it was not 
 constitutional or expedient, to niake the do- 
 nation which was made by Congress lo Mrs. 
 Harrison, widow of the late President Har- 
 rison. Congress possesses no power to make 
 mere donations, such as I regard this to be. 
 The precedent if followed will lead to the 
 worst of consequences. Upon the same 
 principle, upon which the grant was made 
 to Afrs. Harrison, similar grants may be 
 made to the widows of our ministers abroad, 
 of the members of the cabinet, of members 
 pf Congress, of the Judges of our courts, 
 and other civil officers, who may happen to 
 die whilst in the public service. The pre- 
 cedent is a dangerous one, and if followed 
 may lead to the establishment of an immense 
 civil pension list, such as exists in the En- 
 glish monarchy. In the short debate which 
 occurred in the Senate of the United Stales, 
 whilst the Bill granting this donation to 
 3Irs Harrison was pending before that bo- 
 dy, a dislingui.'-hed Senator declared that, 
 ■"The aid of precedent is invoked in this 
 «ase,bntin vain. It has no precedent, but 
 
 will form a dreadful one.'' 
 
 * * * * 
 
 And again he said '*At the head of these 
 
 cases eo cited, stand.* the act for the ben^Fif 
 of Mrs. Brown, widnw of General Brown, 
 which was passed by Coniiress. in the y^-ar 
 1828, and gave to her the remainder of her 
 husband's pay [or the year in which he died, 
 that is to say about nine months pay." 
 
 "I was contemporary wilii tliis case — know 
 all about it — ncted a part in it — have its liisto, 
 ry in my mind, as well as in the debates of the 
 day — and can show that it has no annlogy tO' 
 the present case, j\nd was respectably opi)ysed. 
 at the time as being without warrant from the 
 Constitnlion — of evil example — and would be 
 quoted in after times fir even worse acts. 1 
 voted against it, and so did many others, andt 
 among ihem those who were usually found! 
 standine; as a body guard n round the Constitu-- 
 tion. The votes a^rainst the bill was, Mesfrs^ 
 Bell, Benton, Branch, CnANDLEa, Cohb, Dick- 
 inson, Ellis, Foot. King of Ahibama. Macon,. 
 NoBLK, Parris, Tazwell, Tyler, White and 
 Williams. We were sixteen who stood together 
 on that occasion — ^ number not large,— but 
 graced with some names wiiich have weight 
 with the country. Tliis case of Mrs. Brown's- 
 i8 quoted as a precedent for Mrs. Harrison's bill,, 
 but most unjustly. It is a military, and not a, 
 civil case . Her hnsband died in the army, and 
 the reporter of the bill (General Harrison) pro- 
 duced the etatemen's of the Surgeon General 
 of the Army, (Dr. Lovell) and of another phy- 
 sician, (Dr. Henderson) to prove (hat General 
 Brown died in consequence of a clibeasc contrac- 
 ted in the public service, and was to be clas.^ed 
 with those who were killed in the line of (heir 
 duty. "/< will he srcn (said General Harrison) 
 that the Surgeon Gene ml asserts that if General 
 Brown had lived, and retired from the army, he 
 wnild have given him a certificate for a full pen- 
 sion under the existing laics of the country,''' — 
 This was the arguint^nt of General Harrison,. 
 and in conformity to it, proposed a preamble to 
 the bill in these word>: — ^IVhcreas the late Ma- 
 jor General Urown died in consequence, of indispor 
 sit ion, contracted in the service of the United 
 States, S;c., and another member of the Senate, 
 now a Senator (Mr. B«rr)e») offered an amend-, 
 meat to the body of the bill, declaring the rea- 
 sons for this grant in these word?: 'Whose death 
 is supposed to have been caused hy disease contrac • 
 ted while in the service of the I'nited States on ih& 
 Niagara frontier.' This preamble and this a- 
 mendment were not adopted, for fear they would; 
 make precedents; and now the act become a far 
 more dangerous prccedeut wifhout these clauses 
 than it would have been with Shem. 
 
 "Such was the case of i\frs Brown — a milita- 
 ry case — coming withm the equity, as the 
 friends of the measure agreed, of the then exis- 
 tine pension laws. Aad this case is to be made 
 a precedent for Mrs. Harrison, whose case is a 
 civil one, and incapable of being assimilated in 
 a solitary particular with the one to which it 
 refers for justification. Such is precedent — . 
 such the foUy— the danger of construeing our 
 Constitution by precedent? The tlrst in'tance 
 is got upon one reason, the next upon another, 
 and so on, until all rcas-^ns arc lost fight of; 
 the Constitution itself ?s Lost sight of— and the 
 
8 
 
 Legislature reis;ns auprPmc without a limit upon 
 tl8 pewer, or a guide to its actsi" 
 
 Tiie other precedents usually quoted, 
 bear as little analogy to the case of Mrs. 
 Harrison, as does that of Mrs. Brown. — 
 The grant to La Fayette for example was 
 based upon the ground of military services 
 rendered in the War of the Revolution, for 
 ^vh!ch he had never been adequately com- 
 pensated. The cuHeofilfrs. Decatur, m\d, 
 the officers and crew of the vessel comman« 
 tied by her late husband, the gallent co 
 mander Decatvr, was not an application 
 lor a donation, such as was granted to Mrs. 
 Harrison, but was a claim presented for 
 prize- money, under the equity of the act of 
 Congress; which grants prize money to the 
 eapiois of vessels of war from a foreign ene- 
 my . Decatur and his officers and crew per- 
 formed one of the most gallant deeds, of any 
 age, by recapturing the Frigate Philadelphia 
 under the wr.lls and guns of Tripoli. By 
 the order of the commander of the squadron 
 before he set out on the expedition, he set 
 fire to the vessel and burned her after she 
 was recaptured, when, but for such orders, 
 he could have brought her safely out. His 
 widovyf after his death, and the brave officers 
 and seaman, who were with him, claimed 
 that ihey were equitably entitled to prize 
 money. This is the cause of Mrs, Decatur, 
 sometimes relered to, and there are no points 
 of analogy between it and the cause oi' Mrs. 
 Harrison, The one is a claim; the other is 
 ii mere naked donation. I cannot refer to 
 the other precedents quoted, without swell- 
 inii this answer to unreasonable lenstli. I 
 will only add that it is the principle involved 
 in the grant to Mrs. Harrison, to which 
 I object. 
 
 Your 11th. Interrogatory is as follows, to 
 
 wit, 
 
 1 1th. Arc you in favor of the tarifF Act now 
 in force passed by tlie last Con<jress? 
 
 I answer that I am not in "favour of the 
 tariff act now in force, passed by the last 
 Congress." It is in my opinion, in many 
 of its provisions, highly •protective, and not 
 designed as a revenue measure. For my 
 views as expressed at some length up on the 
 subject, I refer you to a speech delivered by 
 me at Pula?lu on the 29th of September 
 1842; and also to one delivered by me at 
 Jackson on the 3id of April 1813,- both of 
 which have been published. 
 
 Having now, gentlemen, answered your 
 several interrogatories as I trust, satisfacto- 
 rily ; and having also anawered certain other 
 
 interogalories, prnpoiinded by others of niv 
 fellow citizens of Shelby county — I shall 
 forward both answers, by the next mail to 
 Memphis, to the end that they majr be pub- 
 lishedi I am. Gentlemen, 
 
 With high Respect. 
 Kour obedient serv't, 
 JAMES K. POLK. 
 
 Columbia, May 15, 1843. 
 To Messrs Wyatt Christian, J. T. Leath, 
 and others : 
 
 Gentlemen : — I have received through 
 the Memphis Enquirer the communication 
 of yourselves and other citizens of Shelby 
 County, addressed to Gov. Jones and my- 
 self, propounding to each, certain interroga- 
 tories upon public subjects, to which I now 
 proceed to reply. 
 
 Your first interrogatory is as follows, viz 
 
 " Ist. Are you in favor of a mixed currency 
 of paper money and the precious metals ? " 
 
 I answer that I am in favor of such cur- 
 rency — and for my views as expressed on 
 the subject, I refer you to my Message to 
 the General Assembly of this State, of the 
 22d of October, 1831). In that^iessageyou 
 will find that after earnestly urging the pro- 
 priety of an early resumption of specie pay- 
 ments by our Banks, I say : 
 
 " Banks, and the use of Dank paper and cred- 
 its, have become from loD^ habit interwoven 
 and intimately connected with all our e.\ten9ive 
 commercial operations, and if it be concedsd 
 that their employment to a reasonable extent, 
 in conducting our trade, has in the existing state 
 of our currency, become conducive to our pros- 
 perity , it must also be allowed that no Banks 
 or Bank issues should be tolerated which do 
 not rest on a solid and substantial specie basis, 
 
 and be required to meet the demands of trade. 
 
 ****** 
 
 The circulation which they issue should be 
 based upon a solid nietalic foundation, such as 
 will ensure an ability at all times to meet their 
 liabilities promptly, and its quantity should be 
 kept as nearly as practicable at the same am- 
 ount, varying as it necessarily must to a small 
 extent, with the seasons of shipment of our 
 produce^to market, and the return of the pro- 
 ceeds ; but this variation need not be such as to 
 effect materially, the amount or value of their 
 circulation- " * * * * 
 
 To these views I now add, that in my 
 opinion the precious metals should be the 
 basis of whatever paper circulation may be 
 authorised or tolerated by law. Like indi- 
 vidual debtors, Banks should meet their lia- 
 bilities honestly and promptly, and when- 
 ever they fail to do eo, I hold it to be the 
 
uut> of the Legislative power to take effi- 
 cient means tOjCompel them to do their du- 
 ty. 
 
 To your second and third mtcrrogatOnes, 
 
 which are in the follewing words to wit: 
 
 "2d. If so, from what source should paper 
 money eminate; from (he State Governments 
 or General Government? 
 
 "3d If from the General Government, in 
 what mode should the people receive it-- 
 through the agency of a Bank, or otherwise ? " 
 I answer that the States, having exer- 
 cised the power of chartering' Banks of is- 
 sue, from an early period of the Govern- 
 ment, and with the general acquiescence of 
 the people— and being in this respect, be- 
 yond the power and control of the General 
 Government — all must expect and concede 
 that there must and will continue to be a 
 State Bank paper circulation, \vhether a 
 National Bank exists or not. There was a 
 Slate ^Bank paper circulation during the 
 whole" period of the existence of the two 
 Banks of the United States— and if another 
 National Bank were established, there 
 would undoubtedly still continue to be such 
 a circulation. Many of the State Banks 
 have charters which have many years to 
 run, and some of them I believe are 
 perpetual. The establishment of a Nation- 
 al Bank therefore, could not supercede them, 
 but must, if established, issue a paper which 
 would circulate with State Bank paper. The 
 State Bank circulation would constitute much 
 the largest amount of the aggregate paper cir- 
 culation, and the experience of the twenty 
 years of the existence of the late Bank ©f 
 the United States proves, that the paper of 
 State Banks, used as it was by the great 
 mass of the people in their daily transac- 
 tions, was at much more ruinous rates of de- 
 preciation than it now is. The rates of ex- 
 change between different sections of the 
 ' Union were higher, and exchanges more 
 difficult to be obtained than they now are, 
 without a Bank of the United States. I am 
 therefore, in favor of a circulation to consist 
 ! of the prescious metals and the paper of 
 specie paying State Banks, convertible on 
 demand into specie — and should any such 
 i Bank suspend payment, or refuse to redeem 
 its circulation in specie, I would adopt the 
 most rigid means within the power of the 
 Legislature to compel such Bank to pay, 
 and in the eventof failure, I would put it into 
 a state of liquidation and wind it up. I will 
 add further, that I would not yield my indi- 
 vidual assent to the chartering of any future 
 ,Bank by State authority, without making 
 
 the Stockholders liable in their individual 
 estates for the payment of the papet which 
 they issue ; I would place them upon a 
 footing with other partnerships. Capitalists 
 form partnerships and invest their money 
 in merchandizing, manufacturing or other 
 business, with a view to make profits, and 
 are liable in their individual property for 
 the payment of the debts of the firm, and I 
 can see no good reason why capitalists who 
 join together and invest their money in the 
 business of Banking with a like view to 
 make profit, should not in like manner be 
 held liable to pay the joint debts of the Bank- 
 ing corporation, or firm. -I am opposed to 
 the chartering by Congress of a National 
 incorporated Bank— I believe that Congress^ 
 possesses no constitutional power to chartef'j 
 such a Bank, and if it did, it would in my 
 opinion, be inexpedient to exercise it. — 
 These opinions I have long held. TThc 
 reasons for them have been often coitsmun?- 
 cated to the public in writing, in printed 
 speeches, and in public debates before many- 
 thousands of my fellow-citizens of Tennes- 
 see, and I presume that it cannot be necessa- 
 ry that I should here repeat them. >^^ 
 
 To your fourth interrogatory,*RJ*lne fol- 
 lowing words, viz: 
 
 "Are you in favor of the Sub-Treasury Sy/s.- 
 tern passed by Congress in 1840, and repealed iii 
 1841." 
 
 I answer that I am; and for my views as 
 given at some length on the subject, I ras^f,. 
 yoa to my two published addresses to "th^"- 
 peopie of Tennessee," the one bearing date 
 on the 3rd of April, and the other on the 
 25ih of March 184L In my address of 
 1839, I avowed myself to be "in favor of 
 keeping the money of the people in the 
 Treasury of the people under the care of 
 officers elected by the people &- responsible 
 to them, where it can at all times be com- 
 manded for public purposes, and not in 
 Banks, not elected by the people and not 
 responsible to them, to be loaned out for 
 private purposes." 
 
 In speaking of a fiscal agent of 4jOvern- 
 ment, I said in that address: 
 
 "The Bank of the United States' had been 
 tried, and proved faithless. The State Banks 
 had been tried and proved faithless. Was it 
 not time to deyise a system which should fulfill 
 the requirements of the Constitution, and pre- 
 vent any money from being "drawn from the 
 Treasury but in consequence of appropriations 
 made by law?" It has been the endeavor of the 
 Preident and of the Republican party, for al- 
 most two years, to introduce such a system. — 
 They propose to establish an Independent Treas= 
 
to 
 
 •ury— a Treasury independent of Banks— a 
 Treasury in fact, and not in theory. They pro- 
 pose that the Government shall keep its own 
 money in its own Treasury, where it can, at 
 all times, in peace and in war, be commanded 
 for the public uses. To a proposition so simple, 
 and which, in earlier days of the Republic, 
 would have struck every mind as self evident, 
 many objections have been started, some of 
 them plausible, but none of them substantial." 
 In my address of 1841, I said: 
 
 "Another measure of the party in power is 
 proclaimed to be the removal of the public mon- 
 ey from the constitutional Treasury, where it is 
 now kept, and where it has been kept safely 
 under a financial system that hac thus far work- 
 ed well, and which will no doubt continue to 
 work well, if it be preserved. Where it is pro- 
 posed to place the public money, if the Indepen- 
 . dent Treasury law shall be repealed, has not 
 ■■^been distinctly avowed. It was undoubtedly at 
 Vonc time, intended by many of the leading men 
 >of the party, to place it in the United States 
 Bank of Pennsylvania, and thus bolster up that 
 rotten institution by furnishinj to it the money 
 of the public to Bank and to speculate upon.— 
 That Bank, which it will be remembered Mr. 
 Biddie declared was stronger under the charter 
 from Pennsylvania, that under than from the U- 
 Dited States; and in reference to which Gea. 
 IlaS^SGn, in his letter to Sherrod Williams, da- 
 led^Rj^^j^Bend, May 1st, 1836," declared 
 ""Pennsylvania has wisely taken care to appro- 
 priate to herself the benefits of its large capita)," 
 it has, however, recently gone down, and now 
 lies a heap of ruin in a state of utter prostration, 
 if not of insolvency. 
 
 The market price of its stock is down below 
 twenty dollars in the hundred. They cannot 
 therefore place the public money in the Bank. 
 Where else will they put it? Most of the Banks 
 of the United States have suspended specie 
 payments. Will they place it in their keeping, 
 and if they do, will they receive and pay out to 
 the Pensioners, the labourers on the public 
 works, and other public creditors, their depre- 
 ciated paper? Do they mean that the taxes of 
 the people, paid for the support of Government 
 shall be furnished to these, or any other Banks, 
 to be a part of their banking capital? 
 
 If it is not to be so kept and used, where is it 
 to be kept? There is no National Bank, and if 
 one was created, it could not be put into opera- 
 tion in less than twelve or eighteen months so as 
 to receive them. And yet it is manifest that the 
 immediate repeal of the Independent Treasury 
 System, is one of the leading measures of the 
 party in power. 
 
 It is not now my purpose to enter upon the ar- 
 gument of the policy of the Independent 
 Treasury System, or of the necessity which led 
 to Its adoption. These have been often presen. 
 ted to my fellow-citizens, and if necessary, will 
 he again, in my personal intercourse with them. 
 It has been sometimes urged by my political op- 
 ponent, that I, at one time, gave my support to 
 the State Baak Deposite System. This was fully 
 explained in my addresa to the people in 1839, 
 In tliat address I stated ""that the late Bank of 
 the United States had been tried and proved to 
 
 be a faithless fiscal agent. For its long catalogue 
 01 crimes and misdemeanors, GeneralJackion 
 withdrew the public money from its keepine- 
 and dismissed it as a fiscal agent of the Govern- 
 ment. The State Banks were again employed. 
 At that time they were generally m good credit 
 1 hey paid specie for their notes, and it was be- 
 lieved they would continue to do so, and that 
 as between their employment and that of the 
 Bank of the United States, they were to be pre- 
 ferred.^ It was believed that they would be 
 laithUr., and might be convenient fiscal agents 
 1 he Government was willing to try them; upon 
 trial they proved to be unfaithful, and the 
 State Bank System of fiscal agency utterlv 
 failed. ° J J 
 
 It IS uunecessary to enquire whether the fail- 
 tire of the State Bank Deposite System in 1837 
 happened from accident, an inherent defect in 
 the system, from inevitable necefsity, by design 
 or by fraud. It is enough that it has once hap- 
 pened to put the Government on its guard a- 
 gainst a recurrence for the future. After the 
 Bank of the United States had been dismissed 
 as the fiscal agent of the Government, and the 
 public money had been placed in the State 
 Banks, it was deemed to be proper to pass a law 
 "regulating the deposite of the money of the 
 Lnited States in certain I'jcal Banks." A Bill 
 with that object was accordingly introduced at 
 the session of Congress of 1834-'35. It was ri- 
 olently opposed by all the friends of the Bank 
 of the United States, and all those who were in 
 favor of restoring the public money to the' 
 keeping of that institution. After a protracted 
 discussion, and after the Bill had been matured 
 and was ready for the final action of the House,'' 
 a proposition of amendment was made by a gen-' 
 tleman, (Mr. Gordon) who disapproved there-' 
 moval of the dcposites and was avowedly in fa- 
 vor of their restoration to the Bank of the U- 
 nited States— to dispense with the use of all 
 Banlfs as fiscal agents. The proposition was 
 presented in a crude and undigested form. It 
 provided no vaults or other place in which the 
 public money could be safely kept. It provided 
 no punishment for the fraudulent or improper 
 use of it. It contained none of the guards and 
 checks of the present Independent Treasury 
 law, by which the public money is so amply se- 
 cured in the Treasury, against peculation and 
 Iraud. It was a naked proposition without de- 
 tails, and had it been adopted, would have been 
 wholly impracticable. It was not brought for- 
 ward in a manner, or under circumstances to 
 attract the serious consideration of any consid- 
 erable portion of either party in the House, and 
 the highest evidence that it was only intended 
 to embarrass the measure before the House, 
 consists in the fact, that all who voted for it, 
 with a single exception, were the friends of the 
 Bank of the United States, and in favour of res- 
 toring the custody of the public money to that 
 institution. The fact that it was intended only 
 to embarrass the measure before the House, and 
 to coerce the restoration of the deposites to the 
 Bank of the United States, has been distinctly 
 admitted by one of the friends of the Bank, who 
 voted for it, (Mr, Wise, of Va.) in a letter ad- 
 dressed to his constituents, on the 24th of 
 March, 1810. In that letter he says;--"] am 
 
 i. 
 
i.r 
 
 askej whether I voted for what is called f^or- 
 doD's proposition in 1837, and for my explana- 
 tion of that vote." And after making some 
 explanation, he adds:— "And I now declare that 
 I would not have voted for either of these prop- 
 ositions if there had been the least prospect of 
 its passage. This I expressly declared to Gen'l. 
 Gordon in relation to his amendment, when he 
 first named it to me." 
 
 The struggle at that Session (1835) was be- 
 tween the Bank of the Unitod States on the one 
 hand, and the regulation of the deposites by 
 law in the State Banks on the other. The 
 friends of the Bank of the United States, insist- 
 ed that the deposites should be restored to that 
 institution. The opponents of the Bank insist- 
 ed that so utterly faithless as a fiscal agent had 
 that Bank proved itself to be, that they ought 
 not to be restored, and that in the existing state 
 of things, it was proper to pass a law, to regu- 
 late their safe-keeping in the State Banks — 
 calculating, doubtless, that if no law was passed, 
 that that system of deposite would soon get into 
 confusion and the Government be compelled to 
 return the public money to the Bank of the U- 
 nited States. 
 
 The condition of the State Banks at that 
 
 ' time, and their condition after they suspended 
 specie payments in 1837, was widely different. 
 Whilst they paid specie and faithfully perform- 
 ed their duties as fiscal agents, it was considered 
 that their employment was to be prefered to that 
 of the Bank of the United States. When they 
 ceased to pay specie, and faithfully to discharge 
 their duties to the public, they were dismissed. 
 
 I Whilst they paid specie the friends of the Bank 
 of the United States objected to their employ- 
 ment, but when they failed to pay specie they 
 
 I became their apologists and advocate. On the 
 
 i other hand, whilst they paid specie the oppo- 
 nents of the Bank of the United States were 
 willing to try them, but when they failed to do 
 80, they were unwilling longer to continue the 
 
 ' deposite of the public money with them. The 
 Bank of the United States and the States Banks 
 
 I have both been tried, and proved faithless; the 
 Government learned wisdom from experiance, 
 and proposed to establish an Independent 
 
 iTreasury — a Tresury independent of Banks— a 
 
 .constitutional Treasury in fact, and not in 
 theory only. Such a Treasury has been estab- 
 lished, and I see no reason wjiy it should be 
 
 ' discontinued, and the Government resort back 
 again to the Bank deposite system, either 
 State or National." 
 
 I now only add — that I have seen no rea- 
 son to change my views as e.\pressed in 
 these addresses. The Constitution of the 
 United States contemplates a public Treasu- 
 ry. It provides that "no money shall be 
 drawn from the Treasury, but in conse- 
 quence of appropriations made by law," 
 Such a Treasury is provided by the Inde- 
 pendent Treasury Act, called by you "the 
 Sub-Treasury System." It provided that 
 the public money, between the periods of 
 collection and disbursement, should be kept 
 iiin the vaults of the Treasury at Washington, 
 
 and in strong boxes provided at the princi-. 
 pal poinis of collection, that it should be un- 
 der the lock &- key of the Government — un- 
 der the care ofofficers elected or chosen by 
 the people according to the forms of the consti- 
 ituiion of the U. S. that these officers should be 
 placed under bonds with approved security, 
 be under oaths, and be subject to ignomini- 
 ous punishment by long imprisonment in 
 the common jail or penitentiary for a viola* 
 tion of their duty. The system had work- 
 ed well and was working well, when the 
 party in power, at their e.xtra session of 
 Congress in 1841 repealed it. it is an er- 
 ror to attribute the defalcation of 6'ii;ar^trow^ 
 and others to this system. They occurred 
 long before the Independent law was pass- 
 ed. Swariwow^s defalcation commenced,, 
 (though he was not detected until after- 
 wards) during the period when the Bank of 
 the U. States was the fiscal agent depositor 
 ry of the public money. The party in pow- 
 er repealed the Independen. Treasury act,, 
 but have provided no substitute in its place. 
 They have been in power more than two 
 years, and where yet is the substitute which 
 they have provided? They have left the 
 public money to be kept under the act of 
 1789 — which provides that it "shall be re- 
 ceived and kept by the Treasury of the 
 United States.?' They have left it to the 
 discretin of their President, Mr. Tyler, to 
 direct the place and manner in which it 
 shall be kept. When the same thing oc- 
 curred after the removal of the deposites 
 from the late Bank of ihe United States by 
 Gen. Jackson, and before the act was pass- 
 ed regulating their keeping in the State 
 Banks, the same party charged that there 
 was a union of the purse &- the sword in the 
 hands of the President which was dangerous 
 to liberty, and yet, the moment they obtaia- 
 ed possession of power, they did the same 
 thing themselves. The charge that there 
 was a union of purse and sword was false. 
 They however, made it, and if they still 
 maintain its truth, they have themselves 
 united them. 
 
 But the party in power may say, that 
 they have attempted to furnish a substitute 
 by passing Mr. Claifs Bank Bill "To in- 
 corporate subscribers to the Fiscal Bank of" -fe^ 
 Ihe United States," vetoed by Mr. Tyler. *' . 
 That Bill proposed to make that Bank the ,,' 
 fiscal agent and keeper of the moneys of the * 
 United Slates. It provides that the "depos- 
 its of the money of the United States" 
 should be made in that Bank and that "all 
 
12 
 
 public moneys on deposite in said Bank, or 
 standing on its books lo ihe credit of the 
 Treasury, shall be taken and deemed to be 
 in the Treasury of the U. States." This 
 Bank then— by 3Ir. Clay^s Bill was to be 
 the Treasury of the United States. Mr. 
 Clay's Bill provided that the United States 
 was to subscrilie for one third of the Capital 
 Stock and other Stockholders for the remain- 
 ing two thirds of the stock. It provided 
 that the Bank should be governed by nine 
 Directors, three of whom were to be appoint- 
 ed by the United States, and six of whom 
 by the other Stockholders. The public 
 ifloney was to be placed in its keeping, and 
 when there, was declared to be considered 
 in the Treasury of the United States. The 
 Treasury of the United States was thus to 
 be placed, out of the power and control of 
 the Goveriiment and in the keeping of six 
 put of nine Bank Directors not elected or 
 appointed by the Government or people of 
 tlie United States, owing no responsibility 
 to either, under no bonds, no oaths, and sub- 
 ject to no punishment for an abuse of their 
 trust. Such was the fiscal agency by Mr. 
 Clay's Bank Bill. I fully submit to you. 
 Gentlemen, whether such a treasury or 
 plan of fiscal agency, is one which you can 
 approve, or which you prefer to the Inde- 
 pendent Treasury System, under %vhich 
 the Government kept control of its own 
 money by placing it in a Treasury in fact, 
 and not in theory only, under Ihe care and 
 control of responsible agents, selected by 
 the people according to the constitution and 
 
 Jaws. 
 
 Your 5ih and 6ih Interrogatories are in 
 the following words, to wit: 
 
 "5th. Are you in favor of a tariff or direct 
 taxes for the support of the General Govern- 
 ment." 
 
 "Gth. If a tariff, do you approve of such a 
 larilFas would give protection to home indus- 
 try against foreign industry?" 
 
 I answer that I am opposed to a system 
 of direct taxation, and am in favor of a mod- 
 erate scale of duties, laid by a taritF on im- 
 ported goods for the purpose of raising the 
 revenue which may be needed for the eco- 
 ijomical administration of the Government. 
 in fixing the rates of a tarilT, my opinion is, 
 that the object in view should be to raise 
 the revenue needed by Government leaving 
 the interests engaged in manufactures, to 
 enjoy the incidental advantage which tlie 
 levy of .such duties will aliord them. If by 
 ^'giving protection to liome industry," you 
 
 mean to assert the distinct principle, that a 
 tariff is to be laid soley or in any extent not 
 for revenue, but for the protection of capital 
 ists who have made their investments in 
 manufacturing establishments, so as to com- 
 pel the consumers of their articles, the ag- 
 riculturists, mechanics, persons employed 
 in commerce and all other pursuits to pay 
 higher prices for them, then I say that lam 
 opposed to such a principle, and to any tarifl 
 which recognizes it. "Home industry," 
 terms so often used by the advocates of the 
 protective tariff system, are comprehensive 
 in their meaning, and by a just legislation 
 should be made to embrace the industry em 
 ployed in agriculture, in the mechanic arts, 
 in commerce and all other pursuits, as well 
 as the industry employed in manufacturesj 
 I have at all times been opposed to prohibi 
 tory or high protective tariff laws, designed 
 not for revenue, but to advance the interests 
 of one portion of the people employed in 
 manufactures, by taxing another and much 
 the larger portion, thus making the many 
 tributary to the increased wealth of the 
 few. I amopposed to the tariff act of the late 
 Congress, considering it to be in many re- 
 spects of this character, — and, indeed, so 
 highly protective upon some articles as tti 
 prohibit their importation into the country, 
 altogether. I am infavor of repealing that 
 act, and restoring tlie compromise tarilF act 
 of March 2d, 1833; believing as I do, that it 
 would produce more revenue than the pres- 
 ent law, and that the incidental protection 
 aflorded by the 20 per cent duty, especially 
 when this would be paid in cash, and on the 
 home valuation, will aflbrd sufficient prO' 
 tcction to the manufacturers, and all that 
 they ought to desire, or to which they are 
 entitled. 
 
 Your last interrogatory is in the following 
 words, to wit: 
 
 "7th. Are you in favor of the election of 
 United States Senators by joint ballot of both 
 Houses of the Legislature? If not, by what 
 mode should they be elected?" 
 
 [ answer, that by the Constitution of the 
 United States it is provided that "The times, 
 places, and manner of holding elections for 
 Senators and Representatives shall ha prc-< 
 scribed in each State hv ihe Leeislalvrc 
 thereof, but that Congress may at any time 
 by law, make or alter such regulations, ex- 
 cept as lo the places of choosing Senators." 
 The Legislature of this State have never hy[ 
 law prescribed the tmies, places or manner 
 of electing Senators, Our practice has been 
 
13 
 
 to elect by joint ballot. In other States a 
 different mode has been adopted, and in 
 some of them (he practice has been to choose 
 by the concurrent vote ot'the two Houses — 
 each House acting in its separate and dis- 
 tince Legislative character, as it does in 
 passing laws or performing any other Legis- 
 lative act. Senators elected jn each of these 
 modes have been permitted to take their 
 seats and serve as such — no constitutional 
 question as to the "j/m/mcr" of their elec- 
 tion, so far as I know, having been raised. 
 I think then, in the absence of any Lagisla- 
 tive provision prescribing the "ma/JMer," 
 that it rests in the sound discretion of each 
 House of the Legislature, to select the mode 
 or manner, which in its judgement will best 
 subserve the public interest. The mode by 
 concurrent uoicofeacli House is conceded- 
 ]y constitutional, and if by insisting upon it 
 as the preferable mode — that be the only 
 means of effecting a great public good, or 
 preventing a great public injury — such as 
 preventing the election of persons to the 
 Senate of the United States who conceal 
 their opinions upon public subjects interest^ 
 ingtothc people, and who refused to make 
 tlaem known, or to say whether they adinit 
 or deny the right of instructioa, when res- 
 pectfulls' interrogated upon these points by 
 any portion of the constituent body. In such 
 cases, or similar, I hold that either branch 
 of the Legislature, would only be justified in 
 adhering, but it would be due to the rights 
 of their constituents, whose interests were 
 to be deeply effected, that they should 
 adhere to ihc 7nanner, by which these rights 
 whould be protected and preserved. The 
 chief, if not the only value of the liirht of 
 puffrage consists in the fact, that it may be 
 exercised iindcrstandlngli/ by the costitu 
 entbody. It is so, whether the immediate 
 constituency consists of the Legislature, as 
 in the case of the election of the U. States 
 Senators, or of the people in llieir primary ca- 
 pacity, in the elections of their ExQputive 
 or Legislative agents. In either case the 
 constituent has the right to know the opin- 
 ions of the canaidate before he casts his 
 vote. 
 
 Ihavc now, gentlemen, answered your in- 
 lerogalories. I have also answered certain 
 other interrogatories propounded through 
 the public papers at Memphis, by a portion 
 of your fello'v-citzens of Shelby County — 
 and as the answer to each set of interrog- 
 atories, is, in some degree, connected with 
 the answers to the other— -some of the inter- 
 
 rogatories in both being upon the same sub- 
 jects — I shall forward both answers by iho 
 next mail which leaves for Mempiiis, that 
 they may be published. 
 
 I am gentlemen, with high respect, 
 Your obed't serv't. 
 
 JAMES K. POLK. 
 
 CJov. Folk's liCtter 
 
 On the Public Expenditures, Public Debt 
 
 X (XV lit ^ZjC 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF TENNESSEE. 
 
 The subjects of the public expenditures, the 
 public debt, the tariff, and P>ank of the United 
 States, having been discussed by my compet- 
 itor and myself in the pending gubernatorial 
 election, and diiTering as we did incur respec- 
 tive statements of facts upon some of these 
 subjects, it was at mj instance that it was 
 agreed at Carrolville, on tlie 12th of April, 
 1843, that we would write out and print our 
 respective views and opinions. 
 
 I affirm that the present administration 
 have not redeemed the piedges made to tlie peo- 
 ple prior to the Presidential election of 1 840 
 that they would in the event of tlieir success' 
 reduce the public expenditures. They ciiarged 
 in 1 840, that the expenditures of the late ad- 
 ministration were recklessly and profligately 
 extravagant, and that they would bring them 
 down. Mr. Clay in his speech delivered at 
 Taylorsville, in the county of Hanover, in the 
 State of Virginia, on the 27th of June, 1840, 
 promised that <'a pruning knife, long, broad, 
 and sharp, should be applied to- every Depart- 
 ment of the Government. There is abundant; 
 scope for honest and skilful' surgery. The 
 annual expenditure may in reasonable time be 
 brought down from its present amount of about 
 forty millions to near one-third of tliat sum." 
 Similar promises— some of them even more 
 extravagant— were made by other leading 
 men, and by leading journals of the same par- 
 ty. 
 
 They have been in power more than two 
 years, and I affirm thit, instead of reducing, 
 they have largely increased the public expen- 
 ditures; and this I proceed to establish. I 
 will first examine the expenditures of the year 
 '40, being the last year of Mr. Van Buren's 
 term, and the expenditures of the year 1841 
 and 1842, being the first two years of the term 
 of the party in power; and will then examine 
 the expenditures of 1837, 1838. and 1839, 
 being the first three years of Mr. Van Buren 's 
 term, 
 
 Mr EwiNG, the Secretary of the Treasury 
 
14 
 
 appointed by General Harrison, in his report 
 on the Stale of the finances made to tho extra 
 Beesion of Congress, on the 2d of June, 1841, 
 states the precise amount of the expenditures 
 for 1840, as they appeared on the books of the 
 Treasury, as follows, viz: 
 
 "The expenditures for the same year ( 1 840) 
 were for — 
 Civil list, foreign intercourse 
 
 and miscellaneous $6,492,030 98 
 
 Military Department 10,866,246 45 
 
 Naval Department 6,031,088 88 
 
 Public Debt ' 11,982 77 
 
 And outstanding warrants is- 
 sued prior to 1st January, 
 1841 1,116,334 28 
 
 Treasury notes redeemed in- 
 cluding interest 4,045,802 05 
 
 Deduct from this aggregate 
 sum the "Public Debt;" 
 outstanding warrants, 
 and Treasury notes re- 
 deemed; not chargeable to 
 ordinary expenditures of 
 the year 
 
 Making the precise amount 
 of ordinary expenditures 
 
 $27,863,475 41 
 
 5,474,119 10 
 
 for 1840 
 
 $22,389,356 31 
 
 Mr. Fillmore, the late whig chairman of the 
 Comniittee of Ways and Means, in a speech 
 delivered by him in the House of Representa- 
 tives, on the 9th of June, 1 842, states the or- 
 dinary expenses for ihat year, at this precise 
 sum. 
 
 The expenditures for 1811, stated by the 
 Register of the Treasury in an official commu- 
 nication dated "Treasury Department, Regis- 
 ter's Office, February 8, 1843," are as fol- 
 lows, viz: 
 
 Civil, miscellaneous and for- 
 eign intercourse $6,377,153 49 
 Military Establishment 13,594,796 66 
 Naval establisnment 5,910,322 67 
 Interest, &c., on Public Debt 99,497 84 
 Redemption of Treasury Notes 
 
 including interest 5,501,190 90 
 
 Trust funds 
 
 Making the aggregate 
 sura of 
 
 Deduct from this aggregate 
 sum "interest on Public 
 Debt, Treasury Notes 
 redeemed with interest, 
 
 314,567 47 
 
 11,797,530 03 
 
 and trust funds," ma- 
 king the amount of ordi- 
 nary expenditures for 
 1841 
 
 5,915,256 211 
 
 Making the amount of ordi- 
 nary expenditures for 
 1841 $25,882,373 8^ 
 
 Take from this sum the or- 
 dinary expenditures for 
 1840, as shown above 22,389,356 31 
 
 Leaves the increase of ex- 
 penditures for 1841 over 
 1840 of $3,492,817 51 
 
 But it may be said that a part of the year 
 1841, viz; — from the Ist of January to the 3d 
 of March of that year inclusive, belonged to 
 Mr. Van Buren's administration, and that the 
 present administration are only responsible 
 for the expenditures subsequent to the 3d of 
 March, 1841. 
 
 To meet this Buggestion should it be made, 
 I will now state from an official document — 
 laid before the late Congress by the Secreta- 
 ry of the Treasury at lis second session. Doc. 
 No. 259 — the amount which was expended 
 by the party in power from the 4th of March, 
 '41 to the 4th of March, '42, viz: 
 Civil, miscellaneous and for- 
 eign intercourse $6,292,211 56 
 Military Establishment 13,635,411 95 
 Naval Establishment 6,300,592 95 
 Treasury notes and old funded 
 
 debt 7,038,187 91 
 
 $33,266,403 47 
 Deduct from this aggregate 
 sum "Treasury notes and 
 old funded debt" 7,038,187 91 
 
 Leaves the expenditures for 
 one year commencing on 
 the 4th of March, '41, 
 and ending on the 3d of 
 March, '43, the sum of 26,228,215 56 
 
 Take from this sum the ex- 
 penditures for *40, as 
 shown above 22,389,356 31 
 
 Leaves the increase of ex- 
 penditures for the year 
 from the 4th March, '41 
 to the 4th March, '42, 
 over the expenditures of 
 '40, the sum of $3,838,859 25 
 
 But it has been «aid,that the appropria- 
 
u 
 
 tlons lor '41, were made by Mr. Van Buren's 
 expiring Congress, before their adjournment 
 on the 3d of March of that year, and that the 
 Whig party expended the appropriations which 
 they had made for the year. To this I an- 
 swer, that the Congress which expired on the 
 3d of March, '41, did make appropriations 
 which they deemed to be sufficient for the 
 public service for that year. With the sums 
 thus appropriated the Whig party were not 
 satisfied, but called an extra session of Con- 
 gress together which cost the nation in defray- 
 ing their own expenses 376,477 dollars and 
 60 cts — and that Congress at that extra ses- 
 sion, made additional appropriations for the 
 service of '41, over and above the amount 
 which had been deemed necessary by the pre- 
 ceding Congress, of the sum of 5,043,705 dol- 
 lars 02 cts. 
 
 The expenditures for '42, as stated by the 
 Register of the Treasury in an official com- 
 munication, dated "Treasury Department, 
 Register's OfBce, February 8, 1843," are as 
 follows, viz: 
 
 Civil, miscellaneous and for- 
 eign intercourse §6,673,978 81 
 3Iilitary Establishment 8,828,894 14 
 Naval Establishment 8,334,932 66 
 Interest, &c, on Public Debt 4,1 1,059 32 
 Redemption of Treasury Notes 
 
 including interest 8,063,709 61 
 
 Trust funds 309,622 35 
 
 Deduct from this aggregate 
 sum, "interest on PubKc 
 Debt,redemption of Trea- 
 sury Notes, including in- 
 terest and trust funds" 
 
 §^32,622,196 89 
 
 8,783,3S1 2S 
 
 Leaving for ordinary expen- 
 ditures of '42 $23,838,815 61 
 
 Take from this sum the ex- 
 penditures for '40, as 
 shown above 22,389,356 31 
 
 Leaves an increase of expen- 
 ditures for '42 over 
 '40 of 
 
 S 1,44 9,4 59 30 
 
 It will be observed loo. that in the expen- 
 ditures of '42, the item of "Interest, &c, on 
 Public Debt" is swelled up to 41 1,059 dol- 
 lars 32 cts — much the larger portion of which 
 consists undoubtedly, of interest paid on the 
 new funded debt, which the party in power 
 have created since they came in, which ought 
 properly to bo charged to them as an increaeed 
 
 item of expenditure. If this be done, the ex- 
 cess of expenditure for '42 over ^'40, will 
 be increased by that sum. 
 
 It cannot then be controverted, that the ex- 
 penditures of '41 and '42, have been in- 
 creased over those of '40. That they have 
 been unnecessarily increased, ig further mani- 
 fest from the fact, that the late administration 
 contemplated and recommended a reduci ion 
 below the expenditures of '40. The Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury in this report made to 
 Congress on the 7th of December, '40 on 
 the state of the finances, and tubmiiting esti- 
 mates of appropriation for '4 1 , proposes a 
 reduction, and assigns the reason why such 
 reduction should and ought to be made. In 
 that report, the Secretary of the Treasury 
 states: 
 
 «*It is believed that the ordinary expenses 
 of '41, ought to fall some millions below 
 those of '40— as the pensions have dimin- 
 ished by deaths, fewer Indians remain to be 
 removed, several expensive public buildings 
 have been mostly finished, and hostilities with 
 the Semmoles must be near to a close." 
 
 The Secretary accordingly in that report 
 estimates "the expenditures for '41— for 
 ordinary purposes— if Congress make no reduc- 
 tion in the appropriations, requested by the 
 different departments at $19,250,000." 
 
 This was the sum which was deemed to 
 be ample for ordinary expenditures for 1841. 
 The whig Congress met in extra session, 
 and not only made new appropriations to the 
 amount of "^5,043,705 02, but they expend- 
 ed for ordinary purposes, as has been alrea- 
 dy shown, for 1841, the sum of $25,882,- 
 273 82. 
 
 Take from this the above es- 
 timate of the expenditures 
 
 deemed proper 
 
 19,250,000 00 
 
 Leaves an excess of expen- 
 diture by the whig Con- 
 gress over the estimate of 
 the Secretary of the Trea- 
 sury of the sum of 6,632,273 83 
 
 This is the practical application by the 
 whig Congress of Mr. Clay's pruning knife, 
 which in his Hanover Speech, he promised 
 would be used in cutting down the expendi- 
 tures of Government. 
 
 To evade the force of these truths which 
 cannot be controverted, without falsifying 
 the official records, from which they are ta- 
 ken, some of the leading men and public 
 journals of the whig party, go back to the 
 
If) 
 
 commencement of Mr. Van Buren's admin- 
 istration, and parade before the public, not 
 the ordinary expenditures as made, but the 
 gross sums, without abstracting from them 
 the public debt and Treasury notes with in- 
 terest redeemed, and the trust funds, which 
 all know constitute no part of the ordinary 
 expenditures of Government. The chief 
 document to which they are in the habit of 
 refering, is one which has of late become 
 somewhat celebrated. It is called by them, 
 House Document No. 31, laid before the 
 House and ordered to be printed by Mr. 
 FiLLMOKE the late whig Chairman of the 
 committee of ways and means. From one 
 column of that Document, they read and print 
 the gross sums without deducting, as is done 
 in another column of the same Document, 
 the public debt, Treasury notes and trust- 
 funds paid out for 1837 and 1839. By this 
 process they state the expenditures for 1837, 
 to be 37 millions and a fraction; for 1838, 
 39 millions and a fraction; for 1839, 37 mil- 
 lions and a fraction, and here they stop. 
 By turning to other columns of the same ta- 
 ble, they, will see that the amount of "pay- 
 ments on account of public debt and trust 
 funds," for 1837, were ^5,G7G,856 97; the 
 same items for 1838 they would find were 
 $7,911,042 16; and the same items for 1839, 
 they would find were $12,171,219 71. By 
 making those deductions, in the same way 
 that the same items, (not being properly i- 
 tems of expenditure) have been deducted 
 from the years 1840, 1811 , and 1812, as a- 
 bove set forth, the statement stands as may 
 be found in another column of the same doc- 
 ument No. 31 — as follows, to wit : 
 
 For 1837 $31,588,180 18 
 
 For 1838 31,544,396 19 
 
 For 1839 25,443,716 94 
 
 And this same Mr. Fillmore, the late whig 
 Chairman of the committee of ways and 
 means, in a speech delivered by him in the 
 house cf representatives, on the 9;h of June 
 1842, is compelled to make, and does make, 
 these corrections. But these are not the 
 only deductions which arc to be made from 
 these years. There were causes of extra- 
 ordinary expenditures which did not exist in 
 the years 1841, and 1842 as stated by the 
 Secretary of the Treasury in his Report of 
 the 7th December 1840, which has been aU 
 ready referred to. The chief items of an 
 extraordinary character, and which do not 
 belong to the ordinary expenses of every 
 year, are the cost of Indian wars, the pay- 
 ment for Indian lands, the cost of removal of 
 
 Indians, the erection of Ctistom Houses in 
 some of the principal cities, the erection of 
 buildings for new Treasury and Patent of- 
 tFices, and a Penitentiary House at Wash- 
 ington. These and other extraordinary 
 items amounted to many millions, which 
 ought to be deducted. 
 
 Mr. John Bell of this State, in a speech 
 made in Congress, as early as January 20th 
 1841, admitted— that "For the service of 
 the Florida war in 1838, there were appro- 
 priated and expended, upwards of six mil- 
 lions OF poLLAEs. This all must admit 
 should be deducted from the ordinary expen- 
 ditures of 1838. In confirmation of the ad- 
 mission here made, a distinguished member 
 of Congress (Mr. John W.Jones of Virginia; 
 late chairman of the committee of v/ays and 
 means) on the r2lh of Ju[y 1841, made a 
 fair exposition of some of these items of ex- 
 traordinary expenditures, not belonging to 
 the ordinary expenditures of any year; and 
 I here give it as conveying the facts, and 
 my own views in as conclusive and clear a 
 light as I could present them; to wit: 
 
 "I ask if it was not in fairness due to the 
 
 "late administration to have stated what we 
 
 "here all know to be true — that, while the ex- 
 
 "pendilures were large, they were rendered 
 
 "necessary by extraordinary causes, which had 
 
 "not existed for a series of years before, and 
 
 "are not, I truse, likely to operate as a drain 
 
 "upon the Tresnry hereafter. In confimation 
 
 "of (his, you have only to turn your attention 
 
 "to the millions v.'iiich have been expended in 
 
 "toe suppression of Indian hostilities, and for 
 
 "the removal of the various Indian tribes be- 
 
 "yond our territorial limits; with a view in the 
 
 "one case, to protect our defenceless inhabi- 
 
 'tants from the crual barbarities jof a savage 
 
 "foe; from the tomahawk and scalping knife; 
 
 "and in the other, to restore peace and quiet 
 
 "to a large portion of our country, who had a 
 
 ''rio-ht to claim protection at the hands of this 
 
 "Governmcn . And who is there of any party 
 
 "that would not have been willing to draw the 
 
 "last dollar fom the public Treasury if he could, 
 
 "by such extravagance, have saved but one wo- 
 
 "man, orone child, from the butchery of (he 
 
 "Savage? During the late administration there 
 
 "were expended upon these objects $J3,714, 
 
 "317. The further sum of §8,795,826 has been 
 
 "expended in the purchase of laud from the 
 
 "various Indian tribes, and in extinguishing 
 
 "Indian titles within the States, thus putting 
 
 "it in our power to get rid of borders of ruthless 
 
 "savages, and to receive in the rich domain 
 
 "which has been acquired an ample equivalent. 
 
 "The list of expenditures, also, shows that the 
 
 "sum of $3,52(1,624 was applied to the erection 
 
 "of durable fire-proof buildings for the preserva- 
 
 "tion of the public archives, records &c. Sir, 
 
 "since you and I have been members of this 
 
 "body, wc have been waked up at dead hours 
 
 "of the night from our beads of rest by the 
 
17 
 
 "alarm of the firebelU, to behold our public 
 "buildiDgs wrapped in flames, and the morning 
 ♦'sun has riesn upon the smoking ruins. It has 
 "been principally to replace these buildings, 
 "and to provide custom houses in our large 
 "commercial cities, that this expenditure has 
 "been rendered necessary." 
 
 These statements are verified by the pub- 
 lic records. Make, then, the deductions of 
 these and other extraordinary items and al- 
 so of the public debt and treasury notes re- 
 deemed, and trust funds, and the gross sums 
 quoted from one column, without reference 
 to the other columns of Mr. Fillmore's cele- 
 brated House Doc. No. 31, and it will be 
 found that the ordinary expenditures for the 
 years 1837, '38 and '39, as well as 1840, 
 are below the ordinary expenditures for 
 1841 and '42. 
 
 It has been vaguely and erroneously 
 charged in the present canvass for Govern- 
 or, that Mr. Van Buren found upwards of 
 $31,000,000 in the treasury when he came 
 into office, and that he spent or wasted it, 
 and that on that account his administration 
 is not entitled to credit for public debt, Treas- 
 ury notes redeemed and trust funds. To ex- 
 pose this error, it is only necessary to refer 
 to the report of the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury of the 6th Dec. 1837— in which the 
 Secretary after setting forth the nominal 
 ballance appearing on the books of the 
 Treasury, states: 
 
 "Before adverting to other topics, it will be 
 proper to explain what portion of this balance 
 ■will not immediately be either available or ap- 
 plicable to public purposes." 
 
 "The first three instalments of deposites, with 
 the several States, which have recently been 
 placed with them to the credit of the Treasurer 
 for safe keeping, in conformity to the provisions 
 of the act of 23d June 1836, are included in it " 
 
 "As the subsequent law of Oct. 14, 1837, 
 prohibits the recall of these deposites, till oth- 
 erwise directed, this large amount will, till 
 then, be unavailable for any purposes of the 
 General Government. It is $28,101,644 97." 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury in that 
 report, after enumerating other unavailable 
 funds, says: 
 
 "If the aggregate of all these, amounting to 
 $33,101,644 97 be deducted from the balance of 
 §34,187,143 29 above mentioned, the residue 
 of the public money, that, on the 1st of January 
 next, will probably be then both available and 
 applicable to general purposes will be $1,085, 
 498 32." 
 
 There is one other fact connected with 
 
 the expenditures for 1837, '38 and '39, 
 
 which it is proper should be stated. The 
 
 ^ Executive at the commencement of each 
 
 regular session of Congress, submits an es- 
 
 ticnate of the sums deemed to be necessary 
 for the service of the ensuing year. Con- 
 gress may ia their discretion appropriate 
 less or more than the sums asked . It ap- 
 pears that for these years the appropriations 
 made, greatly exceeded the estimates. The. 
 precise amount of excess for each year may- 
 be seen by reference to a report made by 
 the Secretary of the Treasury to Congress 
 on the 2d March 1841, being No. 226, of 
 Senate Document, 2d Session 26th Con- 
 gress. It appears from the report that the 
 Executive estimated for the service of 1837, 
 the sum of $22,720,107 37, that Congress 
 exceeded that estimate m the appropriations, 
 by the sum of $ 17,035,991 18. For 1838, 
 the estimate was $22,735,249 19. Con- 
 gress exceeded this sum in their appropria- 
 tions, by the sum of $12,566,678 80. For 
 1839, the estimate was $23,509 95. Con- 
 o-ress exceeded this sum in their appropria- 
 tions by the sum of $1,439,021 11. One 
 cause of this increase may have -been the 
 extraordinary calls upon the Treasury for 
 the objects already mentioned. Whatever 
 the cause may have been, the fact is well 
 known, that the body of the party now in 
 power in Congress, and especially from the 
 northern and eastern sections of the Union, 
 the Journals of Congress prove, have for 
 many years, as well during Gen. Jackson's 
 & Mr. Van Buren's administrations, as du- 
 ring the two years they have held powec 
 themselves, voted for the largest appropria- 
 tions which have been made. The truth is, 
 that large expenditures constitute a part of 
 their settled policy . 
 
 Intimately connected with the public ex- 
 penditure \s\he public debt, which the par- 
 ty in power have contracted within the last 
 two years. The following official statements 
 from the Treasury prove the precise a- 
 mount of increase from the 4th of March 
 1841— up to the 13th February 1843.^ The 
 following are the statements from the Treas- 
 ury, viz: 
 
 1 . ^^ Amount of the Public Debt on the 
 4th o/ilfarcA, 1841." 
 
 "Old funded and unfunded debt; 
 Funded debt— int. and principal, |296,642 05 
 Unfunded debt— old Treasury 
 
 Notes 4,595 29 
 
 Mississippi Stock 4,320 09 
 
 Registered Debt 26,622 44-35,537 73 
 
 Debt of the corporate cities of the 
 District of Columbia, assumed 
 by the United States 1,500,000 00 
 
 Treasury Notes 5,648,512 40. 
 
 Total debt. 
 
 |7,480^> ^ 
 
18 
 
 Tre&surv Depatlmeht, Register's Office, f 
 ^ ^ February 13, 1843, < 
 
 T. L. SMITH, Register. 
 
 2. Siatment of the Public Debt, VSth Feb. 
 
 1843. 
 
 Old funded and unfunded debt: 
 
 Funded debt— int. and principal $288,306 60 
 
 Unfunded debt— old Trea- 
 sury note* $4,314 44 
 
 Misaissippi Stock. 4,320 09 
 
 Registered debt 26,622 44-33,259 9/ 
 
 Debt of tke corporate cities of the 
 District of Columbia assumed 
 ty the United Stales 1 ,380,000 00 
 
 Treasury notes 11,711,210 17 
 
 iLoaD of i841 and 1842 13,974, 445 II 
 
 Total debt $27,389,221 65 
 
 Treasury Department, Register's Office, > 
 February 13, 1843. S 
 T.L. SMITH, Register." 
 
 Take the amount as here slated, on the 
 4th of March 1841, from the amount on the 
 13th February 1843— and the precise 
 amount of increase of deii will be ascer- 
 tained — ^^viz: 
 
 Am't on the l3th Feb. 1 843 $27 ,389,22 1 65 
 Am't on 4lh March 1 841 7,480,592 1 8 
 
 -Showing the precise amount 
 of increase of pubhc debt 
 to be $19,908,529 74 
 
 And how is it possible that this plain re- 
 cord taken from the books of the Treasury, 
 can be contradicted or falsified.^ And yet 
 attempts are made to do this. Upon sever- 
 al occasions during the pendency of the pres- 
 ent gubernatorial canvass, the statement of 
 an address made by a whig meeting held in 
 Virginia, has been relied on to prove that a 
 distmguished member of Congress of the dem- 
 ocratic party, (Mr. Charles J . Ingkrsoll, 
 of Penn.) had admitted that the whig party 
 had inherited 22 millions of this debt from 
 Mr. Van Buren's administration. This au- 
 thority 1 presume will not again be relied 
 on, especially after the public shall have 
 seen or read the following contradiction of 
 itfromJVIr. In^ersoZi himself: 
 
 Philabelphia, March 24, 1843. 
 Sir; — 1 am much obliged by your letter 
 of the I6lh instant, because it enables me 
 thro' you — you are at liberty to use this an- 
 swer as you please — to deny and refute the 
 totally unfounded statement which you in- 
 form me appears in the address of the whigs 
 of Virginia, that 1 acknowledged, in an ad- 
 dress to my constituents, that the public debt 
 at the close of Mr. Van Buren's administra- 
 tion, was twcnty-iwo inillious of dollars.-- 
 
 I never said so, wrote so or thouht ao, or any 
 thing at all like such an acknowledgment. 
 I have not seen the whig address you refer to, 
 & have not at hand the letter to my constitu- 
 ents to which I suppose it may allude. In 
 that letter, I believe I stated the public debt 
 in September, 1842, at twenty-two millions 
 of dollars; which was done for the purpose of 
 showing that it had risen to that amount in 
 about one year after two sessions of Con- 
 gress of whig rule; the first act of which Con- 
 gress was for borrowing twelve millions of 
 dollars, followed up afterwards by a second 
 act for borrowing five million more, and then 
 a third act for converting si.x millions of the 
 loan into an issue of treasury notes bearing 
 interest at six per cent., because the loan 
 could not be negotiated at par— one of these 
 acts of Congress containing authority hith- 
 erto unheard of in time of peace and plenty, 
 to dispose of the loan under par. At least 
 seventeen millions of the twenty two 1 sta- 
 ted, were therefore, whig debts, and so I 
 stated, and, according to what I have always 
 understood and believed, the only debt left 
 by Mr. Van Buren's administration was a 
 treasury note debt of about five millions, 
 which the income of the country would have 
 paid off and extinguished without difficulty 
 or further appropriation. 
 
 lam respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 C. J. INGERSOLL. 
 
 It will be seen fiom the official statement 
 
 of the Register of the Treasury, that of the 
 
 7,480,692 dollars, and 18 cents, stated to 
 
 be the debt on the4lh of March, 1841, that 
 
 the administration of Mr. Van Buren is only 
 
 chargeable with the amount of Treasury 
 
 notes outstanding, being 5,648,512 dollars 
 
 and 40 cts.— the other items having decend- 
 
 ed from previous administrations. From 
 
 this latter sum should be deducted also, 572,- 
 
 718 dollars and 46 cents, that being the 
 
 amount stated by Mr. Ewing in his report 
 
 to the extra session of Congress to be in the 
 
 Treasury on the 4th March 1841, and also 
 
 thesum'of about half a million of dollars 
 
 which was in fact in the Treasury, being the 
 
 proceeds of one of the bonds of the late bank 
 
 of the United States, held by the United 
 
 States, which had been paid, but which by 
 
 mistake or omission Mr. Secretary Ewing 
 
 in a subsequent Report to the Senate of the 
 
 United States admitted he had failed to state 
 
 to be in the Treasury. It is now, however, 
 
 for the first time attempted by public men 
 
 of repuldlion lo make it appear thai 'appro- 
 
19 
 
 priations' and 'public debt' are synonimous 
 terms. "It has been left to these days of 
 enlightened economy to make the discovery 
 that this (appropriations) is a debt." An 
 appropriation is an authority by law , to draw 
 money from the Treasury and apply it to 
 specified objects and purposes. By the 
 Constitution no money can be "drawn from 
 the Treasury but in consequence of appro- 
 priations made by law." Though the 
 Treasury be overflowing, not a dollar 
 can be drawn from it until an 'appro- 
 priation' law authorizes it to be done. Ap- 
 propriation laws are passed annually before 
 Congress adjourns, and they constitute the 
 authority to use or apply the public money 
 to public purposes. And was it ever heard 
 of before that these laws constitute a nation- 
 al or public debt? At the end of every year 
 large amounts of appropriations remain in 
 the Treasury unexpended and pass over to 
 be expended for the next year. It often 
 happens too that large amounts of apprpria- 
 lions remain unexpended for long periods of 
 time, afid in that case they go to the surplus 
 fund, and cannot be used until a ne'V apro- 
 priation law authorising ihat use is passed. 
 As had been the practice and was their du- 
 ty, Mr. Van Buren's expiring Congress 
 passed the usual appropriation laws, before 
 their adjournment on the 3d of March 1841, 
 for the use of Gen. Harrison's administra- 
 tion. If they had not passed them his ad- 
 ministration could not have gone on, and 
 now the amount of these appropriations for 
 the current year and the outstanding balan- 
 ces of appropriations are charged, I repeat, 
 for the first time, by any public menof repu- 
 utation to be a debt. Instead of calling: 
 them appropriation as they have always 
 been called, they call them liabilities, and 
 insist that a liability is a debt. By a cau^ 
 tiously prepared resolution passed by Con- 
 gress in 1842, a call is made on the officers 
 of the Treasury to report "the amount for 
 which the Treasury was liable on the 4th 
 March, 1841 — on account of appropriations 
 ol all kinds, undrawn on that day «S2,c." — 
 The Report from the Treasury technichally 
 responds to the call, and states : 
 "Specific appropriations of 
 all kinds — undrawn on 
 the 4th of March, 1841, $27,134,721 30 
 Indefinite appropriation? 
 drawn between the 4th of 
 March and 31st of De- 
 cember, 1841, 1,771,269 46 
 And by adding these items to the Treasury 
 
 notes then outstanding, they get the aggre-> 
 gate sum of $34,665,269 39; which they 
 attempt to parade as a public debt. Sup- 
 pose the same principle be applied at the 
 close of Mr. Adam's administration on the 
 4th of March, 1829— the day on which Gen. 
 Janckson entered on the duties of President. 
 On that day the amount of undrawn appro- 
 priations for the service of 1829, with the 
 unexpended balance of appropriations of for« 
 mer years, was $26,379,941. Was this 
 sum ever dreamed of as a debt inherited by 
 Gen. Jackson from Mr. Adams' administra- 
 tion? Apply the same principle to the close 
 of Gen. Jackson's on the 4th of March, 
 1837 — the day on which Mr. Van Buren 
 entered on the duties of President. On that 
 day the amount of undrawn appropriations 
 for the service of 1837 — with the unexpen- 
 ded balance of appropriations of former 
 years— was $57,258,625. Was this a debt 
 inherited by Mr. Van Buren from Gen. 
 Jackson's administration? Weallknow that 
 no national debt existed at that time. Ap- 
 ply the same principle to the 4th of March 
 of the present year (1843) of the whig ad- 
 ministration. If the undrawn appropriations 
 on the 4th of March, 1841, were liabilities 
 and therefore a debt, the undrawn appropri- 
 ations on the 4th of March, 1843, were lia- 
 bilities also and therefore a debt. On that 
 day the amount of undrown appropriations 
 — for the year 1843 — and the first half of 
 1844— were $29,214,185 
 71. Deduct appropria- 
 tions for Post Office, 4,545,000 OO 
 
 Unexpended balance of ap- 
 propriations of former 
 years — as they were as- 
 certained to be on the 1st 
 January, 1843, 
 
 $24,669,185 71 
 
 10,412,003 00 
 
 Making of undrawn appro- 
 priations $35,081,188 71 
 
 Add to this "the public debt 
 on the 13th February, 
 1843" as shown by the 
 official statement of the 
 Register of the Treasury, 27,389,221 65 
 
 Making 
 
 So that upon the principle 
 assumed by some of the 
 whig party as applied to 
 the 4th of March 184J, 
 there were on the 4th of 
 
 $62,470,410 ,3& 
 
March iS'in, liabilities 
 or debts amouJiting to the 
 sum of $02,470,419 36 
 
 Deduct from this the amount 
 of undrawn appropria« 
 tionson the 4th of March 
 1841, which they insist 
 were liabilities on that 
 day & therefore a debt, $34,665,269 39 
 
 Showing upon this princi- 
 ple an increase of liabili- 
 ties or debt of this sum $27,S0r»,140 97 
 
 If the Whig leading men be right in as- 
 suming that undrawn appropriations consti- 
 tute a liability on the Treasury and there* 
 fore a debt — it follows from the facts here 
 stated that they found these liabilities on the 
 
 4th March, 1841, to be $34,665,269 39 
 
 And left the same kind of 
 liabilities or debt on the 
 4th of March 1843, at $62,470,410 36 
 
 Showing an increase of pub- 
 lic debt upon this princi^ 
 pie in two years, of $27,805,140 97 
 
 If this principle be correct, every admin«- 
 istration must of necessity inherit a public 
 debt from its immediate predecessors; al- 
 though the nation as was the case when Gen. 
 Jackson retired, may be free from public 
 debt and owe nothing. 
 
 If however, the true principle prevailts, 
 and the records of the Treasury be true, (he 
 Whig party now in power, have increased 
 the Public Debt by borrowing money and 
 issuing Treasury notes on interest by the 
 sum of $19,908,529 47, as I have already 
 shown. On the other hand, if the Whig 
 principle prevails they have enlarged the 
 debt by $27,805,140 97. Let them there- 
 fore select which of the two principles they 
 may, they have incontroveriibly increased 
 the public debt. 
 
 I have no hesitation in expressing my con- 
 viction, that if the party in power had not 
 disturbed the land fund by their distribution, 
 and had brought the usual quantity of pub- 
 lic lands into market, instead of withholding 
 them from market, for the purpose ofre> 
 serving the proceeds for distribution; and if 
 they had not disturbed the Compromise 
 Tariff act of 1833— that income into the 
 Treasury would have been amply sufficient 
 to meet all necessary expenditures for 1811 
 and '42. Instead of^this they have by their 
 policy diminished the revenue, increased I 
 
 the expenditures a. 
 
 debt in time of profound peace with all the 
 world, at the rate of ten millions a year. 
 That the next annual Report from the 
 Treasury Department will show a still 
 greater amount of public debt by an increas- 
 ed issue of Treasury notes, there is no reas- 
 on to doubt 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury in De«« 
 cember 1840 as I have already shown, esti- 
 mated the ordinary expenditures for 1841 at 
 .•§19,250,000. The actual receipts for the 
 first three quarters of that year and the esti- 
 mated receipts for the 4th quarter as shown 
 by the late Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. 
 Forward, in his Report of 20th December, 
 1841, were, independent of Treasury notes 
 issued and loans made, 17,145,804 dollars 
 19 cents; a sum wiihin 2,104,195 dollars 
 and 81 cents of that estimated by the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury in the December 
 previous, to be necessary for the service of 
 1841. That there may be no doubt upon 
 this point, I will give the receipts for 1841, 
 as stated by Mr. Secretary Forward, in his 
 Report of December 20, 1841. They are 
 as follows, viz: 
 
 "Receipts into the Treasury du- 
 ring the first three quarters of 
 the present year (1841) viz: 
 
 From Customs, $1 0,847,557 44 
 
 From Lands, 1,104,063 06 
 
 From Miscellaneous and inci- 
 dental sources, 90,691 69 
 
 From bond of Bank of the United 
 States, 662,049 47 
 
 From Banks which failed in 
 
 1837, 51,127 30 
 
 The receipts for the 4th quarter 
 it is estimated will amount to 
 — viz; 
 
 From Customs, 4,000,000 00 
 
 From Lands, 350,000 00 
 
 From Miscellaneous and inci- 
 dental sources. 30,000 00 
 
 From bond of Bank of the U. S. 10,315 23 
 
 $17,145,804 19 
 The revenue from lands would undoubt- 
 edly have been increased between one and 
 two mil linns, had the usual quantity been 
 ofTered for sale. 
 
 I am well satisfied, if the policy of the late 
 administration in regard to reduction of ex- 
 penditures, had been pursued by their suc- 
 cessors, that the nation would now have 
 been freed from the increased national debt 
 of near twenty millions of dollars, which by 
 a contrary policy they have within the last 
 two years imposed upon it. The extraor- 
 dinary causes which led to large expendi- 
 
.il 
 
 ... i 837,1838 arid 1S30, had passed 
 otl'.and did not exist in 1S41 and 1842. 
 
 THE TARIFF, 
 
 Upon the subject of the tarifT, I have but 
 little to add to what I have heretofore often 
 declared 1o the public. All who have ob- 
 served my course know that I have at all 
 times been opposed to ihe "protective poli- 
 cy." I am for laying such moderate duties 
 on imports as will raise revenue enough 
 when added to the income from the sale of 
 lands and other incidental sources, to defray 
 the expenses of Government economically 
 administered. lam in favor of a tariff /or 
 revenue, and opposed to a tanfF/br protec- 
 tion. I was a member of Congress during 
 the period that this subject excited greatest 
 interest. I was opposed to the protective 
 tariff of 1828 and voted against it. I voted 
 for the act of 1832 — because it reduced the 
 tariff of 1828 to lower rates. That made 
 some reduction though not as much as I de^* 
 sired to have made. I voted (or the act of 
 March 2d 1833 (commonly called the com- 
 promise act) which reduced the rates of 
 the act of 1832 to still lower rates, and final- 
 ly brought the rates of the acf of 1832 down 
 to a point at which no article was after the 
 30lh of June 1842 to be subject to a duty 
 higher than 20 per cent. This was the law 
 when the whig Congress came into power. 
 By the tariff act of the 30th August 1842, 
 the compromise act was violated and repeal- 
 ed. I am opposed to the act of 1842, not 
 regarding it to be a revenue tariff, but in ma- 
 ny of its provisions highly protective and op- 
 pressive in its character. I am in favor of 
 the restoration of the compromise act of 
 
 rl833. • 
 
 The condition of the country at the lime 
 the compromise act of 1833 was passed can 
 never be forgotten. Its effect in allaying the 
 excitement which threatened the most de- 
 structive consequences, was instantaneous. 
 Whilst it was pending before Congress, Mr. 
 Clay in a speech declared : 
 
 "But if the measure should be carried by the 
 common consent of both parties, we shall have 
 all security. History will faithfully record the 
 transaction — narrate uoder what circumstances 
 the bill was passed; that it was a pacifying 
 measure; that it was as oil poured from the ve s- 
 sel of the Union, to restore peace and harmony 
 to the country. When all this was known, 
 what Congress— what Legislature would mar the 
 
 f^unrantee auti who ix entitle.u .^ . . .... 
 
 the character uf an American statesman, would 
 stand up in his place iti either House of Congress 
 and dislurh the treaty oj peace and amity."' 
 
 Such was the language of Mr. Clay upon 
 the introduction of the Compromise Bill. It 
 passed "by the common consent of both par- 
 ities;" it did "restore peace and harmony to 
 the conntry" and on all sides it was held 
 "sacred as a treaty of peace and amity" un- 
 til the whig party came info power. 
 
 Mr. Clay in a speech made at Buffalo, in 
 New York, in July 1S39, declared: 
 
 "The compromise of the tariff was proposed 
 to preserve our manufacturers from impending 
 ruin, menaced by the administration of Gen. 
 Jackson, and would avert from the Union the 
 threatened danger of civil war. If the compro- 
 mis9 he inviolably maintained, as I think it 
 ought to be, I trust that the rate of duty for 
 which it provides, in conjunction with the stip- 
 ulation for cash duties, home valuations <.^ the 
 long list of free articles inserted for the benefit 
 of the manufacturing interest, will insure it 
 reasonable and adequate protection." 
 
 Again Mr. Clay inhia Hanover speech ia 
 Virginia, on the 27th of June, 1840, declar^ 
 ed his intention to adhere to the compro- 
 mise act in the following terms: 
 
 "The question cannot be, ought not to be 
 one of principle, but of measure and degree. 
 I adopt that of the compromise act, not because 
 that act is irrepealable, but because it met with 
 the sanction of a nation. Stability with mode- 
 rate and certain protection is far more impor- 
 tant than instabilit}!, the necessary consequen- 
 ces of high protection. But the protection of 
 the compromise act will be adequate in most if 
 notastoall interests* The2iJ per cent, which it 
 stipulates, cash duties, home valuations and the 
 list of free articles inserted in the act, for the 
 particular advantage of the manufacturers will 
 insure, 1 trust, sufficient protection — Altogeth« 
 er they will amount probably to not less than 
 30 per cent." 
 
 And after these and many other similar 
 promises made by the leading members of 
 the whig party in this and other States, the 
 late whig Congress have violated and re- 
 pealed it. 
 
 In a speech delivered by me at Pulaski, 
 on the 29th September 1842, in reference 
 to this subject, I used the tollowing lan- 
 guage, viz: 
 
 "When the compromise act of 1833 was pass- 
 ed, every interest in the country stood pledged 
 in the most solemn manner to adhere to and 
 abide by it. It was hoped that this agitated 
 and disturbing subject was put to rest for a long 
 series of years, if not forever." 
 
 Had the late administration continued in 
 power, it was certain that we should not now 
 be witnessing the revival of this controver- 
 sy. In the Presidential canvass of 1840, 
 both parties stood pledged to preserve and 
 
oo 
 
 maintain the rnmpromise act. General Har- 
 rison liimseir, in his Zanesville letter declar- 
 ed: "I am for supporting the compromise 
 act, and never will a^jree to its being alter- 
 ed or repealed;"" and in bis letter to Mr. 
 Senator Berrien, of Georgia, he declared 
 liimself to the same effect, & added: "Good, 
 fairh and the peace and harmony of the Un- 
 ion, do in my opinion, require that the com- 
 promise of the tariff, known as Mr. Clay's 
 bill, should be carried out according to its 
 spirit and intention." In the discussions 
 which took place in this State not only du- 
 ring the Presidential contest of 1840 but al- 
 so in the canvass of last year, all the orators 
 of that party stood solemnly pledged that it 
 should never be disturbed. But like all the 
 federal pledges made before the election, 
 this too had been violated, shamefully viola- 
 ted and disregarded. He had himself sus- 
 pected as much, and from a long acquain- 
 tance with most of the prominent men now 
 in power, he was so well satisfied that they 
 intended to break up the compromise, that 
 he had charged all over the State during the 
 last year, and so charged in a published ad- 
 dress to the people, that one object of the 
 proposition to dislribute the proceeds of the 
 public lands among the Slates, was to af- 
 ford a pretext for violating it by increasing 
 the tariff above the maximum rate of 20 per 
 cent, ad valorem, which it prescribed. He 
 had charged further that the deficit created 
 by the withdrawal of the land money, would 
 be supplied by a tax on articles of necessity. 
 This was denied and the people were told 
 that no man in Tennessee would be taxed 
 one cent, that the compromise act would be 
 preserved inviolate, and the deficit produced 
 by the withdrawal of the land money would 
 be made up by a tax on silks and wines and 
 other luxuries, such as the rich used, and 
 the poor could not afford. Many in 
 crowd present, and thousands in the State, 
 lie was sure would remember this. And 
 now how stands the fact? The compromise 
 act had been violatde. All the pledges 
 made before the election to preserve it had 
 been disregarded. A tariff bill imposing 
 enormous duties on many articles of prime 
 necessity, far exceeding the rates of the com- 
 promise act had been passed. Was this ne- 
 cessity for revenue? It was demonstrable 
 that it was not, and that its object was not 
 revenue, but protection. Mr. Secretary 
 Ewing in his report of the 2d of June, 1841 , 
 estimated that the rates authorised by the 
 compromise act, by which the duly on no 
 
 the*"cl 
 
 article was to exceed iiO per cent., ad valo- 
 rem, would yield to the Treasury annually 
 $20,800,000, and he said the "revenues 
 which will accrue from that or nearly prox- 
 imate rate of duty, will be sufficient to de- 
 fray the expenses of the Government and 
 Jeave a surplus," &. "leave also the proceeds 
 of the public lands to be disposed of as Con- 
 gress shall think fit." — I'he average income 
 from the lands for a series of years, had been 
 about $3,000,000 annually. This sum add- 
 ed to the $20,000,000 estimated to accrue 
 from imposts under the compromise would 
 make an aggregate annual revenue of $23,-« 
 000,000 without disturbing the compromise 
 act, a sum exceeding near a million and a 
 half of dollars, ihat expended in the last 
 year (1840) of Mr. Van Buren's Adminis- 
 tration. It was clear therefore upon the 
 showing of their own Secretaries of the 
 Traesury at the commencement of their pow- 
 er that it was not necessary, even without 
 the land money & much less vvith it, to raise 
 duties above the rales authorised by the com- 
 promise act for the purpose of revenue . 
 
 In the late tariff act which they had pasecd, 
 how had they kept their pledge thai luxuries 
 and not necessaries were to be taxed? That 
 too like all their pledges had been violated. — 
 The late tariff act imposed not only increased 
 but enormous duties upon many articles of 
 the first necessity, and upon some of them, da- 
 ties so high as to greatly diminish and in 
 some cases prohibit their importation into the 
 country altogether, thus cutting off instead of 
 increasing revenue from them. A slight in- 
 spection of the act itself would prove the fact 
 to be 60. He would enumerate a few articles 
 with the tax imposed upon them by a new 
 law, as specimens from which its general char- 
 acter could be seen. And whilst he did this, 
 let it be borne in mind, that whilst many arti- 
 es under the compromise act were taxed 
 lower than 20 per cent on their valire, none 
 were allowed to be taxed higher than that rate. 
 The late tariff" act imposed a tax of 8 cents 
 per bushel of 56 poundson salt; 2i cents per. 
 pound on brown sugar; 4 cents per square yard 
 on cotton bagging; 5 cents peryard on gunny- 
 cloth, an article frequently used as a substi- 
 tute for cotton bagging; on anvils, blacksmith's 
 hammers and sledges, 2i cents per pound; 
 on mill saws, crosa-cut saws, and pit saws, 
 one dollar each; on axes, adzes, hatchets, plane 
 irons, socket chisels and vices, drawing knives, 
 sickles or reaping hooks, scythes, spades or 
 shovels, and iron chains, 30 per cent on the 
 value; on bar iron not made by rolling $IJ 
 
23 
 
 i ;B.Ti(J if made by rolling 2o dollars per ton; on 
 I pig iron $9 per ton; on flannels 14 cents per 
 square yard; on manufactures of wool 40 per 
 cent on the value; on manufactures of cotton 
 30 per cent on the value. He might enume- 
 rate many other articles, even down to pins, 
 and sewing, knitting and darning needles, but 
 those mentioned would sufficiently illustrate 
 the general protective, and in regaid to some 
 articles prohibitory character of the tax im- 
 posed on many articles, which could be but 
 imperfectly seen by the bare enumeration he 
 had made. 
 
 The act contained in regard to some arti- 
 cles of general consumption, what manufactu- 
 rers called the minimum principle, by which 
 the article taxed was assumed to be worth 
 more than it really cost, and the tax imposed 
 on SHch assumed value. He would take the 
 article of cotton goods to illustrate the practi- 
 cal operation of this principle. The late tar- 
 iff act as we had seen, imposed a duty of 30 
 per cent on the value of cotton goods, but the 
 act also provided that all cotton goods not 
 dyed, colored, painted or stained, not exceeding 
 in value 20 cents per square yard, shall be 
 valued at 20 cents and taxed accordingly; 
 and all cotton goods which were either dyed, 
 colored, printed or stained, among which were 
 calicoes in such general use, not exceeding in 
 value 30 cents, should be estimated to have 
 cost 30 cents per square yard and taxed ac- 
 cordingly. Take the article of prints, inclu- 
 ding calicoes, and what was the tax levied on 
 them? Any importing merchant would tell 
 ■us that the coarser descriptions of the article 
 could be bought In the foreign market for 
 from 6 to 8 cents per square yard and perhaps 
 lower. Suppose a merchant to import a bolt 
 of such goods. When he arrived in this coun- 
 try with it he produced his invoice to the 
 custom house officer, showed him that the arti- 
 cle cost him in the foreign market, 5 cents per 
 square yard. He would be answered by the 
 officer and told; we are required by the tariff 
 law to consider that it cost you 30 cents in- 
 stead of 5 cents, and must levy a duty of 30 
 per cent on 30 cents value instead of on 5 cts 
 value; that is, six times as much tax would be 
 levied on 5 cents, the real cost, making 180 
 per cent duty instead of 30 per cent. 
 
 The consequence would be that all cotton 
 goods of the coarser description costing under 30 
 cents per square yard, must either be prohibit- 
 ed entirely or brought in at a greatly increas- 
 ed price to the consumer. And this was one 
 of the contrivances resorted to, to cheat the 
 people and to enable the home manufacturer to 
 
 raise the prices and charge the coneurncTB 
 more for eimilar articles which he made. This 
 was called protection; protection to the north- 
 ern manufacturer, at the expense of all who 
 bought and consumed cotton goods. 
 
 A tax Was levied by the law of 8 cents per 
 bushel of 56 pounds on imported salt. This 
 was done to protect the interests of a few 
 wealthy salt-makers in the United States, by 
 enabling them to sell the salt which they made 
 at higher prices, and all who used salt 
 were compelled to pay the tax. Foreign salt 
 could be brought in and sold at our ports at 
 from lO to 12i cents on the bushel, if it were 
 free of duty. 
 
 Brown sugar was taxed 2* cents per pound, 
 and for whose protection was this) Whilst 
 all the peop'e of the United States were con« 
 sumers of sugar it was well known, that but 
 a small part of one State and one Territory in 
 the United States produced Sugar. ^ It was 
 equally well known that the Sugar planters 
 were generally very wealthy men, were the 
 owners of large estates in lands and slaves, 
 and it was for their protection, and by enabling 
 them to sell their Sugar at higher prices that 
 this tax was laid. Foreign brown sugar could 
 be brought into our ports and after paying 
 freight and charges, could be sold without the 
 duty, at 4 cents per pound or less; upon its 
 arrival it was taxed 2 i cents, raising the price 
 to the purchaser or consumer to 64 cents per 
 pound, or at the rate of 62 J per cent on its 
 value. The sugar planter would of course 
 raise the price of his article to that of the for- 
 eign, after the tax was laid on it. It might 
 seem strange that the Woollen, Cotton and 
 other manufactures, who were the consumers 
 of such articles as Salt and sugar, should agree 
 to tax them, but it would not be so when it was 
 remembered, that there must always be a com- 
 bination of interest when a high protective 
 tariff law was passed. The Sugar and Salt 
 men for example would agree in turn to vote a 
 tax on Woollens and Cottons; and it was by 
 combination such as these, that majorities were 
 ever coTimanded in Congress, to pass these 
 unequal and oppressive laws. 
 
 For the purpose of making plain the op- 
 pressive operation of the present high tariff, I 
 will trace its effects in taking money out of 
 the pockets of the consumers of brown sugar, 
 and putting it into the pockets of the manu- 
 facturers of this article. From the commer- 
 cial tables made out at the treasury depart- 
 ment, it is ascertained that in 1 840, the quan- 
 tity of brown sugar imported into the United 
 States was 107,953,033 lbs. By the present 
 
24 
 
 tariff', every pound eo imported must pay into 
 the treasury 2i cents, making $'2,698,320, 
 the nett amount of revenue to be collected 
 from this article, taking the importation of '40 
 as the standard. This amount must be paid 
 in ca^h by the importer before he can bring 
 his sugar into our market. What then has 
 the consumer to pavl First— he must pay 
 the 2i cents on every pound; second he must 
 pay the profit, which the importer charges on 
 the advancement of cash, which I presume 
 is never less than 10 per cent; and third, he 
 must pay the retailer's profit which is at 
 least 20 per cent. So that this account will 
 stand thus: 
 The consumers will pay the duty 
 
 of 2i cents per lb $2,698,320 
 
 Importers profit of 10 per cent. 269,832 
 Retailers profit of 20 per cent. 539,764 
 
 S3.507,916 
 The amount therefore paid by the conwimers 
 of brown sugar brought into the country, above 
 the amount which they would pay if there was 
 no tariff is over three millions and a half of 
 dollars, and of this amount $2,698,320 goes 
 into the treasury. But the brown sugar im- 
 ported and that manufactured in this country 
 eell at the same price. Whatever amount is 
 imposed as a tax on the imported article is 
 added by our manufacturers to the price of the 
 same article manufactured in the U. States. 
 By reference to the census tables it is found 
 that there was manufactured in the United 
 States in 1840, about 125,000,000 lbs. of 
 brown sugar. The tariff enables the manufac- 
 turers to add 2i cents on every pound, and 10 
 per cent on this to correspond with the impor- 
 ter's profit, and 20 per cent to correspond 
 with the retailer's profit — the account will 
 Btand thus: 
 The consumer will pay 2i cents 
 
 per lb. $3,126,000 
 
 For importer's and retailer's 
 
 profits 837,500 
 
 $4,062,500 
 Amount to raise revenue on im- 
 ported sugar 3,506,916 
 
 Whole amount paid by consum- 
 ers $7,570,416 
 The whole amount paid by consumers of 
 brown sugar is more than seven and a half 
 millious of dollars, above the amount they 
 would pay if there was no tariff. And of this 
 amount only $2,698,320 goes into the treas. 
 
 #t ji iw > >i. )' . « '%4'-^'^^in^''*r, thf nockelB of thc 
 
 sugar makers, importers and retailers. Esti- 
 mating brown sugar to be worth 4 cents per 
 lb. at the ports where imported, the tariff of 
 24 cents per lb* is about 62 per cent, or three 
 times as great as it would have been under 
 the compromise act. It is easy then to see 
 the extent of protection extended to the sugar 
 makers, and the amount of oppression imposed 
 upon the farmers and mechanics who consume 
 this article. 
 
 I have given this calcula' ion merely to il- 
 lustrate the effect of the present tariff. By a 
 simple process of calculation any one can 
 estimate the effects produced by the tax upon 
 the other necessaries of life, such as woollen 
 goods, cotton goods, bar iron and salt-— they 
 are equally unjust and oppressive. To enable 
 every min to make the calculation on these 
 four leading articles of necessity, I give the 
 following facts from the commercial and cen- 
 sus tables. 
 
 In 1840 there was imported into the Uni- 
 ted States — woollen goods, worth $6:226,- 
 630. Cotton goods, worth $6,504,484. Bar 
 iron, (61,132 tons) ^3,397,480. Salt (8,- 
 183,426 bushels) $1,016,426. 
 
 In the year 1840 there was manufactured 
 in the United States- -woollen goods 20,696,- 
 999 dols. Cotton goods 46,350,463 dols. 
 Bar iron, (197,233 tons) 6,916,990 dols. — 
 Salt (6,t79,424 bushels) 772,378 dollars. 
 
 In order to show that the tariff passed by 
 the late Congress is not a revenue measure, in a 
 late speech delivered at Jackson, and publish- 
 ed, I used the following language: 
 
 "No higher than 20 per cent was imposed 
 on any article, after the 30th of June '42, 
 until the 30th of August, '42, on which lat- 
 ter day the present tariff law was passed by 
 the whig Congress. The whig Congress laid 
 violent hands on the Compromise of '33, and 
 broke it up. They raised the tariff as high 
 and upop many articles higher than the rates 
 which existed when the compromise act was 
 passed. That it was so high as to be prohib- 
 itory on some, and highly protective upon 
 many articles of necessary and common use, 
 was proved by the fact, that under its opera- 
 tion, the revenue to the Treasury from im- 
 ports had been greatly diminished. The Se- 
 cretary of the Treasury in his annual report 
 to Congress in December last, states that 
 "the period withm which the tariff had been 
 in operation, has been much loo short to furn- 
 ish any decisive evidence as to its permanent 
 influence on importations. The foreign trade 
 of the country has continued to decline, and 
 importations hcUiC Hen comparatively small 
 
r.Bca the paesoge of the act. Iloyr far this 
 ■tat* of things may have been induenced by 
 the existing system of duties, it is impossible 
 10 determine." An official Report from lixe 
 Secretary of the Treasury to Congress, of the 
 16th February 1843, sets furth the accruing 
 iuties on imports during the several quarters of 
 the year '42— from which it appears that the 
 accruing duties on imports, during the Istquar- 
 ter of that year, that is to say, for the months of 
 January, February and JUarch, and whilst 
 the compromise act was in opdration and had 
 reached its lowest point of valuation save one, 
 was 6,060,401 89: and that the accruing du- 
 ties on imports, during the last quarter of tiiat 
 year, that is to say, for the months of October , 
 JVbveniber and December, under the operation 
 of the existing taritFlaw, was $2,579,339 28: 
 It appeared therefore, that though the duties 
 were raised to a very high rate under the ex- 
 isting tariff act of the whig Congress — such 
 had been the falling off in the amount of im- 
 ports, during the last quarter of 1842, that 
 the revenue derived from the customs , was 
 jiearhilf a million less than half what they 
 were during the first quarter of '42, when the 
 lowest duties of the compromise act of -3"3 
 were in force. It was clear therefore that the 
 late tariff act was not a revenue measure. It 
 had raised the rates of duties eo high as to shut 
 out imports and consequently to cut off and 
 iiminieh revenue." 
 
 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 My opinions in reference to a National Bank 
 have been so fully and frequently expressed 
 JQ public letters and speeches that no man 
 can have iha least difficuify in ascerlaining 
 them. I shall therefore content myself with 
 doing little more than quoting a part of what 
 I said at Pulaski on iha 29th of September, 
 1842, on the Bank question. In that speech 
 which was extensively published in the 
 newspapers, I said: 
 
 "One of the greatest difficulties which the 
 opponents of a bank had had to encounter in 
 this State, had been in meeting the vague 
 generalities in which the bank advocates 
 had dealt. They all, with perhaps rare ex- 
 ceptions, professed to condemn and oppose 
 the late Bank of the United Slates, or any 
 other Bank organized on similar principles. 
 They would say, we are opposed to the old 
 Bank, but we arc in favor of a Bank with 
 suitable restrictions and niodsficalions. — 
 What these modificalions and resiictions 
 were ^hey would not specify. They talked ! 
 
 of thorn in geoeral and vague terra», but 
 their plan of a banit i.Sey did not and would 
 not give. Some, to be sure, had in their 
 ■ninds an uncertain and undefined notion of 
 tho plan of a bank with which they would 
 be pleased — such as that there should be do 
 private stockholders, and that it shuuld he 
 owned by the General Government and tha 
 States. Many honest men had been mad© 
 to think that a prooer sort of bank misbt be 
 framed that might be useful. 
 
 He said he regarded it as fortunate in tiis 
 fjture discussions of the subject that the par- 
 ty advocating a Bank, in liiis State at least, 
 iij^d at length been driven from their vague 
 generalities. They had brouglu iii and pass- 
 ed a Bank charier at the ex'.ra session of 
 Congress. Rlr. Clay was its author. Pres- 
 ident Tyler vetoed it, and because he had 
 done so, they had denounced him as a trai- 
 tor, and had buit and hung him inef!ijy. 
 If President Tyler had signed that bi!! tiiej 
 said the whole scheme of Federal measures 
 would have bsen complete. That biU, then, 
 we must prcsuii^") contained the plan of a 
 Bank, and to get it they are nov,- prepared 
 to elect Henry Clay President of (he United 
 States. 
 
 Now what was that bill, and what was 
 the kind of Bank which they promised by 
 it to the country, if they continued anoiher 
 Presidential term in power ? A slight in- 
 spection of its provisions would show that 
 it was an old fashoned incorporated stoc'c 
 bank, to be owned in part and in fact controll- 
 ed bv private stockholders, retaiiiing all the 
 bad features of the late bank, and erabrac- 
 inT others that made it eveti mare o!)i?,cti(.'n- 
 able than that Buik, bad as that was. lis 
 capital stock was to be thirty millions of 
 dollars, with power reserved to increase it 
 to 50 millions afier the year 1850. Ono 
 third of the capital slock, or fen millions of 
 dollars, was to be subscribed for by theUni- 
 ted States, and two-ihirds, or twenty millions 
 of dollars, was to be subscribed fi)r by in-« 
 dividuais, companies, corporations or States. 
 The ten millions of dollars to be sub'scriiied 
 by the United States, vras to be raised f)y 
 borrowing; the money. A Public debt of 
 Ten Millions of Dollars was by the char- 
 ter authorized to be created, and for that pur- 
 pose a public stock of the United States was 
 to be issued, bearing interest at the rate of 
 five per centum per annum which \v;t9 noc 
 to be paid until alter the expiration of fifteen 
 years. This loan must most probably, we 
 might safely say certainly, have been made 
 
2G 
 
 from foreigners — thus presenting a nation 
 of .seventeen millions ofMreemen in the hu- 
 miliating, if not degrading attitude of bor- 
 rowin": money on interest fiorn foreigners 
 to make a bank upon. The interest on the 
 loan which was to be paid half yearly, was 
 five hundred thousand dollars a year, and 
 would have amounlcd for the fifieen years 
 (sooner than the e.xpiration of which it could 
 not be redeemed) to seven millions five hun- 
 tlred thousand dollars. The Bank was to 
 be located at Washington city and was to be 
 governed by nine directors, three of whom 
 were to be appointed by the United States 
 nnd six by the private stockholders. All 
 know that six w^ould control three — so that 
 the bank itself would in fact have been un- 
 der the absolute control of the private stock- 
 holders. Indeed this seemed to have been 
 designed by the charter itself, for it was pro- 
 vided that "not less than fivedirectors shall 
 constitute a board for the transaction of bugi> 
 ness, of whom the President shall always be 
 one, arid ai least three of the five shall be of 
 the directors elected by the stockholders." — 
 This provision made it absolutely impossi- 
 ble even in a thin boa.'-d, for the three Gov- 
 ernment directors, in any possible case, to 
 constitute a majority. The principal board 
 were empowered to appoint (he directors or 
 managers of the branches. — The public mo- 
 ney was directed to be deposited with the 
 bank, and as a considerable amount of it 
 would necessarily be always on hand, it 
 would be used and traded upon as banking 
 capital. The taxes paid 03^ the people for 
 the support of Government v/ou!d cons'itute 
 a part of the Banking capital, to be loatseti 
 nut, and upon which the private stockhol- 
 ders would make profit. This was the out- 
 line ofMr. Clay's Bank Bill which Presi- 
 dent Tyler vetoed. He had searched in 
 vain lhrouQ;h its provisions for those restric- 
 lums and limitations which were so often 
 and so vaguely spoken of, and which v/ere 
 t'l prevent it from running info all the (•(-■}•- 
 ruptiunsit aI>usesot'lhe la;e Bankof thelJni- 
 ted Stales. The United States was made 
 by this charter to jjo into partnership with 
 the private siockhoidors, to [dace all her re- 
 venues in the concern, and was yet placed 
 in a minority in the Directory, and was 
 there'ore deprived of all power of control 
 over (hem. Who would probably have be- 
 come the private stockhoMcfs in such a 
 bank? In (he west and south, whera there 
 was but little surplus capital, and where niD- 
 ney bore high rates of intereet. but little if 
 
 any would have been taken. Scarcely a 
 share of the stock in the late bank of the Uni- 
 ted States was at any time owned in Ten- 
 nessee. There could be no doubt but thai 
 much the larger por(ion of it would have ei- 
 ther been taken at first or bean ultimately 
 owned by the Federalists of the northern &, 
 eastern sections of the Union, who were the 
 larger capitalists of the country. This waa 
 the case with the old bank. And though 
 stock could not be taken directly by foreign- 
 ers, there was no doubt but that much of il 
 would have been ultimately held by them 
 under cover of secret trusts in the name of 
 others. He could not doubt that if it had 
 been established it would have soon become 
 an immense political engine of deadly hos- 
 lili'y to the purity of eletions and to the li« 
 berties of the people, and would have 
 b^en wielded by a corupt faction, aa 
 was the late Bank of the United States, and 
 for the worst of purposes. The thanks of 
 the country, he had no hesitation in saying, 
 were due to President Tvlerfor having ar- 
 rested it as he did by his veto. 
 
 It will be seen from the foregoing outline 
 of the charter of the Bank passed at the Ex- 
 tra Session of 1841, that in all its leading 
 features it was similar to the late Bank of 
 the United States— Mr. Clay took the late U. 
 S. Bank as his model and he succeeded in 
 securing its passage, similar in all its essen- 
 iial provisions to that ill-fated institution, and 
 in some of them worse even than that Bank, 
 bad as it was. The plan of a National Bank 
 with v/hich the people of Tennessee have 
 been deluded by the Whig orators was not 
 once thought of by Mr. Clay and his friends. 
 Th'dv never will consent to any other than 
 a stock Bank in which individuals shall have 
 the control. Those who indulge the hope 
 that any other kind of Bank will ever be ac- 
 ceptable to the Whig leaders are destined to 
 continual disappointments. 
 
 On this subject I reiterate what I said in 
 my Pulaski speech. Speaking of Mr. Clay's 
 Bank I said — "Was this the kind of bank 
 which the body of the party in this State 
 '.ranted? He thought he could answer with 
 certainty that it was not. And yet this was 
 Mr. Clay's Bank, and to get it they were 
 now (old by leading public men and news- 
 papers, thev must vote for him to be Presi- 
 dent ofthe United States. He did not deem 
 it necessary, and if he did time would not 
 allow him, to enter upon the general discus- 
 sion of the biink question and the currency 
 on that occasion. He would only add that 
 
27 
 
 neiiher a National Bank nor any oilier Bank 
 could prevent commercial revulsions or fur- 
 nish a remedy against hard times. When 
 we had a national bank we had witnessed 
 such times, and when we had none we had 
 witnessed them. 
 
 He appaaled to the party in this State 
 who advocated the establishment of a Na- 
 tional Bank to know if they would be willinj^ 
 to take a bank, and especially such a bank 
 as Mr. Tyler had vetoed, if they had to take 
 with it all the other obnoxious measures of 
 the Federal party. My Clay had declared 
 in his speech against the repeal of the Bank- 
 rupt law, that all the measures of the Extra 
 Session constituted one entire system, and 
 that no part of it must be invaded or des- 
 troyed. Were the Bank party in this State 
 ready to support this entire system? Were 
 they willing, for the sake of getting such a 
 bank as that which had been proposed, to 
 support the Bankrupt law, the distribution, 
 the public debt, the protective tariff, and in- 
 creased appropriations and expenditures? 
 Many of them he knew were opposed to 
 some, and others to all these measures. lie 
 had heard many of them declare that they 
 never would vote for any man for any public 
 office who had voted for or was in favor of 
 the bankrupt law; and yet if they voted for 
 Mr. Clay in the delusive hope of get'ing a 
 Bank, they would vote for such a man and 
 would be virtually voting to keep the bank~ 
 rupl law in force. And so if they voted for 
 him they would be virtually voting for the 
 protective tariff law and all the other meas- 
 ures which he had enumerated and which 
 they disapproved. 
 
 It was a delusive hope that a National 
 Bank could, if established, afford relief to the 
 indebted classes — but if it could, how lonn; 
 must those who were now indebted wait for 
 il? It was certain that no bank chfsrter 
 could be passed during Mr. Tyler's time. 
 His term would not expire before the 4fh of 
 March, 1845, a period of near two and a half 
 years. And even should his successor be 
 favorable to a bank, which was most im- 
 probable: — sli!!, before a bank bill could be 
 passed, there must be majorities in favor of 
 it in both Houses of Congress, which was 
 equally improbable. Should the Pre'^ident 
 and both Houses of Congress be found to be 
 favorable to the establishment of a B-'ink, 
 Congress would not convene in regular ses- 
 sion before December 1815, and no action 
 could i)robably be had upon the suliject ear- 
 Uer than the spring of tlie following year. 
 
 It would require a year or mors from that 
 time to put it in operation; so that upon tho 
 most favorable view which they could taka 
 of it, it would be sometime in the year 1847 
 before it could go into operation . He asked 
 all those who were now indebted and look- 
 ed to a bank to relieve them, if they could 
 wait five years. Should it do all that tliey 
 vainly hoped it would, would it not coma to» 
 late for them? In the meantime the bank- 
 rupt law, the protective tariff, and other ru- 
 inous and oppressive measures of the fed- 
 eral rulers would be in full force and op- 
 eration." 
 
 His deliberate opinion v^as that if Mr. 
 Clay's bank bill of the extra session had 
 passed, tliat the pressure and tightness of the 
 money market, would have been greater 
 than they now v/ere. They were quite as 
 sreat when he had such a bank in 1819 and 
 '20, the pries of property was as low, and 
 our local State currency was ruinously be- 
 low par. Nov/ what circulation we had was 
 of par f>mds. Our banks now paid specio 
 and he trusted nothing wouldoccur to debase 
 their circulation or to induce the banks thenr- 
 selves to depart from the specie paying pol- 
 icy which they were now pursuing. At the 
 period referred to, and when we had a Na~ 
 tional Bank, nothing was more common in 
 many of the States— and States too, in which 
 branches were located— than the passage of 
 relief laws. This proved that the late bank 
 did not and cou!d not alleviate or prevent 
 the pressure and embarrassment which then 
 existed. Nor could a new bank, if now es- 
 tablished do what the old bank could not. 
 Bat if the bank advocates think it could, 
 still it was now certain that they could not 
 get it into operation in less than five years, 
 and before that lime the crisis will have coma 
 with a lariie majority of the present debtors. 
 
 Wide differences of opinion have been 
 exprns.>ed by leading men of the Whig party, 
 at different period.'', in regard to the InHuencft 
 which a Bank uf the United States could 
 have in preventing commercial revulsitnn, 
 or pecuniary pressure — and in producing 
 prosperity in the country, i^mong these! 
 notice the conflicting opinions of my present 
 competitor (Gcvernor Jones) as expressed in 
 (lis messaae to the Legislature in October, 
 1842 — and of Mr. Clay, as expressed in his 
 f^oeech in Congress, in favor of the Tariff m 
 IS24. 
 
 Governor Jones in his message of October, 
 1842, declares that during the existence of 
 the Bank of the United Statas, as far as our 
 
28 
 
 monetary eSairs wers concBrned, all was 
 ealm and quiet The prices of property and 
 the pr«ducls of labor were firm and steady — 
 Jabor received its just reward, and the march 
 of the country to prosperity was firm and de- 
 cided/' 
 
 Mr. Clay in his speech on the Tariff Bill 
 in Congress, in 1821 — more than six years 
 after the late Bank of the United States had 
 been in operation — entertained contrary o- 
 pinions from these and bore a diiTsrent testi- 
 mony. Mr Clay in that speech said: "In cast- 
 ing our eyes around us, the most prominent 
 circumstance which fills our attention and 
 challenges our deepest xes,vei,is the general 
 distress which pervades the whole country. 
 It is indicated by the diminished exports of 
 native produce — by the depressed and le- 
 duced state of our foreign navigation- -by 
 our diminished commerce— &i/ svccesshe ua- 
 threshed crops of grain, perishing hi our 
 barns and yards for want of a Market — by 
 the alarming diminution of our circulating 
 medium — by the numerous banlcuplcies, 
 not limited to the trading cjasse?, but exten- 
 ded to ail classes of society — by an univer- 
 sal complaint of want of employment, and 
 a consequent reduction of the wages of labor 
 — by the ravenous pursuit after public sta- 
 tions, not for the sake of honors and perfor- 
 mance of their duties, but as a means of pri- 
 vate subsistence — by the reluctant resort to 
 the perilous use of paper muney — by the in- 
 tervention ©f legislation in the delicate rela- 
 tion between debtors and creditor? — wnd a- 
 bove all, bv the low and depressed state of 
 value of almost every description of the 
 •whole mass of property of the nation, ichich 
 has on an average sunk not less than fifty 
 per cent, tdthin a few years " 
 
 Governor Jones and Mr. CIf»v cannot both 
 be ristht. At. the time Mr. Ciay made his 
 speech in 1824, the bank v.^as in fuil opera- 
 tion, and yet it had not prevented the state 
 of things which he describes. 
 
 Jud^e White in his speeches against the 
 Bank in the Senate of the United States in 
 1S3.J and '34, confir-n i the statement of Mr. 
 Cl.iy HI ''2i,30 far as the pecuniary S'jfieririg 
 and dislress of the cosmtry were concerned. 
 Hs describes ih? suiferings of the people 
 during thf> existence of that Biuk, in strong 
 and forcible terms. fle;|ives it as his opin- 
 ion, that "this Bank then, is the main cause 
 oi* this sufTeritijj and this distress, and to re- 
 lieve them, we are asked Id extend its po-.v- 
 tr-! ^\\ yeard lon:ier." * •* * 
 '4 have no ceafijeace in such a retisdy— -it 
 
 will probably be worse than the present dia- 
 ease," Such was the testimony , and such 
 the opinions of Judge White. The public, 
 and especially the aged men, will remember 
 hew the facts were. 
 
 The reasons mainly urged for the estab- 
 lishment of a National Bank, are that it will 
 regulate exchanges, that it will powerfully 
 contribute to the resumption of specie pay- 
 ments by the State Banks, and that it will 
 operate as a relief measure of making mon- 
 ey plenty. 
 
 The two first named reasons have ceased 
 to have any force in them. The natural 
 operations of trade have regulated theex- 
 chan'zes, so that they are now in as good a 
 condition as it is possible for them to be. 
 This has been effected by the laws of trad» 
 v/hich will never fail to correct any irregu- 
 larity in exchanges if they are not interfer- 
 ed with by unwise legislation. 
 
 When Mr. Clay reported the Bank Bill at 
 the extra session, he said in his report — ''It 
 (the Bank) will powerfully contribute to the 
 resumption of specie payments by the Slate 
 Banks whose existing delinquency ia the 
 greatest source of all prevailing pecuniary 
 and financial embarrassments." The State 
 Banks in almost all the States have resumed 
 specie payments, and therefore according to 
 Mr. Clay "the greatest source of pecuniary 
 embariassment" is removed. This has been 
 effected too J^vithout the aid of a National 
 Bank, so that we now have two important 
 questions of currency settled. A Bank of 
 the United Stales is not necessary to regu- 
 late exchanges. A Bank is not necessary 
 to enable suspended S^ate Banks to resume 
 specie payments. 
 
 B It it is still said that a National Bank 
 ouirht to be created to relieve the distresses 
 of the people, it becomes those who are in- 
 didging the hope that a National Bank can 
 relieve them from pressure to calculate the 
 chances on which their hopes are based, lu 
 no event can a Bank be chartered before 
 1S4.5. Will the relief then be in time? But 
 hov/ CO lid a Bmk give relief? It is said 
 it would increase the circulation — but the 
 queg'ion is, how much will the circulating 
 madium bo increased by a National Bank 
 "'ith a capital of thirty millions of dollars? 
 I presume that a reference to the amount of 
 the circulation of the late United States i 
 Bink with a capital of thirty-five millions 
 will be the surest guide in deciding this 
 question. The retui 
 Bank of the United St 
 
 irns made by the late j 
 States, show that duTin|; | 
 
on 
 
 the first five yeftrp of its existence, its aver- 
 ai;e annual circulation was a Utile less than 
 five millions of dollars! That durino: the 
 period of the next five years from IS22 and 
 ^3 inclusive, its average circulation was 
 about six millions of dollars — that during 
 the next five yenr.-^, from 1S27 to "'31 inclu- 
 $ive, the circulaiion averaged about eleven 
 millions and a half — that in 'o2 when it was 
 buying up public favor to get a re-charter, 
 its circulation was aLout twenty-one millions 
 ^and that in 1835, the year v.iien lis char- 
 ter expired, it was about twenty-three rail- 
 lion!". - If we pupnosethat the propose.! new 
 Bank would issue as much as the late Bank, 
 which is hardly possible, then the increase 
 ©f circulation durinir tbo first five years 
 would be about five millions — durin<^ the 
 next five years about six millions. Plow 
 much relief would this give? What effect 
 would it have on the price of property, and 
 the wages of labor? We have now in cir- 
 culation, probably, from seventy to one 
 hundred millions of bank paper, and for- 
 ty millions in specie; tho balance of the 
 specie in the country being in the Banks, 
 making about one hundred and ten, to one 
 hundred and torty n^il'ions of circulation. 
 
 These estimates of the amount of existing 
 circulation, it is believed approximates cor- 
 rectness. Yet by the proposed new bank, 
 the amount of increas*;; at the end of five 
 years, will only be five millions or one 
 twenty-second to one tweiity-eigath added 
 to the amount now in circulation. How ut- 
 terly absurd to expect relief from a Natisnai 
 Bank! If one were m full operation it could 
 only add this small amount to the general 
 circulation — so small that it would be scarce- 
 ly felt. But it must be borne in mind that in 
 establishing a new National Bank, there will 
 be withdrawn from circulation the soecie 
 
 > 
 
 on which it is based. This will diminish tho 
 circulation for the time and unavoidably in- 
 crease the pressure, at all events at the com- 
 mencement cf its operatiorjs. 
 
 Tho increased circulation which such a 
 Bank would afford for the first five yea.-s, 
 weuld be about thirty cents per head to the 
 seventeen millions of people of the United 
 States. If the circulation ofthe new bank 
 were run up to twenty-three millions, the 
 greatest amuunt ever circulated at any one 
 time by the late Bank of the United States, 
 the proportion to each one of the people oi 
 the United States, would be about one dol- 
 lar and thirty-five cents Ii cannot be possi- 
 ble that such aa increase could bring relief 
 
 to lite debtor classes or any other portion of 
 (lie people. Ill deference to ihe wishes of 
 my competitor, I have thus reiterated my 
 opinions and views on the subject uf a Nu- 
 ti'iual Bank; nottkat I believe there is the 
 slightest prospect of establishing one, even 
 though every man in Tenssee were in its 
 I'avor, The elections which have taken 
 place to the next Congress in eleven ofthe 
 Sta'tes, as well as other evidences of public- 
 opinion, abundantly show that the "idea" of 
 establishing such an institution is indeed 
 "obsolete.'" Many of the former advocates 
 of such an institution in other parts of Iha 
 Union have given it up and abandoned it. 
 JAMES K. POLK. 
 Columbia, May 17, 1343. 
 
 We find the subjoined sensible article in 
 the Ohio Statesman. There is not a parti- 
 cle of humbug about it; it is made up entirely 
 oi facts and figures — which cannot lie — 
 and as such we recommend it to the calm 
 and deliberate attention of the reader. — Ed. 
 Appeal. 
 
 OUR TRADE WITH GREAT SRITAilS'. 
 
 Among the many false theories which are 
 propagated by the friends of a high protect- 
 ive tariff, there is, probably, none that has 
 been of more service to them than that which 
 represents a high tarifl'as necessary to ena- 
 ble us to trade with Great Britain upon e- 
 qiial terms. Those who have imbibed this 
 theory are continu.AJly asking, "why should 
 we buy of Great Britain, when Great Brit- 
 ain refuses to buy of us? They suppose that 
 ih.^ characlsr of our trade with Great Brit- 
 ain, during the latter stages ofthe operatioa 
 ofthe compromise act, was such as to leave 
 a constant balance against us; and they 
 consider the tariff act of the late Coon Con- 
 gress vv'orthy of especial regard as a means 
 of turning the balance in our favor. 
 
 We nov>' propose to show that these whig 
 noiions are entirely destitute of any just 
 ftjundation, and our argument shall consist 
 of actual, stubborn, and incontrovertible 
 FACTS. 
 
 Under the provisions of the compromise 
 act, the tariff was in the lowest stages ofita 
 descent, during the five years from 1837 
 to iSii, inclusive; and these are the years 
 which would be named by the tariffites, if 
 ihcv were caUcd tioon to select Ih3 cericsi 
 
30 
 
 in which ihey supposed our trade with Great 
 Britain had been the most to our disadvan- 
 tage. Never were men more egregiously 
 misinformed. Accordinj; to the annual ot- 
 ficial Btatements of the cnmRiCrce of the 
 United States, presented to Congress by the 
 Secretary of the Trersuty, our trade wit'j 
 Great Britain and her dependencies, during 
 that period of a low tariff, was as follows: 
 
 Imports froml Exports to Br. 
 B. DominionslDominions. 
 
 Years. 
 
 1837 
 
 1838 
 1839 
 
 ie40 
 
 1841 
 
 $52,289,557 
 49,051,181 
 71,600,351 
 39,130,921 
 51,099,638 
 
 f6I,li7,7yi 
 58,843,392 
 68,163,082 
 70,430,846 
 62,376,402 
 
 Tot;»l9, 
 Subtract 
 
 $263,171,6431 $320,928,513 
 263,171,648 
 
 Excess of exports $57,754,865 
 
 It thus appears that* during the five years 
 of a low tariff, Great Britain actually took 
 more of our goods and produce than we did 
 ofhers, tothe enormous extent of FIFTY- 
 SEVEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ! Of 
 this excess, forty-two millions were taken 
 in the years 1840 and 1841, when the tar- 
 iff was the lowest. Such facts as these are 
 perfectly irresistable. No honest man, who 
 is made acquainted with then), will dare pre 
 tend that a high tariff is wanted in order to 
 regulate our trade with Great Britain. 
 
 The truth is, that (}reat Britain and her 
 colonies have been accustomed to take more 
 than half of the whole amount of our foreign 
 exports. During the years above referred 
 to, the total amount of our exports to all the 
 world, was six hundred millions of dollars, 
 and, as is shown above, three hundred and 
 twenty millions of it was to the British Do- 
 minions. 
 
 We will now see what was the" character 
 of our trade vvith Great Britain under ahisjh 
 tariff. The five years from 1828 to 1832, 
 inclusive, are known to have been a period 
 in which the tariff was the highest ever im- 
 posed on the country. During those five 
 years, it is shown by the ofiicial statements 
 of the Secretary of the Treasury, that our 
 trade with Great Britain and her dgpendea- 
 cics, was as follows: 
 
 Years. 
 
 Imports from 
 B. Dominions 
 
 Exports to Bri- 
 tisii Dominions 
 
 1828 
 1829 
 1830 
 1831 
 1832 
 
 $35,591,4841 
 27,582,082 
 26,804,9^4 
 47,956,717 
 42.406,924| 
 
 S27,020,2o9 
 28,071,084 
 31,647,881 
 40,001,379 
 39,268,555 
 
 "Totals 
 
 ^180,332,1911 gi 165,009, 109 
 
 Here is an excess of imparts oyer exportt 
 amounting to fouteen millions of dollars. — 
 The fact that there was this balance against 
 U8, under our highest tariff, is conclusive 
 testimony against the whig theory. It 
 proves that a high tariff has not that effect 
 upon the balance of trade, which the whigs 
 ascribe to it. 
 
 It is sometimes urged by the friends of 
 the protective system, that our wheat grow- 
 ers derive no advantage from the British 
 trade, because Great Britain refuses to take 
 their wheat and flour. Suppose it to be true 
 that she refuses our wheat and flour, have 
 we any right to complain? Does she do us 
 any wrong by raising her own bread stuffs? 
 But it is not true that she takes nothing 
 froni our wheat growers. It appears from 
 the same official statements which we have 
 before quoted, that, during the years 1839, 
 '40 and '41, the exports of wheat and flour, 
 from the Uuited States to the British Domin- 
 ions, were, in value, as follows: 
 
 In 1839 $3,718,080 
 
 1840 8,555,904 
 
 1841 ' 
 
 
 5,234,041 
 
 Total in three years • • $17,508,625 
 
 What think our farmers of this? Is it not 
 an item of some importance to them? Does 
 it not show that they have a very considera- 
 ble and direct interest in the British trade.'' 
 
 The facts that we have now presented 
 are worth more than all the theories that 
 whiggery has ever invented; and, with 
 every fair minded man, they will go far to.> 
 wards disposing of the whole tariff question. 
 Showing as they do, that Great Britain has 
 been our most profitable customer, when our 
 tariff was the lowest, and that her trade was 
 actually disadvantageous to us under our 
 high tariff, they consequently show that, so 
 far as she is concerned, we have great rea- 
 son to prefer a low tariff to a high one. — 
 Such being the case in regard to Great Brit- 
 tain, the high tariflites will find it hard to 
 prove that it is not also the case, as to the 
 rest of the v/orld. 
 
 From KcndalVs Expositor. 
 
 A HOME MARKET. 
 One of the delusive arguments of the 
 Tariff' advocates is, that it produces a Home 
 Marlcet: The meaning of this is that it in- 
 creases the number of consumers of pro- 
 duce in corapariscn with the number of 
 
 growers. 
 
31 
 
 Boes it r.ecessariiy follow, that ihe in- 
 crease of consumers is a good thing? If 
 it be, why may not Congress pass an act to 
 protect from destruction crows and black- 
 birds, wolves and squirrels, rats and micel 
 They are very considerable Consumers 
 without beinjsj producers. If consumption 
 be a good thing, here is a way to obtain it 
 without covering "the body politic" with 
 "sores" in the shapeofmanufactuiing cities. 
 
 But, say the Tariff advocates, '■'the manu' 
 facturing operatives give us sotnething in 
 return.'''' Yes, at double prices I have ten 
 bushels of wheat which I wisli to exchange 
 for articles of clothing: What boots it to 
 me, whether the rats eat up half of it or it be 
 taken from me by a tax on cotton, linen and 
 woollen goods? Are not the rats just as 
 good consumers as the manufacturers when 
 thev give me just as good a return ? 
 
 But if the government ought to legislate 
 with a view to incieaee the pioportion of con- 
 eumers, there is a more effectual mode: 
 Force] the manufacturers to break in pieces 
 all their machinery of modern invention 
 and resort to the primitive modes of spin- 
 ning and weaving. They Vv-ould ihen require 
 five hands, probably ten, for every one now 
 employed, and thus make a most important 
 addition to the number cf consumers. But, 
 says the Tariff advocate, <'that won\d great- 
 ly increase the price of goods:'''' Very well; 
 is not that the very end at which \ou aim by 
 by a Protective Tariff? Aye but it v/ould 
 increase the cost of manufucturing them.'''' 
 Ah, that explains your real motive: You 
 want to increase the price of goods without 
 increasing the cost of mamifactur'mg them 
 and thereby add to your profits. While 
 you talk of giving employment to laborers, 
 increasing the number of consumers, mak- 
 ing a home market for farmers, &c. &;c., 
 you are constantly introducing machines of 
 iron, brass and wood which neither eat nor 
 drink, to perform the work of men and wo- 
 men who do, aad sending back your ope- 
 ratives to the occupations whence they came; 
 or as in England, turning them out to steal 
 or starve ! Yet, you call on the farmers and 
 
 oltiers to pay an enorraoos tax to raiaft prices 
 and make your machine labor profitable; to 
 "protect''' things of iron, brass and wood from 
 competition with the "pauper labor" of Eu- 
 rope? 
 
 What is the fact? Has the building up 
 of Lowell or Nashua increased the prices of 
 the farmer's wheat or corn in Ohio, Indiana 
 or Illinois.'' Every man knows better. Ha* 
 it increased the prices of the farmer's corn 
 and rye raised in their vei'y neighborhood? 
 Every farmer 50 years old who lives there, 
 knows better. Ke knows that their prices, 
 thirty or forth years ago, were higher thaa 
 they are nov/. Southern and western corn 
 and flour have been brought, by means of 
 these very manufacturing establishments, 
 into competition with those of the New Eng- 
 land farmer, at his own door, reducing pr'i' 
 ces there without increasing them in the re- 
 gions whence the new supplies come. These 
 are notorious facts — :he strongest of argu- 
 ment?. 
 
 To think of increasing the prices of wes- 
 tern produce by building up manufacturer!, 
 and thus increasing the number of domestic 
 consumers, is as idle as to think of affecting 
 the volume of the Mississippi above or be- 
 low by throwing the water over the levee 
 at New Orleans with a bucket. The pro- 
 duction of that teeming region is too vast to 
 be affected by an operation so minute. — 
 The Mississippi must have an ocean to re- 
 ceive the waters of its innumerable foun- 
 tains, and its valley must have a world for 
 a market. To create a home market for its 
 production in New England or elsewhere 
 by legislation, is just about as ludicrous aa 
 operation as digging a home reservoir to re^ 
 ceive the waters of its mighty rivers. 
 
 As a man of the West we say to the Gen- 
 eral Government, clear out our Rivers, pro- 
 tect us from piracy and war on the ocean, 
 and give us the world for a market. Do 
 this; and in half a century, we will shofr 
 you results never surpassed in earthly beau- 
 ty and prctectivenesa, since God planted 
 the first garden among the four rivon of 
 Eden. 
 
r W46 
 

 ^^ 
 
 %M' 
 
 
 O^ , o * 
 
 
 > ^ 
 
 c 
 
 
 . •^ » « 
 
 ■ > 
 
 .0 
 
 ATI »J 
 
 ^O^'^ 
 
 
 
 4. 
 
 o* 
 
 . O " P 
 
 
 
 A ■ 
 
 
 
 V 
 

 
 r« • »