Rook y^Jsy 
 
Published by order of the Whig Congressional Exeentiye Committee, at Washington. 
 
 PROSPECT BEFORE US, 
 
 OR 
 
 LOOOFOCO IMFOSXTZONS EXPOSED 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 COL. polk's opinions ok the tariff policy. 
 
 It having been settled, very conclusively, by this time, that the candidate of the locofoco party is op- 
 posed to any degree of protection, incidental or otherwise, to American labor against foreign competition, 
 and if in favor of any tariff at all, of sucii an one only as will be greatly insufficient to provide the ways 
 and means for carrving on the Government, without the necessity of direct taxation for that purpose, we 
 have the issue very clearly made up between hun and Mr. Clay, so far as that question is concerned : 
 for the attempts, to produce the impression on the subject, are so ridiculously weak and abortive, that no 
 one, throughout this wide land, can have been imposed upon by them. Up to the moment when Mr. 
 Polk was thunderstruck upon hearing he had been selected as the candidate of the Baltimore convention, 
 he had omitted no opportunity to declare himself openly, as an imdisgw'j^ed, uncumpromisi»g, unyield- 
 ing FREK TnAiiF. man; and as opposed heart and soul, hasid and voice, in will and action, to the "per- 
 nicious tariff," the black tariff of 1842. Upon that issue he was met in a hundred and fifty fields by his 
 opponent for the chief magistracy of Tennessee, for two successive contests, and was worsted in all, as the 
 ballot boxes attested. Over and over and over again did he commit himself in these campaigns, to this 
 free trade, policy, and by voice, letters, by votes, and by every means by which he could bring his influence 
 to bear, did he strive to put that one f\ict at least beyond all po.ssibility of doubt. 
 
 If other evidence than Mr. Polk's speeches, letters and votes are required, read the following letter from 
 Gov. JOj\ES, of Tennessee, whose opportunities of knowing Mr. Polk's, views on all public questions 
 have been so great, from the fact of his having opposed and defeated him twice for Governor. Here is 
 Governor Jones' letter : 
 
 Nashville, July 25, 1844. 
 To Charles Gibbons, Esq., Philadelphia. 
 
 Dear Sir .- By the mail I enclose you two publications of Col. Pollv's during the last summer's canvass 
 on the subject of the Tariff, &c. From these publications you will perceive that the Colonel is dead om 
 against Protection, and particularly opposed to distribution of the proceeds of the Public Land*, because, 
 he says, it is a Tariff measure. It sounds strangely to us, who have been accustomed to hear Col. Polk, 
 to hear it stated that he is a Tariff man, or in favor of Protection. I have met him on more than one 
 hundred and fifty fields, and I never heard liim make a speech in my canvass with liim, that he did not 
 denpunce the principles oli Protection. Indeed this was the main ground on which he and his friends re- 
 lied to defeat me. I was /or I'rotection^he against it. I for Distribution — he against it. 
 
 The contest is fierce in Tennessee — each party in the field, with all their forces and zeal. In Penn- 
 sylvania, I would say, do your duty — we will do ours. Tennessee will maintain her position. 
 
 Respectfully, your servant, JAMES C. JONES. 
 
 Let us now briefly examine Mr. Polk's past and present position upon the tariff. Upon this, as upon 
 all great questions of the day, it is the constant boast of himself and friends that he has maintained an 
 irreproachable consistency. The records of the country have risen up in judgment against him; liis own 
 public acts and written opinions confront him with proof of his time-serving and tergiversation ; and 
 we flatter ourselves that we shall fasten upon him the most gross and palpable inconsistency. His char- 
 acter for candor and political independence, unenviable as it already is, must suffer additional humiliation 
 from popular scrutiny. 
 
 Extracts front, an address of James K. Polk, to the people of Tennessee, April 3, 1839. Columbia, 
 
 Tenn.,J. H. Thompson, Pr., 1839. 
 
 Mr. Polk's opinions of the tariff and the protective policy have been called in question; on the one 
 hand, the Whigs positively assert that he is opposed to the present tariff, and to the protective system al- 
 together, and quote his own declarations, made on various occasions, to prove what they assert. On the 
 other hand, the Locofocos of the Tariff States, assert that hb is in favor of a protective tariff, and im- 
 pudently affirm that the declarations ofMr. Polk to the contrary, quoted by the Whig papers, are "Whig 
 lies" and forgeries. It may be that what we are about to copy from the above mentioned address, will 
 be so denounced ; but if it be, we have the pamphlet in our possession, and are ready to show it to any 
 
 Printed at Gideun's office, Ninth street, Washington. 
 
man or men who may think proper to call and satisfy themselves of its genuineness, or who doubt the 
 accuracy of the extracts we have made. 
 
 At pages 5 and 6, speaking of Mr. Adams's administration, Mr. Polk says: "It was during that ad- 
 ministration that the protective policy reached its highest point of aggravation in the passage of the tariff 
 law, that 'hill of abominations,' in 1828. It was attemptad to build up a great system of manufactures 
 sad internal improvements, by taxing the whole people, and especially of the planting States, for the 
 benefit of the Northern capitalists. To make the investment of their money profitable, the prices of all 
 manufactured articles must be raised ; and to raise the prices, enormous duties were imposed on corres- 
 ponding articles imported from abroad. To purchase the support of different sections of the country to 
 this iniquitous system, iron, sugar, hemp, cotton bagging, and even salt, were included in the liighly 
 tariffed articles. Every man who bought an axe or a hoe, a plough-share or a pound of nails, a peck of 
 sa,lt or a pound of sugar, was covertly taxed, in the increased price of the article, for the benefit of the 
 manufacturer, the iron master, the salt maker, or the sugar planter. ZVever was a more unjust tax im- 
 posed. It was not for ttie necesa|iry support of Government that it was imposed ; such was neither the 
 avowed or real object. lis operation was to take the property of one man and give it to another, without 
 right or consideration- It was to depreciate the value of the productive industry of one section of the 
 JJflion and transfer it to another — it was to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. In another respect 
 Shis system was disastrous to every thing Republican or just in the administration of the Government. 
 Whilst the increased prices of domestic articles went into the pockets of the manufacturers, who 
 were generally men of large capital, that on imported articles, being the tariff duly, v<-ent into the Trea- 
 sury of the United Statfis. Immense sums of money, not necessary for the support of the Government, 
 were therefore likely to be accumulated in the public treasury ; and this accumulation, it was foreseen, 
 might induce the people to insist on a reduciinn of dutio's. To obviate this danger to the grand system, 
 it was necessary to devise a plan of expenditure large enough to consume whatever excess of moneys, 
 above the necessary wants of the Government, might be produced by the high protective taritF. 
 
 "This'plan was soon found in an unconstitutional and gigantic system of internal improvements by 
 the General Government. In the making of roads and canals, and in the imjirovement of harbors and 
 rivers, it was calculated that large sections of country, and even whole Stales, where the expenditures 
 were to be made, could be brought to the support of the system, and that a demand might thereby be 
 created for any number of millions which the cupidity of Northern capitalists might find it expedient to 
 exact from the people, as a means of secuiing to them an enormous profit on their investments. The as- 
 sumption and exercise of the power, by Federal authority, to construct works of internal improvement 
 within the States, constituted an essential branch of the system of which Mr Clay was the reputed father 
 and head, and to which the popular but false name of the " American System" was given It was an 
 essential branch of the falsely called " American System," because it was the great absorbent, the spunge, 
 which was to suck in and consume the excessive, unequal, unjust, and excessive exactions upon the peo- 
 ple, and especiall}' upon the people of the planting States, ruined by a high protective tariff." 
 
 Such were Mr. Polk's opinions in regard to the protective policy in 18-39, as declared by himself in 
 his address to the people of Tennessee. It will be seen that he was then, as the Charleston Mercury de- 
 dares he is now, " SOUTHERN, in his princii-les, TO THE BACK BONE." 
 
 In a letter to the people of Fennessee, in 1843, be says :' All who have observed mj' course know that 
 1 HAVE, AT ALL TLMES, BEEN OPPOSED TO THE 'PROTECTIVE POLICY.' W^here 
 BCOT is his boasted considenqj ? Have not the records of the country, his own wiitten opinions, risen 
 up in judgment against him ? 
 
 Again, in the same letter : " The act of July 14th, 18.32, was the first step of reduction which the anti- 
 lariff delegations in Congress were able to obtain. By the act of the 2d of March, 18.3-3, (the compro- 
 mise act,) they were enabled to obtain still further reductions, and, as already stated, I voted for both 
 ihese acts." 
 
 And again, in the same letter: "And, finally, my competitor has been forced to rely upon the favorite 
 comparisons he makes between the acts of 1832 and 1842. This he is in the daily habit of doing in his 
 speeches. He always introduces it by inquiring " and ivJio voted for t/ie tariff of \S'i2 ? As Nathan 
 said unto David, thou art the man. Then he proceeds to make the comparison. My competitor must 
 place a very low estimate on the intelligence of the people if he supposes that the fallacy, unfairness, and 
 want of candor, of this mode of presenting the subject can Aiil to be understood by them. It cannot cer- 
 tainly be that he can desire that every man who hears our public discussions shall go home with an im- 
 proper or erroneous impression on his mind. Why does he not state, when he comes to the act of 1832, 
 that that act was not an original tariff act imposing duties for the first time, but that it was an act to takft 
 off and reduce the higher duties imposed by the law as it then stood ] And why does he not then ask, 
 and u-ho voted to take off and reduce those duties ? and he could then, with truth, add his favorite quo- 
 lation, ' As Nathan said unto David, thou art the man.' " 
 
 Now, how does all this " incidental protection " as alluded to in the Kane fetter, correspond with the 
 written dechi rations of Got. Polk, in his ktt>r to tie people of Tennessee, in 1843. There he abo ref«r« 
 
to his public " course," to prove that he has •■' at all times been OPPOSED TO THE PROTECTIVE 
 POLICY." We refer, for the following quotation, to the Jeflersonian, June 3, of that year: 
 
 " Upon the subject of the tariff, I have but little to acid to what I have heretofore often declared to the 
 public. Ail who have observed my course know that 1 have at all times bten opposed to the ''protective 
 policy." 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. I am in favor of a tariff for revenue, and opposed to a Tariff for protection. 
 I was a member of Congre-ss during the period that this suliject excited the greatest interest. I was op- 
 posed to the protective tariff of 1828, and voted against it. I voted for the act of 1832 — because it re- 
 duced the act of 1828 to lower rates. That made some reduction, though not as much as I desired to 
 have made. I voted for the act of March 2d, 1833, (commonly called the compromise act,) which re. 
 duced the rates of the act of 1832 to still lower rates, and finally brought the rates of the act of 1832 
 down to a point at which no article was after the 30th of June, 1842, to be suljject to a duty hio-her than 
 20 per cent. This was the law when the late Whig Congress came into power. By the tariflfact of the 
 30th August, 1842, the comproiniie act wa^ violated and repealed. lam opposed to the act of 1842, 
 not regarding it to be a revenue tariff, but in many of its provisions highly protective and oppressive in 
 its character. I am in favor of the restoration of the compromise act of 1833." 
 
 The inconsistency is too preposterous to require further remarks from us. Mark the following brief 
 extract : 
 
 Jas. K. Polk to the people of Tennessee, 1843. I Jas. K. Polk to J. K. Kane, 1844. 
 
 All who have observed my course know that I | In adjusting the details of a rei'e«7te /«rii#, I have 
 have at all times been opposed to the ''protective heretofore sanctioned such moderate rf«mwj77«/i;2g^ 
 policy." duties, as would at the same time afford reasonable 
 
 j incidental protection. 
 Again, how can the last paragraph, in the above letter to Mr. Kane, be made to tally with the follow- 
 ing declarations, in his speech, in reply to Milton Brown, at Jackson, April 3,1843. We copy from 
 the Nashville Union, May 5, 1843 : 
 
 " He was opposed to direct taxes, and to prohibitory ^.xiA protective duties — and in favor of such mod- 
 erate duties as would not cut off importations. In other words, he was in favor of redticin"- the duties 
 to the rates of the compromise act, where the Whig Congress found them on the 29th June, 1842." 
 
 Plainly indicating that his object would be to procure revenue only, and just so much protection a? 
 must necessarily follow. 
 
 Again, how does he reconcile to his extreme sense of consistency, his dogged silence, in this con- 
 nection, upon the distribution policy, which he denounced in his Nashville speech in October 1841 
 as •' designed covertly to afford increased protection to the mannfacturers at the expense of the great 
 body of the people, who are consumers" Yet he now says, in so many words, that he is willing- to col- 
 lect " a sufficient amount" of revenue from a tariff, without once saying that he would insist imon re- 
 taining the land fund in the Treasury. In fact, we predict that if questioned on this head in the south 
 he will not assert that lie 7He««f what he .srtu^ in his letter to Mr. Kane, — but that he is in favor of 
 raising a " sufficient amount" less the land distribution fund. 
 
 But this, of course, would have been unpopular in the "high tariff State" of Pennsylvania, because 
 it would necessarily imply the cutting down of that protection consequent upon the layino- of revenue 
 duties discriminating in favor of home industry. 
 
 The letter to Mr. Kane, of Philadelphia, which was evidently designed to convev the idea to the 
 friends of domestic manufactures, that he was in favor of a protective tariff. No person could mistake 
 the import of that letter, or be in doubt as to tlie ol^ject for which it was written. It was palpablv the 
 design of Mr. P., also to induce the people to believe, that in all his congressional career, he was gov- 
 erned by a desire to secure, by the laws of the land, " fair and iust protect ion to all the great interests of 
 the whole Union, embracing dLg^viculturc, manufactures, the mechanic arts, commerce and navigation." 
 Upon the strength of this letter, further, it is claimed by Mr. Polk's friends in the TariffStates, "heig 
 as much the friend of the American manufacturer as Mr. Clay is."* 
 
 With these facts before them, we ask our readers to peruse the following paragraph, which was the 
 introduction to a letter which Mr. Polk addressed to the people of Tennessee during the last canvass 
 for the gubernatorial chair of that State : 
 
 Winchester, May 29, 1843. 
 To the people of Tennessee : 
 
 The object which I had in proposing to Governor Jones, at Carrollville, on the 12th of April last- 
 that we should each write out and publish our views and opinions on the subject of the Tariff was th^ 
 
 * Extract from Mr. Belsar's speech on the Tariff — " There is also a third class, who are called inciden- 
 tal protectionists ; the armed neutrals ; the half-way house men ; politicians, who have not vet brouo-ht 
 themselves to the sticking point, opposed to monopolies in general, but in favor of those in which their 
 constituents are immediately interested ; legislators who vote according to the views of particular dis- 
 tricts ; a kind of arnphibiou.'-: animal, either for the land or water. 
 
our respective positions m.ght be distlncf.y known and understood by the people. That my opinions 
 vsere already fully and distinctly known, I could not doubt. / had steadily durins; the period I was a 
 representative in Congress been opposed to a protective policy, as my recorded votes and published 
 
 my 
 
 opinion in my public speeches that the interests of the country, and especially of the producing and 
 of S"" '' '"'"^""■^^ ''' repeal, and the restoration of the principles of the compromise tariff act 
 
 Now what ought e^ery honest man to think of James K. Polk .' Is an individual, who can be guilty 
 of such Protean conduct, worthy the confidence of the country .' Ou-ht he not rather to be scorned 
 and contemned by every voter worthy ot being called a man ? And will he not be treated bv every 
 ireeman just as his hypocrisy and tergiversation calls for .' Such a creature is, indeed, unworthy of 
 fifi Jk w . ^^ meanest post under the Government, much less to be elevated to an office once 
 hlled by a Washington and a Madison. 
 
 But, thank Heaven, the country has not fallen to so low a point ,n the scale of honor and wisdom, 
 a. to leave any certain prospect of success to such a time-serving politician and apology for a statesman. 
 
 MR. clay's AXD MR. POLK'S POSITION DEFINED BY THE LOCO FOCO PARTY. 
 
 n^l% ^\t ^^''^- ^" P'^''? ^i^<^ that some of the Locofoco party are willing to do justice to Mr. Clay in re- 
 gard to the opinions he entertains on matters of public policy. We wish Locofoco editors and their 
 deluded followers would state things as fairly and honestly as their brethren in Edgefield, South Caro- 
 lina, have done At a large meeting latelv held, thev declared that, 
 
 «' Mr. Clay s first effort in the United States Senate'was in favor of Internal Improvement, and his 
 nrsi great speech, rnade on his second election to that body as earlv as 1809, was in favor of a Protective 
 Tariff which won him the title of 'Father of the American Svstem.' His subsequent career has 
 proved consistency upon all these points, on which, and manv others of import, the democracy of Ihe 
 ivhole cmmtryare at issue with him. Shall such a man, professing such principles, be made President 
 01 tne u uted States .^ Let the democracy of the country, from Maine to Louisiana, in one universal 
 acclamation, respond — never! never; 
 
 Trade and Slavery. Here are two of the resolutions passed in the Edgefield meeting . 
 
 Kesolved, 1 hat in James K. Polk vye recognize an able advocate of immediate annexation of 
 Jexas zna a firm and consistent opponent of a Protective Tariff and Abolition; and that, therefore, 
 we cordially approve of his nomination, and pledge ourselves to his support. 
 
 Kesolved, That the Tariff Act of 1812 is liable to all the objections we have heretofore made to 
 me constitutionality and expediency of the measures of the Federal Government for the Protection of 
 iJomestic Manula-tures, with the aggravation that it was a gross breach of the faith plighted to us in 
 tne Compromise ot 183.'5 ; and that we regard the time and measure of our resistance to this act, as 
 matters to be settled upon our own views of expediency, in no wise to be hindered by our supposed 
 allegiance to the Federal Government. r .- j i-i- 
 
 These gentlemen thoroughly understand Mr. Polk— and they know he will carry out the principles 
 ot their party, if elected. They recognize in him ' the able advocate of immediate Annexation,' and ' a 
 firm and consistent opponent of a Protective Tariff' Let this be remembered. Let Ihe Mechanics, 
 Manufacturers, Farmers, and all other interests in society that are benefitted by the Whig Tariff, re- 
 member that James K. Polk is recognized by his party as the 'firm and consistent opponent,' and 
 tlenry Clay, as the ' Father of the American Svstem, whose first great speech, on his second election 
 to the Senate, as early as 1809, was in favor of a Protective Tariff. 
 
 MR. CLAt's position DEFIKEl) BT HIMSELF IJH 18'12. 
 
 The Senator (Mr. Calhoun) was continually charging him (Mr. Clay) with the design of violating 
 tue compromise act? Whejihad he swerved from it 7 He was still for adhering to it, as he under- 
 stood Its principles. Those principles he did not consider incompatible with the Protection of Amer- 
 ^^'^^J^"^^-^^''y^^fi preference to any other. HE HAD LIVED, AJVD WOULD DIE, AJV ADVO- 
 ^fJ?l?^ ^^^ PROTECTIVE SYSTEM, HE HAD JS^EVER CHAjYGED HIS PRIJV. 
 
 1 . f ^^^'^ WERE .YOW THE SAME AS THEY HAD EVER BEEA ; but he 
 submitted to the restrictions of the compromise act as a mzttev oi JVECESSITY. And he did not 
 even now think it prudent, because not practicable, to go as far as his inclinations led him. with the 
 \[lTt ''^ PROTECTION But as far as he COULD GO, HE WOULD.— Speech in the Senate. 
 23d March, 1842, a short time before retiring from that body. 
 
 MK. CLAY TINDICATED BT MH. POLK. 
 
 We furnish another short extract from Mr. Polk's Address to the People of Tennessee, April .3, 1839, 
 printed at Columbus, Tennessee, Mr. P's own residence. 
 
On page 7, occurs the following paragraph : " The great results of Gen. Jackson's administration 
 belong tu the history of the country, and can be but briefly sketched or alluded to in an address like 
 this. In repeated instances he recommended modifications and reductions of the Tarifi', with a view to 
 the final abandonment of that odious and unjust system. So eftectual were these recommendatiens, 
 and so rapid thechange of public opinion, that the friends of the Tariff, and even Mr. CI ay, its imputed 
 father, seized on a fivoa/j/e moment to save the whole from destruction by a timely cumpromiss. 
 It was the defence of Mr. Clay, with his friends at the North, that by yielding a part, he prevented, 
 the destruction of the vvhole, and in their continued and devoted support of him the Northern capi- 
 talists have shown that they are grateful lor the fortunate rescue." 
 
 Mark well the language of Mr. Polk. In glorifying Gen Jackson, he affirms that he labored to 
 overturn the protective system, i-ui this he places first among '■^ the great results of Gen. JacUson's 
 administralion." Well, Mr. Polk helped Gen. Jackson all he could in destroying this system, and 
 now Gen. Jackson is doing all he can to help Polk. Who are the deceivers on this subject — Polk and 
 Jackson. 
 
 But observe again : Polk expressly asserts that Mr. Clay's design in the Compromise was to SAVE 
 THE CAUSE OF PROTECTION. Who is the false witness.'— J. K. Polk, who declares that Mr. 
 Clay made a " fortunate rescue" of the cause of Protection by the compromise, or any loccfoco who says 
 that Mr. Clay abandoned that great cause in that act.' 
 
 We throw this testimony of Mr. Poik into the teeth of the calumniators of Mr. Clay; let them 
 retract their calumnies, or impeach the veracity of their own candidate. 
 
 THE- WHIR TARIFF OF 1842 WHO FHAJIEl) IT; \TKO SUPPORTED IT; WHO OPPOSED IT; A>'15 TO 
 
 WHOM IS THE tOUxNTRr INDEBTED FOR ITS PASSAKE. 
 
 The high handed attempt of the Locofoco editors, orators and politicians in the country, with the 
 view of deceiving their party into the belief that James K. Polk, the candidate of the anti-Taritl, Eres 
 Trade party, is as good a democrat as Henry Clay, the gieat champion of the " American System," and 
 that the credit of passing the present excellent Taritl' belongs as much to the Locofocos as to the 
 Whigs, has induced us to investigate the records of the pp^t, with the view of spreading before all who 
 desire correct information, a brief history of the original passage of the bill, so that every man, be he a 
 Whig or Locofoco. may vote understandingly upon this important question. The statements, votes, &c. 
 •which the reader will fini subjoined, are taken from files of papers, and the Journals of Congress. 
 We give tliem precisely as we find them recorded, when the measure was new and tmtried, and before 
 it had acquired its present popularity, when public opinion was divided upon this subject, and when the 
 Whig party alone stood up for the establishment of the system. 
 
 We wish it usiderstood that, in presenting the following facts to the consideration of the public, we 
 challenge contradiction ; we defy all the Locofoco papers in the country, to prove a single untrutii or 
 prevarication, in any thing which they may find annexed. 
 
 THE COXGRESS OF 1S4-3, AND THE POSITION OF THE PRESIDEJTT. 
 
 In order to a proper understanding of the whole question, it must be recollected that the Congress of 
 1842 was a Whig Congress ; that the Whigs had a majority in both branches, and that it was the inten- 
 tion of this Congress to put in force those leading Whig measures which the people had in view 
 in electing General Harrison, and returning a majority of Whig representatives, to assist him in carry- 
 ing out whig measures. The death of General Harrison in one short month after his inauguration, and 
 the elevation of John Tyler to the first office in the nation, must also be borne in mind, prostrated the 
 hopes of the Whig party. At that time, owing to the ruinous measures of the V'an Buren administra- 
 tion, the country was in a most deplorable condition ; the treasury was bankrupt, and the currency to- 
 tally destroyed ; a debt of twenty- five millions unpaid ; the compromise act of 1833, about expiring, and 
 a large party in Congress disposed to thwart every attempt to settle upon a safe basis the revenue system, 
 a basis which should afford a suitable protection to American industry. 
 
 We will remark in the first place, that among the important measures loudly called for, by the 
 country, and demanded by the exigencies of the times, was a Tariff, which would afford a home market 
 for our agricultural products, and give protection to our manufactures and citizens, over the pauper labor 
 of Europe, and re-infuse vigor and enterprise in all the ramifications of business, which had been gen- 
 erally prostrated by the gradual reduction of duties uii foreign goods, fixed by the compromise act. Ac- 
 cording to the provisions of the act, the last great reduction was to take place on the 30th of Jane, 
 1842, after which our country would have been inundated with foreign goods, and our own manu- 
 factures completely and entirely prostrated. But, besides ruining our manufactures, the operation 
 of the compromise act was fast destroying our national credit. It is certainly the true policy, so to fix 
 the rates of duties, as to afford ample revenue for all its wants ; but, although Mr. Van Buren came into 
 power, with a surplus of $'9,00(),000 in the treasury, yet during his administiation, the revenue fell so 
 short of the extravagant wants of the Govern:nent as administered by him, that upon the accession of 
 General Harrison, the country was many millions in debt, and the national credit exhausted. 
 
 FIRST TOTE REFERENCE OF THE SUBJECT OF LEVYING >BW DUTIES TO A COMMITTEE. 
 
 This being the state of the country, the new Whig congress assembled in regular session on the first 
 Monday in December, 1841, and immediately set about adopting means of relief. And here an exhibi- 
 
tion of hands took place between the respective parties. On the reference of so much of the President's 
 Message, as related to discriminating duties to an appropriate committee, Mr. Fillmore, of N Y., a 
 thorough going, uncotnpromising Wiiig, moved that it be referred to the Committee on Manufactures. 
 Mr. Atherton, of N. H., the present United States senator, who was a member of the House at that 
 time, being a strong Free Trade man, moved its reference to the Committee ot Ways and Means. He 
 Contended that the adoption of Mr. Fillmore's motion would be countenancing the principle of protec- 
 tion, while his own embraced that of revenue merely. AVe may add by the way, that this reference 
 had always been regarded as a test question: the advocates of the protective policy, uniformly voting to 
 refer all matters connected with the imposition of duties to the Commiltee on Manu acHires, who are 
 presumed to have this branch of our national industry under their special care, and the friends of Free 
 Trade or low duties, invariably moving its reference to the Committee of Ways and Means, whose duty 
 it is to provide for revenue alone, without regard to the encouragement of our national industry. Alter 
 debating upon tlie subject for several weeks, the previous question was called, and the main questmn 
 being on the adoption of Mr. Atherton's motion to refer to the Committee of Ways and Means, the 
 House decided as follows : 
 
 Yeas — {Against protection) 95 — of which seventy-one were Locofocos, and twenty-four Southern 
 Whigs. 
 
 Nays — (For protection) 104 — of which ninety were Whigs, and only fourteen Locofocos. 
 
 Mr. Atherton's motion being lost, Mr. Fillmore's prevailed without further struggle, and the whole 
 subject was referred to the Committee on Manufactures, who in due time reported 
 
 THK TARIFF AND DISTRIBUTION BILL. 
 
 The bill was precisely similar in all its essential provisions to the present Tariff, with the excep- 
 tion that it contained 2i clause providing for the distnbutian of the proceeds of the sales of the pub- 
 lic lands among the several States, according to the ratio of their population. The bill was de- 
 signed to afford protection to the agricultural, manufacturing and michanical interests, and at the same 
 time calculated to yield a revenue sufficient for all the wants of the (General Government, without the 
 application of one cent of the land fund, which the Whigs contended, and still contend, do rightfully 
 belong to the States. Had this bill been approved, not only would we have been reaping all the 
 benefits which the country derives from the effects of the present Tariff, but each Slate in the Union 
 would have annually received her quota of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, and applying 
 it to the extinguishment of the interests annually accruing on her enormous State debt, and the people 
 relieved in a great measure, from the heavy taxation to which they are now subjected. As far as the 
 great State of Pennsylvania is concerned, the bill was infinitely better designed to promote her interests 
 than the present one. Her iron, and coal, and her manufactures of all kinds, were amply protected. 
 
 THE VOTE UPON THIS BILL- 
 
 ^y xeierr'm^io the \>xocee<\\\igs published at the time, it will be seen that the vote in the House of 
 Representatives on the Tariff and Distribution bill, stood 116 to 112. Of the votes in favor of the bill, 
 115 WERE WHIGS, and 1 (Parmenter of Mass.) Locofoco Of the 112 votes against the bill, 97 
 were Locofocos, (all they had but one,) 2 were Tyler men, and 13 were Southern Whigs. 
 
 So the bill passed the House, with but one Locofoco vote, and no need of that. 
 
 The bill next went to the Senate, and after another warm discussion, passed that body by the follow- 
 ing vote : 
 
 Yeas— 25— ALL WHIGS. 
 
 Nays — 23 — twenty cf whom were Locofocos — (all thev had) and three Southern Whigs. 
 
 Thus it will be seen, that this Tariff bt][ passed both Houses, with but A SINGLE LOCOFOCO 
 VOTE liv ITS FAVOR, and that not wanted. So much for the assertion, that the Whigs had no strength 
 to pass a Tariff Bill without Locofoco aiiL 
 
 VETO BY THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 On the 5di of August, 1842, the Tariff' and Distribution bill passed the Senate by the vote above 
 stated, and on the day following, it was sent to the President for his approval. On the 9th of the san^e 
 month, the President returned it to the House of liepresentatives with his oe^o- -his objections being 
 mainly based upon the incorporation of the Distribution clause. Thus was the desire of the Whig rtp- 
 resentatives to relieve the sufTering community frustrated by the opposition of Johii Tyler. 
 
 THE EFFECT OF THE VETO. 
 
 The eflect of the Veto was well nigh proving most disastrous to the interests of the nation. The 
 efforts of the Whigs to relieve the country had been thwarted at almost every step by the vetoes of the 
 President, and when he returned this bill, which incorporated in its provisions their cherished and cardinal 
 measures of protection and distribution, the members of the Whig parly felt the humiliation most poignant- 
 ly. The question presented itself to many of them in this wise : " Shall we, the immediate representa- 
 tives ot the people, subject ourselves to another huniiliation, by moulding and slui|)iiig our measure to 
 suit the peculiar views of the President, whose accession to power has been purely uccidental, or shall 
 we go home and leave him without the means of revenue to carry on the Government, until such time 
 
313 his Accidency pleased to bend his single will to mtr views ?" To pursue the latter course was the 
 natural impulse of almost every Whig member ; to vote in favor of any thing to please John Tyler, be- 
 came from that moment repugnant to many Whigs, who were the most ardent friends of protection. 
 
 But, on the other hand, the condition of the country had become such that the Whigs, badly as they 
 had been treated, felt it to be their duty, as guardians of the public weal, to submit to still further humil- 
 iation in oriler to promote the general good. Although the session had been greatly protracted, neverthe- 
 less it was resolved to ;nake one more effort to relieve the suffering community. Accordingly the Hon. 
 THOMAS M. T. McKENNAN, one of the noble Whig representatives from Pennsylvania, repo rted the 
 old vetoed Tariff bill, with the distribution clause stricken out, and urged it forward with all the elo- 
 quence and influence which he could command ; and on the 2'2d of August, 1842, this bill, which was 
 nothing more nor less than THE PRESENT TARIFF LAW, was taken up in Committee of the 
 Whole, and by a vote of 90 to 67 reported to the House. 
 
 And now commenced the tug of war in earnest. With a few exceptions, the whole weight and talent 
 of the Locofoco party Wds exerted to prevent the passage of any bill having for its object the protection 
 of American industry. But protedion was a favorite measure of Whig policy, and most nobly did they 
 battle against the opposition to it. No time was to be lost. The Whig members, dishear'.ened by the 
 course of John Tyler, were daily leaving for their homes. The Previous Question was moved, seconded, 
 and sustained, and Mr McKennan's amendment passed the (''onimittee of the Whole by a vole of yeas 
 102 — nays 99. The f|uestion was next taken on the engrossment of the bill, and the vote stood yeas 101 
 — nays 101 — a tie, but the Speaker (White) voting in the negative the bill was lost. Whereupon Mr. 
 Thompson, of Indiana, moved a reconsideration, which prevailed — yeas 106, nays 98. Then came the 
 vote on the final passage of the bill, which first stood — yeas 103, nays 102, Here there being a majority 
 of but a single one, it was insisted by the opponents of the bill that the Speaker should vote. After con- 
 sulting the rules, he concluded it was his duty to do so, and voted again in the negative, thus making a 
 tie — 103 to !03. Messrs. Stanley, of North Carolina, and Andrews, of Kentucky, who had not voted 
 now came forth and voted in the uffirmative, and the bill was carried by the following vote : 
 
 The vote on the final passage of the present Tariff in the House. 
 
 There were 10.5 votes given in favor of the bill. Of these EIGHTY-FIVE WEREWHIGS— and 
 but TWENTY I.OCOFOCOS. Of the 20 Locofocos, ten were from the strong TariflT State of Penn- 
 sylvania; 7iine from the Tariff" State of New York, and one from the TaiifiT State of Massachusetts, and 
 not one from, any other State. 
 
 There were 103 votes given against the bill in the House. Of these SIXTY-FIVE WERE LOCO- 
 FOCOS; thirty five were Vl-^/^s, and /Aree were Tyler men. Five Locofocos from New York, /ire 
 from Pennsylvania, two from Maine, and fve others, making in all SEVENTEEN LOCOFOCOS 
 WHO DODGED THE QUESTION. 
 
 Of the Locofoco Representatives in the House at the time — 
 
 Every Locofoco from Maine, Every Locofoco from Louisiana, 
 
 Every Locofoco from New Hampshire, Every Locofoco from Tennessee, 
 
 Every Locofoco from Maryland, Every Locofoco from Illinois, 
 
 Every Locofoco from Virginia, Every Locofoco from Missouri, 
 
 Every Locofoco from North Carolina, Every Locofoco from Arkansas, 
 
 Every Locofoco from South Carolina, Every Locofoco from Ohio, 
 
 Every Locofoco from Kentucky, Every Locofoco from Indiana, 
 
 Every Locofoco from Georgia, Every Locofoco from Mississippi, 
 
 Every Locofoco from Alabama. And seven Locofocos from New York, 
 
 ¥OTED AGAINST THE PRESENT TARIFF. 
 
 The vote in the Senate. 
 
 The bill having passed the House, as above stated, was sent to the Senate, and on the 27th of August 
 passed that body as follows: 
 
 Yeas 24 — Twenty of irhom lucre Whigs and four Locofocos. 
 
 Nays 23— FOURTEEN OF WHOM^WERE LOCOFOCOS, eight Whiss, and one Tiler man. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that FOUR TIMES AS MANY Whigs as Locofocos voted for the present Tariff 
 in the House, and FIVE TIMES as many Whigs as Locos in the Senate; and yet the Locofoco party 
 has the impudence to declare that the country is indebted as much to the Locofocos as the Whigs for the 
 ;pas8age of the present tariff! 
 
 Why did a portion of the Whigs vole against the bill? 
 
 It is asserted by the Locofocos that the Whigs who opposed the bill, after it had been modified to suit 
 'the peculiar views of John Tyler, did so because they were oppo.sed to its protective character. This is 
 not so. It will be seen above that they voted nearly unanimously in favor of the vetoed bill containing 
 the distribution clause, which received but a single Locofoco vote, and could have been passed very readily 
 without that. The reason they voted against Mr. McKemvan's bill, was simply because they were op- 
 posed to striking out the land clause, thereby yielding up the cherished Whig principle of disfn'lmtiQZi, 
 
 ■•■ip 
 
8 
 
 to gratify the notions of John Tyler. What other motive, we ask of every man of common sense and 
 common political honesty, could have iniluced staunch Whigs to vote against the billl In voting as they 
 did, they did not vote against the Tariif, but against the surrender of the land distribution, and the pros- 
 tration of the proper independence of the Congress of the U. States at the footstool of Executive power. 
 Now, let us have the reasons of Chahlks Buown, a Locofoc.) member of Congress, re|)resenting the 
 interests of Philadelphia county. He voted for the bill, but says it was the "bitterest pill" he ever had 
 to swallow ! Here is his letter, as published in the Globe the very day after the passage of the Tariff 
 bill in the House. 
 
 To the Editor of the Glolc .- 
 
 House of Reprksentatives, August 23d, 1842. 
 
 Your reporter has reported me trnly in making me say yesterday, when my name was called on the 
 engrossment of the Tariti'bill, that it was the iiittkhkst pill 7 have ever had to swallow; and that the ne- 
 cessity of the case alone could induce me to vote "aye " And you are also correct in saying that the 
 Democrats who voted for the bill did so "against both their inclination and their judgment;" at least I 
 know it was so with me. Nothing but the deplorable situation of the Government, brought on by tho 
 reckless misrule of the Whig majority in Congress, and the abandonment of the wreck they had made — 
 the doubtful existence of any law to collect any revenue, and the impossibility of getting another bill 
 passed at this session, which would stop the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands — 
 could have induced me to vote as I did; for I am not one of those who believe that high tariffs or taxes 
 will promote the interests or remove the burdens of the people. 
 
 Nor would these, strong as they are, have been sufficient reasons, had it not been for the hope that the 
 Senate would remove from the bill some of its more onerous provisions; and should this hope fail, the 
 full confidence that at an early day a Democratic Congress would remove such portions of it as may be 
 found oppressive on any section of the country, or any of its industrial pursuits. Nor will it be less their 
 duty to reduce the expenditures of the Government to the lowest possible point — the only true and effi- 
 cient means of bringing permanent relief to all parts of the country, and reducing tariffs of duties or 
 taxes on the people. 
 
 Yours, truly, CHARLES BROWN. 
 
 In connection with the above, read the following paragraph from the speech of Mr. East?ian, a Loco- 
 foco member of (Congress from New Hampsliire : 
 
 " Opposition to tho protective policy is clearly and unequivocally a Democratic (Locofoco) doctrine. 
 It is one of the landmarks of the Democratic (l.ocofoco) party. Go where yon will, sir. North, South, 
 East, or West, and the Democratic (Locofoco) party will tell you that they are opposed to the protective 
 system. But while you will find upon this side almost the entire body of the Democrat ic (Locofoco) party, 
 you will find upon the other the great mass of the Whig party. Sir, let me repeat it, the protective sys- 
 tem is essentially the Whig system." 
 
 In the Senate there was a clear Whig majority of two for the first bill, every Loco voting against it. 
 The three Whig Senators voting nay are noiv in favor of the Tariff of 1842. We therefore utterly deny 
 the slightest credit to the Locofoco party for the Tariff of 1842; but one solitary Locofoco went for that 
 bill until after one of its best features had been stricketi out — a feature which would have secured per- 
 manency and stability to protection. The above vote is important in another respect ; we think it proves 
 that the two parties do not agree quite so perfectly u| on this question as the Locofocos would have the 
 peo[ilc believe. They were then at issue — they are now at isstae — and their chosen leaders are Henry 
 Clay and James K. Polk. Such is the true issue; so is it regarded by the Whig party, and by at least 
 eight-tenths of the Locofoco party. In truth, Messrs. Clay and Polk have placed themselves in direct 
 issue on the Tariff' of 1842 ; and it is utterly unjustifiable, by the Locofoco party, to attempt to put 
 them in a false position- 
 
 AVHAT PAUT had L0C0F0C0IS3M IX THE ATTE]WPT TO REPEAL THE TARIFF.' 
 
 At the last session, the tariff question was again brought up. Who were in favor, and who against? 
 Mr. McKay, L. F., from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a tariff bill reducing the duties to 
 a low rate, about 20 per cent. When the final vote was about to be taken — 
 
 Mr. Elmer rose and moved that the bill and amendments be laiu on the table. 
 
 Mr. Cave Johnson asked the yeas and nays, which were ordered. 
 
 Mr. Hardin rose to inquire of .\1r. Elmer whether this was to be regarded as a test vote. 
 
 Mr. Elmer was understood i& reply that he so considered it. 
 
 The question, " Shall the bill and amendments be laid on the fable V was then taken, and decided in 
 the affirmative, as follows: 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Ashe, Baker, Barringer, Barnard, Bidlack, J. Black, Brengle, Brod- 
 head, M. Brown, J. Brown, Buffington, Jeremiah E. Cari/, Carroll, Cutlin, Causin, Chilton, Clinch, 
 Clingman, Collamer, Cianston, Dana, Darragh, G. Davis, R. D. Davis, Deberry, Dellet, Dickey, Dick- 
 inson, Dillingham, Ellis, Elmer, Ff tee. Fish, Florence. Foot, Foster, French, Giddings, W. Green, 
 B. Green, Grinnell, Grider, Hardih, JI -rper, Hubbell, Hudson, W, Hunt, C. J. IngtrsoU,i. R. Ingersoll, 
 
Irvin, Jenks, P. B. Johnson, J. P. Kennedy. D P. King, Kirkpnirick, McTIvaine, Maish, E. Joy Morris, 
 Morse, Mosely, Nes, Newton, Pormenfer, Pattersun, Peyton, Phoenix, Pollock, E. R. Potter, Preston, 
 Ramsey, Rayner, RUfer, Rorkwell, Rogers, Russell, Simple, Schenck, Severance, D. L. Seymour, Simons, 
 A. Smith, J. T. Smith, C. B. Smith, Spence, Stephens, Stetson, A. Stewart, Summers, Si/kes. Thomas- 
 son, Tilden, Tyler, Vance, Vanmeter, Vinton, Wethered, Wkeaton, White, Williams, Winthrop, W. 
 Wright, IW— 105. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Anderson. Atkinson, Bavley, Belser, Benton, J. A. Black, Blackweil, Bower, Bowlin, 
 Boyd, BrinkerhofT. W. J. Brown, Burke, Burt, Cnldwell, Camphell, S. Gary, R Chapman, A. A. Chap- 
 man, Chappell, Clinton, Cobb, Coles, Cross, Cullom, Daniel, J. W. Davis, Dawson Dean. Douglass, 
 Dromg-oole, Duncan, Dunlap, Ficklin, Hale. Hamlin, Hammett. Haralson, Henry, Herrick, Holmes, 
 Hoffe. Hopkins. Houston, Hubard, Hughes, Hungeiford, Jas. B. Hunt, Cave Johnson, A. Johnson, G. 
 W. Jones, A. Kennedy, P. King, Labranche, Leonard, Lucas, Lumpkin, Lyon, McCauslen, Maclay, 
 McClelland, McClernand, McConnell, McDowell, McKay. Matthews. J. Morris, Murphy, Korris, Owen, 
 Payne. Pettit, E. D. Potter, Pratt, Rathbun, D. S. Reid, Re.iing, Relfe, Rhett, Roberts, Robinson, St. 
 John, Saunders, T. H. Seymour, Simpson, Slidell, R. Smith, Steenrod, J. Stewart, Stiles, Stone, Strong, 
 Taylor, Thompson, Tibbatts, Weller, Wentworth, Woodward, J. A. Wright — 99. 
 
 /o the bill and amejidmenfs were laid on the table. 
 
 Of the \0^ Ayes, seventi/seven were Whigs, all who were elected but four, and 28 Locos. All the 
 nays were Loco Foeos. Here they are : 
 
 Every Locofoco from Maine - - - 4 j The Locofoco from Arkansas - - . 1 
 
 Every Locofoco from New Hampshire - 4 | Every Locofoco present from Missouri - 4 
 
 Every Jjocofoco from Illinois - . . 6 
 
 Every Locofoco prese?;/ from Indiana - 7 
 
 Every Locofoco from Ohio ... 9 
 
 Every Locofoco but one from Kentucky - . 4 
 
 Every Locofoco present from Tennessee - h 
 
 Every Locofoco from Michigan - - 3 
 
 Half of the Locofocos from Connecticut - 4 
 
 A majority of the Locofocos from N. York - 12 
 
 Every I>ocofoco from Virginia - - - 10 
 
 Every Locofoco from North Carolina - - 4 
 
 Every Locofoco present from Georgia - 4 
 
 Every Locofoco from South Carolina - - 7 
 
 Every Locofoco from Alabama - - - 5 
 
 Every Locofoco present from Mississippi - 3 j Making a Locofoco vote of - - 98 
 
 Every Locofoco from Louisiana ---31 ^ 
 
 Beinpr more than three -fourths of t lie whole Locofoco detestation in Congress voting against the pre- 
 sent tariff, and in favor of sustaining the Locofoco tariff bill of McKay. 
 
 Mr. Irvin moved a reconsideration, the vote on which was attempted to be put off; but, after a good 
 deal of shuffling and attempts to frustrate the motion, they had to come up to the scratch, as follows: 
 
 Yeas — Messrs Anderson, A^'ringfon, Atkinson, Bayley. Belser, Benton, J. A. Black, Blackweil, 
 Bower. Bowlin. Biyd, BrinkerhofT. W. J. Brown, Burke, Burt, Caldwell. Campbell, S. Gary, R. Chap- 
 man, A. A. Chapman, Chappell, Clinton, (^obb. Coles, Gross, Cullom. Daniel, J. W. Davis, Dawson, 
 Dean, Dromgoole, Duncan, Dunlap, Ficklin. Hale, Hamlin, Hammett, Haralson, Henley. Herrick. 
 Holmes, Hoge, Hopkins, Houston, Hubard, Hughes, J. B. Hunt, Cave Johnson, A. Johnson, G. W. 
 Jones, A Kennedy, P. King. Labranche, Leonard. Lucas, Lumpkin, Lyon, McCauslon, McClay, McClel- 
 land, McClernand, McConnell, McDowell, McKay, Matthews, J. Morris, Murphy, Norris, Owen, Payne, 
 Pettit. E. D Potter. Rathbun, D S. Reid, Reding, Relfe, Rhett, Robinson, St." John, Saunders. T. H. 
 Seymour, Simons, Simpson, Slidell, T. Smith, Steenrod, J. Stewart. Stiles, Stone, Strong, Taylor, 
 Thompson. Tibbatts, Weller, Wentworth, Wheaton, Woodward, J. A. Wright — 99. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Abhott, Adams, Ashe, Baker, Barringer, Barnanl, Bidlack, Brengle, Brodhead, M. 
 Brown, J. Brown, Buffington, J. E Gary, Carroll, Catlin, Causin. Chilton. Clinch, Kingman. Collamer. 
 Cranston, Dana. Darragh, G Davis, R. D. FJavis, Deberry, Dellet, Dickey, Dickinson, Ditlin<rham, 
 Ellis. Elmer. Farlee. Fish. Florence, Foot, Foster. French, Giddings, Gog. 'in, W. Green, B. Green, 
 Giinnell, Grider, Hardin, Harper, Hays, Hubbell, Hudson, W.Hunt, C. J. Ingersoll. J. R. Ingersoll, 
 Irvin, Jenks. P. B. Johnson, J. P. Kennedy, D. P. King. Kirkpatrick, Mcllvainc, Marsh, E. J. Morris, 
 Morse. Moseley, Nes. Newton, Parmenter. Peyton, Phanix, Pollock, E. R. Potter. Preiston, Ramsey, 
 Rayner, R'tter, Rockwell, Rogers, Russell, Sample, Schenck, Senter, Severance, D. L. Seymour, A. 
 Smith, J. T. Smith, C. B.Smith, Snence, Stephens, Stetson. A. Stewart, Summers, Sykes. Thomasson, 
 Tilden, Tyler, Vance, Vanmeter, Vinton, Wethered, White, Williams, Winthrop, W. Wright, Yusi — 103. 
 
 So the vote was not reconsidered. [Locofocos in italics ] 
 
 It will be seen that all the Locos from Kentucky voted against laying the bill on the table except 
 Judge French. Those who voted in the affirmative are all of them Locofocos. 
 
 Why the Locos did not pass McKay's bill, and thus destroy all protection, may be seen by the following 
 declaration of Mr. Henly, a Locofoco member from Indiana, during a discussion in the House: 
 
 " The Democratic party has been taunted with at far of passing the late tariff bill. We can tell gentle- 
 men that ihii present tariff will be reduced so soon as wk (the democracy) are in full power. We very 
 well knew that it was no use to pass it in the House now, as we have not the majority in the Senate. 
 
10 
 
 Give us a mnjority there, and see if we do not pass the bill. We will do it, for such is our purpose — 
 »uch is our resolute determination. " 
 
 MR. folk's vote on TEA AND COFFEE. 
 
 The policy of taxing articles of such prime necessity as tea and coffee of foreign growth, and not 
 coming in competition, in anywise, with domestic manufactures, is p^lpMy anti protective. It was 
 proposed and voted for as such by Mr. Por.K, as the report of the committee of which he was a member, 
 and the Journals of Congress show. We quote from the record : 
 
 Journal, page 106, Dec. 26, 1832. " Mr. Verplanck from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported 
 bill No. 641 , to reduce and otherwise alter the duties on imports ; which bill was read a first and second 
 time, and referred to the Whole House on the state ol the Union." 
 
 J. 110. Dec. 28. " Mr. Verplanck from the Committee on Ways and Means, made a report intended 
 to accompany the bill No. 641, reported from the Committee of Ways and Means yesterday, to reduce 
 and otherwise alter the duties on imports, &,c. 
 , From the foregoing report we make the following extract : 
 
 "The Committee perceiving no sufficient reason why foreign luxuries should not pay their share 
 of the public burtliens, propose to raise the duties on silks nearer to the average rate of duties imposed 
 by the bill, than tliey now are under the act of 1832. They also propose to fix a moderate specific dutif 
 equal to about TWENTY PER CENT, on the value upon TEAS, and also upon COFFEE, which 
 V-iere made wholly free of duty by the act of last summer. This has been added from a motive of 
 financial prudence, lest the revenue from the customs should, from any modifications of the bill, or 
 other cause, fall short of the estimate, or lest the proceeds of the public lands shonld be in part diverted 
 to some other channel ; in either of which c<ises an increased revenue would be derived from this 
 source of about ONE MILLION OF DOLLARS, calculated on the rather short importation of Tea 
 in the last year. Should this sum not be needed for the public service, it may be repealed withoul 
 affecting the other parts of the system." [House Report, No. 14, 9.l\ Session, 22d Cong ] 
 
 The bill having been referred to, and discussed, and amended in Committee of the Whole, it was re- 
 ported back to the House with sundry amendments, among the rest one to strikeout the duty on COF- 
 FEE, and another to strike out the duty on TEAS. We copy from the Journal : 
 
 The question was then put, that the House do concur in the amendment of the Committee of the 
 Whole, which proposes to strike out the following item of the first section, viz : 
 
 Thirty.first—Ow COF^'^-E, from and after the 3d September, 183?, a duty at and after the rate of 
 one cent the pound weis^ht. 
 
 And passed in the affirmative, yeas 117, nays -57. The yeas and nays being demanded by one-fifth of 
 the members present, those vvho voted in the affirmative are, &c. [Here follow the names of the 117 
 members who voted for striking out the duty on COFFEE. 
 
 Those who voted in the negative are, &c — [Here follow the names of the 57 members who voted 
 against striking out the duty on COFFEE, anmng the rest we find the name J. K. POLK. 
 
 The question was then put that the House do concur in the amendment of the committee of the 
 Whole House, which proposed to strike out the following item in the first section, viz : 
 
 Thirty-second — On TEAS, from and after the 3d of March, 1834, a duty at and after the rates follow- 
 ing, that is to say, on Imperial, Gunpowder, Gomee, Hyson and Young Hyson, sij- cents the pound 
 weight — on Hyson skin and other green, Souchong and other black, (except Bohea,) four cents the 
 pound weight ; and on Bohea, o?ie and a half cents the pound weight. 
 
 And passed in the affirmative, yeas 108, nays 62. The yeas and nays being demanded by one-fifth of 
 the members present, those who voted in the affirmative are, &.c [Here follow the names of the 108 
 members who voted in favor of striking out the duty on TEAS.'] 
 
 Those who voted in the negative are, &c. [Here follow the names of sixty-two members who voted 
 against striking out the duties on TEAS — among the rest, we find the name of J AS K. POLK.j 
 House Journal, 2d Session, 22d Con. p. 390-93. 
 
 The imposition of a tax on Tea and Coffee was supported by Mr. Polk, when he admitted, in the re- 
 port, that we had a surplus revenue of six millions of dollars. 
 
 A HOME MARKET FOIl THE FARMER. 
 
 It may be remarked that the value of the home market to all classes of society is cither not sufiiciently 
 understood, or not duly appreciated ; and hence we have so many urgent appeals to abohsh the tariff, 
 and to let in foreign goods to the destruction of domestic manufactures, which produce the home market. 
 Let us look at facta. The total amount of our exports in 1 84 1 , to all parts of the world, was $ 1 06,382,- 
 722, of which GreatBritain and her dependencies took $57,869, 146. Each nation receivedjust as much 
 of our productions as she required, and, under no circumstances, would take more; the repeal or modi- 
 fication of the tariff would not increase the foreign consumption or demand, and could not, therefore, 
 benefit the American producer. It is thus seen, that if the American producer were dependent alone 
 upon the foreign market tor the sale of his articles, he could only have a sale to the extent of little above 
 $100,000,000; how would he dispose of the balance if a home market were not created by the erection 
 of manufacturing establishments, and the consumption of mechanics, &c. It must be obvious to the 
 farmer, that the greater the number of persons engaged in other pursuits than in tilling the soil, the 
 greater will be the demand for the products of his fields, and the greater the price which will be obtained 
 
11 
 
 for them — and hence the great and direct interest which farmers haxe in the continuance of such a rate 
 of duties on foreign goods as will increase the number of manufactuiing establishments, and thereby the 
 number of persons to ke suiiplied with the articles wliich he produces. Thus, in addition to the foreign 
 market, which fluctuates according to seasons and circumstances, he has a permanent home markets 
 greater in value, easier of access, and more cerlain in the demand. 
 
 We have before us a statement of the domestic market alforded by Massachusetts alone, which ex- 
 hibits tlie beneficial eflfects of fostering domestic manufactures, on various occupations. That State con- 
 Bumes annually of the producti mis of other States — 
 
 Cotton .... $7,000,000 Butter and cheese - - §1,000,000 
 
 Wheat - . - . 4,00(1,000 Pig lead - - - 1,500.000 
 
 Coal ... - 1,. 500,000 Rice .... 500,000 
 
 Wool .... 3,000,000 Tar, pitch and turpentine - 1,000,000 
 
 Leather and hides - - 7.50,000 Iron - - . . 1,000,000 
 
 Beef and pork - - - 3,000,000 Corn, oats, and other grain - 4,000,000 
 
 And other articles, amounting in the whole to abovt forty millions of dollars/ 
 
 Here then we see, that, by protecting domestic industry, one State alone is enahled to furnish a home 
 market f)r the products of oursoil, to the amount of forty millions of dollars, or nearly one half of the 
 sum total of our exports to the whole world. Other manufacturing States supply a market in like man- 
 ner — and it is this domestic demand which prevents the produce of the farmer from rotting on his hands. 
 But, suppose, that we were to adopt the policy desired by Great Britain, and admit her goods at such low 
 duties as to destroy our manufactures, and to discharge the thousands who are now engaged in them; 
 what would be the result 1 England would not change her policy, and admit our bread stuffs and other 
 productions. She would not receive from us to the value of a farthing m.ore than her necessities re. 
 quired ; whilst she would be inundating the country with fabrics, for which we should have to pay. We 
 should have liitle or no demand for our surplus produce which would be greatly increased by the number 
 of manufacturers who would be compelled to seek subsistence by cultivating the soil — and thus we 
 should lush into debt and ruin. Every manufacturing establishment affords a home market to the 
 surrounding farmers, to whom its discontinuance would be a serious loss. And yet there are some per- 
 sons who would have these factories annihilated, that English laborers might supply our neces.^ities- 
 The tariff, which keeps these factories in operation, and gives employment to so many thousands of our 
 citizens, is complained of as a great burthen ; as a heavy tax upon farmers and others. This is idle 
 cant — untrue in fact, and anti-American in spirit. But were it true, that the tariff increased the cost, 
 we should prefer the domestic to the foreign article, even at an advance in price of the former over the 
 latter; because we should thereby give employment to American labor, and keep the money paid in cir- 
 culation among ourselves. 
 
 It is not true that the tariff protects one interest to the injury of others. The ship-builder, the boot 
 and shoe maker, the tailor, the farmer — in short, the producer, whatever may be his occupation, is pro- 
 tected. If it be right to admit boots, shoes, hats, and the like free of duty, or at such duty as may destroy 
 the American manufacture of these articles, then foreign shipwrights should be employed to build our 
 vessels, and foreign wheat be permitted to drive the American out of market. In truth, if we want to 
 bring ruin upon all classes of society, and bankrupt our country, we can adopt no more certain method of 
 producing these results, than by abandoning the protective policy, and making our tariff conform to the 
 wishes of Great Britain. 
 
 The exports of the agricultural products of the North and West have very little increased — little com- 
 paratively since we have been a Government, and certainly in no proportion to the increase of the supply ; 
 and that we have not now, and for thirty years have not had, a good foreign market for our pro- 
 ducts. For instance, the wheat crop of 1841 amounted to 84,000,000 bushels, of which New York 
 made 12,000,000; Pennsylvania, 13,000,000; Virginia, 10,000,000; Ohio, 16,000,000; and .so on; 
 while the entire amount that could find a market abroad, both in Hour and wheat, did not exceed 
 8, .500,000 bushels; a quantity that either of the above-named States could have supplied. The late 
 Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Forward, mis;ht well, therefore, say, as he did, in his report to Congress : 
 " Take wheat, for instance, which is of the consumption of the world, and where but in our manufactur- 
 ing districts would the farmer find a market for it? " The proportion of corn and corn meal that can 
 be exported is much less. It did not, in 1841, amount to one bushel in fifty. The crop exceeded 200,- 
 000,000 bushels, (see Mr Ellsworth's excellent report,) while there was exported of corn meal only 
 1,-515,817 bartels, and of corn 53.5.727 bushels, equal to some seven or eight million bushels corn in all. 
 
 But again: the entire exports out of the country of all agricultural products, excepting cotton, 
 tobacco and rice amounted to only $10,000,000 ; while the exports from the other States during the 
 same time to Massachusetts, also of the above articles, exceeded . $'30,000,000, three times as much 
 as to every other country of the globe. Including cotton, rice, tobacco, iron, lead, and some few 
 other articles, she purchased from the other States to the amount of $142,040,000, of which flour 
 constituted ^4,000,0i)0, corn and other grain $2,790,000, and so on. And Massachusetts is but 
 one of several manufacturing States that are the customers of the farmers ; though she herself, but 
 the other day, before the introduction of the tariff, ex{)orted a large amount of agricultural products. 
 
12 
 
 tural products, while now she buys of us, and what is more, if we want her manufactures in return, 
 she will let us have have them 50 per cent, cheaper than we eyer got them of John Bull. 
 
 The grain-growing and grazing farmers must look to a home market. We have already, assisted by 
 the operations of the tariff, it is estimated, 791,7-39 persons engaged in manufactories and trades, while 
 the aggregate of each description of persons engaged in labor in the Union is but 4,820,018, constitu- 
 ting them already nearly one- fifth of the whole population, that is, including those tliat are dependent 
 upon them, and this number is constantly increasing. These, and those great interests with which they 
 are connected, the farmers must cherish. They are our customers, and customers upon which we 
 may rely at ail times, whether there chance to be good or bad crops in England. 
 
 TOBACCO — BRITISH TARIFF — DUTIES IMPOSED. 
 
 On manufactured tobacco, the British impose a duty of ^*«o r/o//ars and sixteen rents per pound: 
 on unmanufactui-ed tobacco, 72 cents a pound from foreign countries, and f>Q cents a pound from a 
 British colony. Now can any man see any reason for reducing our tariff, and admitting British manu- 
 factures at lower rates, in any prospect there is that England will take any more of our agricultural 
 products .'han she does at present .' England raises more revenue on our tobacco than the whole amount 
 of our imposts. Tbe average amount ot duties on American productions in all Europe is estimated 
 at 100 per cent.; while the average of our duties on all European productions is not 30 percent. 
 
 If the Locofoco party succeed in breaking down the manufacturing interests, whai would be the con- 
 dition of the country ^ In the first place, the duties on fbrcgn produce would be taken off", and the 
 produce of Europe would be admitted duty free. Under the \o:\i prices, however, at which oui own 
 grain would sell, it is not likely that any great amount would b.» imported. 
 
 The farmers would lose the market tor their wool, silk, hemp, &c. They would cease to be manu- 
 factured, and could not of course be exported ; the market, which for these three articles alone amounts 
 as we hare seen, to ^3 1, 000,000, would be at once annihilated. 
 
 The farmers, in the next place, would lose the home market, in which they now sell to those engaged 
 in manufacturing, wheat, provisions, &c., to the amount annually of .$•140,000,000. Here are two 
 markets for American produce to the amount of $171,000,000, utterly and forever destroyed. 
 
 What, meantime, becomes of the 800,000 persons engaged in i-'«anufacturing .' The great mass of 
 them — at least three-fourths — must become farmers. Each of them would raise produce to the amount 
 of at least .$;400 ; and this would give an aggregate of §'240,000 over. 
 
 Looking forward to the subversion of the system of protection in the event of James K. Polk's 
 election to the presidency, we ask what will become of the annual pro(iucts which will swell to over 
 thirteen hundred millions of dollars annually at the present prices. Half of this, at the very least, 
 would remain on hand, after making full allowance for the consumption of those engaged in raising it, 
 and a market would thus be demanded for more than six hundred millions annually. What provision do 
 the Loco Focos make for this vastly increased amount of surplus produce .' What new markets do 
 they open .' What old ones do they enlarge .' What restrictions upon existing markets do they 
 remove .' What new and effectual way do they point out to the farmers of America for disposing of 
 this vast surplus of their productions .' Under the American System the home market buys about /li'O 
 hundred millions, nearly half ot the entire surplus : and the stimulus given to new branches ofi ndustry 
 affords constant, and constantly increasing demand for the remainder. Is this still further enlarged under 
 the new Loco Foco system .' On the contrary it is ANNIHILATED ! And not only that," but those 
 who once formed it are made the RIV.\LS of those from whom they once bought these products ! No 
 new market is created in its stead ; no old one is enlarged ; no barriers of the trade are broken down ; 
 but this vast surplus of $'600,000,000 is made entirely dependent on the foreign market, a market 
 3,000 miles off, guarded by foreign legislation, entirely beyond American control, constantly subjected 
 to enormous duties, and a market, moreover, which has never yet afforded a sale of twenty millions of 
 the agricultural productions of America. 
 
 THE DUTIES IMPOSF.n BY THE BBITISH TARIFF BILL ON AMERIC.iN PRODUCTS. 
 
 Great Britain imposes duties on American produce imported into her markets, as follows ; 
 Wheat 60 per cent. Beef 80 per cent. Potatoes 84 per cent. Butter 28 per cent. 
 
 Barley 74 " Pork 68 " Flour 60 " Cheese 32 
 
 Oats 100 '• Bacon 8.5 " Hay 137 " Timber 96 
 
 Now, how can we hope, in the face ot these duties, to sell to England any great amount of agricul- 
 tural products .' She never buys any of us unless she is compelled to do it by the necessities of her 
 people ; and those necessities she can, in ordinary cases, supply far more cheaply with grain from the 
 Baltic and Black seas, than from the United States. She has repeatedly and recently declared she will 
 not repeal or reduce these duties ; and though we may make laws to admit every thing she makes into 
 this country duty free, it would scarcely increase the exportation of our farmer's products a single 
 bushel ! VVe cannot expect hereafter to export to foreign countries any more of these products than 
 we have done heretofore, and that amount, as we have seen, has never yet reached $200,000,000. We 
 have never yet been able, and have no reason to believe we shall be able to sell to all tlie rest of the 
 world one twentieth p^rt of the surplus productions of our farmers. 
 
 DIRECT TAXATION SUPPORTED BY THE lOCOFOCO PARTY. 
 
 Free Trade, when fully carried out, implies the abolition of all custom house duties, and the coUec- 
 
13 
 
 tion of the necessary revenue for the support of the General Government by means of direct taxation., 
 It can be fully established in no other way. Free trade exists now between the different States of this 
 Union, and consequently the several State Governments are supported by direct taxation on the property 
 of the people. Free trade in like manner can only exist between the United States and foreign coun- 
 tries, by resorting to the same system of raising a revenue. 
 
 The advocates of free trade, then, to be consistent, must also be at heart in favor of direct taxation, 
 and seek to put it in practice as soon as they get the power. Hitherto, with a few Southern exceptions, 
 they have professed to be hostile to it. But they are beginning to show their true colors. There are 
 Locofocos who already avow themselves in favor of direct taxation, for the support of the General Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Now, we are not about to discuss the merits of this system, which has been openly presented as 
 the avowed policy of the Locofoco party, farther than to say, that it has ever been regarded as odious and 
 oppressive to the people, wherever it has been tried. But we propose to give a table showing the amount 
 which each State would be required to pay annually in addition to its present taxation for State, county, 
 and township purposes. And tor that purpose, we select the expenditures of Mr. Van Buren's admin- 
 istration. 
 
 According to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, the annual average of Mr. Van Buren's 
 expenditures, including interest on treasury notes, was .fliSo, 352,953. To this must be added, enough 
 to cover the cost of assessment and collection, and the ordinary losses. Mr. Gallatin, a free trade man, 
 when Secretary of the Treasury, showed conclusively, that the cost and losses would be far greater, 
 under the system of direct taxation. We add, therefore, for this, $-2,700,000, making in all the round 
 sum of thirty -six millions. 
 
 The following table, then, prepared by the Hon. Mr. Hudson at the last session of Congress, shows 
 the quota to be paid by each State of Mr. Van Buren's average annual expenditures. 
 
 Maine, #1,134,045 
 
 New Hampshire, - - - 645,740 
 
 Vermont, 645,740 
 
 Massachusetts, - . - . 1,614,350 
 
 Rhode Island .... 322,870 
 
 Connecticut, . - . . 645,740 
 
 New York, .... 5,488,790 
 
 New Jersey, .... 807,175 
 
 Pennsylvania, .... 3,874,440 
 
 Ohio, 3,390,135 
 
 Indiana, 1,614,350 
 
 Illinois, 1,130,045 
 
 Michigan, ..... 484,306 
 
 Delaware, $161,435 
 
 Maryland, 968,710 
 
 Virginia, 2,421,525 
 
 North Carolina, ... - 1,452,915 
 
 South Carolina, .... 1,130,045 
 
 Georgia, 1,291,480 
 
 Alabama, 1,130,045 
 
 Mississippi, ..... 645,740 
 
 Louisiana, 645,740 
 
 Tennessee, 1,775,783 
 
 Kentuckv, 1,614,350 
 
 Missouri," 807,173 
 
 Arkansas, 161,435 
 
 Mr. Slidell, in his speech on the tariff, told us how superior this system of direct taxation was to all 
 other systems, but concluded that it was unpopular now, and, of course, " out of the question." Hear 
 what he said on this subject : 
 
 "Of all the modes of raising revenue, direct taxation, in the shape of an uniform per centage upon 
 eviry species of property, real and personal, or upon income, is probably the most equitable that could 
 be devised. It is ihe only means by which the lich can be made to pay their fair quota for the support 
 of the Government which protects them in the enjoyment of their property. It is certainly the system 
 which would ensure the most economical administration ; for all experience shows that a heavy indirect 
 taxation is more cheerfully submitted to, than a more moderate direct one. The same person who cheer- 
 fully, because unconsciously, pays dollars, in the shape of the enhanced price cau.sed by imposts on arti- 
 cles of daily necessary consumption, would receive most ungraciously, the visit of the national tax-gath- 
 erer for a much smaller sum ; and in proportion to the grudging reluctance with which he paid the tax, 
 would be the watchful scrutiny with which he would criticise its expendituic. 
 
 Mr. A. Johnson, of Tennessee, on the Naval Appropriation Bill, said, " he was not an advocate for direct 
 taxation ; but he held that it would be a cheaper and more equitable mode of collecting the revenue than 
 the present one. At all events, a system of direct taxation would put an end to these extravagant 
 and visionary schemes of expenditure that were now resorted to." 
 
 " Mr. Smith of Va., followed Mr. Summers. After pointing out the various modes by which Govern- 
 ment could raise revenue, expressing his preference for a system, of internal taxation." 4"C. — Debate in 
 Congress, July 9, 1842. 
 
 These are the remarks of the Hon. Wm. Smith, one of the Polk ekctoral candidates in the State of 
 Virginia. 
 
 " Direct taxation is not enly the doctrine of Democracy, but it is the doctrine of the Constitution. It 
 is plain that direct taxes were contemplated to be raised as a permanent source of revenue, by those who 
 framed it." — See Mr. Rhett's speech on the Independent Treasury, Congressional Globe, vol. 3, p. 651. 
 
 " Indirect taxation, that is, laying the taxes on foreign articles when imported into the country, is an 
 admirable expedient for a despotism." — Same as above. 
 
 Mr. Levi Woodbujit, Mr. Van Buren's Secretary of the Treasury, said : " My own schemes of reve- 
 nue would be not to derive more than half of the revenue from imports. The public lands, EXCISES, 
 and perhaps a STAMP TAX should furnish ihe rest." 
 
14 
 
 MR. CLAY IN KELATIOW TO THE PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE THE BANKRUPT LAW, ETC. 
 
 The following letter from Mr. Clay to Gen. R. L. Caruthers, of Tennessee, speaks for itself: 
 
 Ashland, August 20th, 1844. 
 
 Mt dear sir : I received your letter of the 12th instant. You surprise me by the statement of some 
 opinions which are attributed to me. Nothing can he more unfounded than the assertion that I am un- 
 friendly to the protection of agriculture. I consider that interest in all its departments as the predominant 
 interest in the United States. Cotton, hemp, wool, manufactures of tobacco, and other articles of agricul- 
 tural products are now protected, and if the measure of protection be inadequate, no man in the U. States 
 ■would be willing to go farther than I would in extending suHicient protection. I have never held or ex- 
 pressed any other sentiments. The substance of what I have said, and which is to he found in my pub- 
 lished speeches, is, that agriculture in the United States, owing to our distance from European countries, 
 needs but little direct protection. But the principal aim in introducing and protecting manufactures is, to 
 benefit agriculture by opening a new and home market for its surplus productions. Expressions dispar- 
 aging to agriculture, or rather to the habits of those who pursue it, have been put into my mouth, and 
 paraded at the head even of newspapers. I never used such expressions. They have been forged or fab- 
 ricated by political enemies. Of all the pursuits of man I consider the cultivation of the earth as the most 
 honorable. It is my own pursuit, and any reflecting man must at once perceive that I could say nothing 
 derogatory from it. 
 
 I have already stated in a letter which has been published, that the General Assembly of Kentucky gave 
 me no instructions to vote for the repeal of the Bankrupt law. Instructions were pending before the leg- 
 islature, but they fell by a disagreement between the two Houses. 
 
 I consider that the American people have expressed a decided disapprobation of the late Bankrupt lavsr, 
 and for one, in deference to that opinion, I do not desire to see that law revived or any other Bankrupt 
 law passed. 
 
 I congratulate you on the satisfactory result of the August elections, and remain your friend, and obe- 
 dient servant, H. CLAY. 
 
 Gen. R. L. Caruthers, 
 
 VOTE ON THE ZOLL-VEREIN TREATY.* 
 
 Vietvs of Mr. Pslk's party in the Senate on the Tariff. 
 
 The Zoll-Verein treaty, made by Mr. Tyler's administration, our readers know was laid on the table in 
 the Senate; that is, the Senate refused to confirui it. This treaty is a commercial treaty, made with 
 Prussia, Bavaria, and other Germanic States, containing in the whole about twenty-seven millions of 
 people. By this treaty, which was sought by Mr. Tyler, it was agreed that the American Government 
 should reduce the duties on most important articles to 15 and 20 per cent, below the terms of the com- 
 promise act. 
 
 "Article 1. The United States of America agree not to impose duties on the importation of the fol 
 lowing articles, the growth, produce, and manufacture of the States of the Germanic Association of Cus 
 toms and Commerce, exceeding — 
 
 I. Twenty per centum ad valorem on the importation of — 
 
 1. All woollen, worsted, and cotton mits, ( aps and bindings, and woollen, worsted, and cotton hosiery, 
 that is to say, stockings, socks, drawers, shirts, and all other similar manufactures made on frames. 
 
 NOTES ON THE ZOLL VEREIN TREATY. 
 
 The commercial convention negotiated in 1815, effected some reduction in the duties as imposed by 
 existing regulations. This treaty it was contended by a large majority in Congress, was intrenching 
 upon the powers of Congress, and before it could be considered a valid treaty, it required the action 
 of that body to give it validity. It will be perceived the Zoll Verein treaty presents an analogous 
 ease, we have, therefore, made the following extracts from the debate on the question : 
 
 " The only difference between the present and former cases was, that in this case the Convention 
 stipulates advantages to British vessels, which cannot be enjoyed without an alteration of the system 
 of revenue and repeal of existing laws." — See Nile's Register, page 15, Suppl., vol. 9. — Mr. torsyth. 
 
 " A treaty never can legitimately do that which can be done by law." — See Niles' Register, page 
 Supplement 22, 23, vol. 9.— Mr. Calhovn. 
 
 " If we were indeed to give into the monstrous construction, that a treaty of itself is to be regarded as 
 a law, that it can repeal a solemn act of the legislature, and operate directly upon the community 
 without the agency of that branch of the government, in cases exclusively within the legislative sphere, 
 toi what fatal lengths shall we not be led. If treaties have this effect in one case, why not in all ? If 
 in taking off a duty, why not in making an appropriation." 
 
 Again : " And what is the present case. The treaty engages that a part of our revenue, which were 
 heretofore raised from taxes and duties on British ships shall be taken off, or from some other source 
 which might be equally disagreeable ; and thus although this House has a peculiar control over such 
 subjects, the President and Senate, under the construction given to the constitution, would be vested 
 ^; that instrument with the mandatory power of directing this body in what manner taxes shall be paid." 
 "^^ee Niles' Register, 9 rol., page 22, 25, Supplement. — Judge Tucker, of Virginia. 
 
15 
 
 2. On all musical instruments of every kind, except piano fortes. 
 II. Fifteen per centum ad valorem on the importation of — 
 
 1. All articles manufactured of flax or hemp, or of which flax or hemp shall be the component part of 
 the chief value, except cotton bagging, or any other manufacture suitable for the uses to which cottoii 
 bagging is applied. 
 
 2. All manufactures of silks, or of which silk shall be the component part of the chief value. 
 
 3. Thibet, merinos, meiino shawls, & all manufactures of combed wool, or of worsted and silk combined?' 
 The duty is to be reduced, it will be observed, on stockings, mits, &c., to 2U per cent. Stockings are 
 
 now made as there designated; and wc presume most of the articles are manufactured in the United 
 States. But look further — the duty on hemp, on silks, and on manufactures of combed wool is reduced 
 to l-'i per cent.! — Five per cent, helnw what the niillijiers asked. The treaty went to reduce the actuaS 
 tariflf, passed by the representatives of the people, about ten per cent on these article. Who voted against 
 laying this treaty on the table — that is in it-3 favor. This is the vote : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Clayton, Crittenden, Dayton, Evans, Foster, 
 Francis, Henderson, Huntington, Jarnagin, Johnson, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Pearce, Phelps, 
 Simmons, Sturgeon, Tallmadge, Upham, and White. — 27. 
 
 Nats — Messrs. Atchison, Atherton, Bagby, Benton, Breese, Colquitt, Fairfield, Fulton, Haywoodj 
 Huger, Lewis, McDutfie, Niles, Sevier, Tappan, Walker, W^oodbury — 18. 
 
 Here it will be seen Mr. Polk's party, and only they, voted in favor of this nullifying treaty. Sturgeon, 
 of Pa., voted with the Whigs- -Buchanan, Wright, and Hannegan dodged. 
 
 Now mark — here are two principles which Mr. Polk's party declare themselves, by this vote, to be in 
 favor of: 
 
 1st. They are willing to do this by an unconstitutional act ! This is palpable, because it will not be 
 denied that Congress, the entire representatives of the people, are vested by the Constitution with th« 
 power to raise revenues, and levy duties Yet this power, the Polk party, by this vote, declare that they 
 are willing to nullify, by the act of the President and Senate alone. The vote is a nullifying vote, and 
 nothing but that. It goes to place the legislative power of the Union at the feet of the Executive ! ! It 
 is all that the Whigs have charged against the " Progressive Democracy," on the score of a tendency to 
 Executive usurpation. Let all the old Republicans examine it. The facts are palpable. They cannot 
 be denied, and they cannot be glossed. Tliere they stand, in bold characters. What nonsense is it to 
 talk about incidental protection by Mr. Polk and his friends, with such a glaring fact as this in their face. 
 Sturgeon voted against it — Buchanan, Wright, and Hannegan dodged. Even they could not stand such 
 a doctrine and such a practice as this. But the Woodburys, and Fairfields, and McDuffies, and Walkers, 
 who gave Mr. Polk the nomination, stood it without flinching. What are manufacturers and farmers of 
 the nation to expect from them ? 
 
 The ZoU Verein levies a duty of 16 shillings and six pence sterling per centner on leaf tobacco, anl 
 1 pound 13 shillings per centner on manutactured tobacco ; while the British tariff levies on every c%vl. 
 of unmanufactured tobacco a duty of j£ 1 6 and 1 6 shillings sterling, and on manufactured tobacco the still 
 more enormous sum of £b'Z and 18 shillings sterling per cwt. 
 
 The only benefits which we were to receive as equivalents for very important reductions of duty on 
 our part, were, first, a restriction of the duty on lard to 137 cents on the centner; and, secondly, a reduc- 
 tion of the imposition on tobacco, in leaf, I3 cents per lb. This is the extent, and the whole extent, of 
 the mighty concession which the Zoll Verein treaty was to gain for us. 
 
 The concessions made on our side in the treaty, and the extent of the injury it would have inflicted 
 upon our revenue and financial system, as well as the embarrassment of our existing relations with othea" 
 countries, which it might possibly superinduce, the most serious consequences on the prosperity of tire 
 country. The population of the Zoll Verein States is 27, .500, 000, and that of the other German States 
 15,000,000. These Germans are a frugal, industrious, and economical race of men; and among thent 
 the wages of day labor are said to vary from four pence to a shilling a day. This treaty would have 
 brought our own domestic industry into direct competition with that of 27,500,000 such men, on alf 
 the manufactured articles embraced in the clause of the treaty which we have quoted. 
 
 MR. clay's alleged ABAXnONMENT OF THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 
 
 On this point, we would refer first, to Mr. Clay's whole political life, which has been devoted to the 
 support of the protective principle ; 2d, to his own speech when the compromise bill was before the Sen- 
 ate ; and lastly, to the testimony of witnesses who were in Congress at the time of the passage of the 
 bill, and who were familiar with the motives of its friends and supporters. 
 ' On the fir'^t head, we presume no intelligent man would call for the proof; for the fact that Mr. Clay 
 has been in Congress, is not a wait more notorious than that he has, from a very early period of his polit- 
 ical life, been an ardent friend of the Protective policy ; and that he has time and again declared, that ac& 
 only the prosperity of this country, but its independence as a nation, depended on due support and pro- 
 jection beina given to domestic industry. On the second head, we refer to the following extract from the 
 Ttrnarks of Mr. Clay when he introduced the Compromise bill : 
 
 "In presenting the modification of the tariff laws which I am now about to submit, I have two great 
 objects ill view. My Jirst object looks to the tariff. I am compelled to express the opinion, formcij 
 
16 
 
 after the most deliberate reflection, and on full survey of tbe whole country, that, whether rightfully or 
 wrongfully, THE TARIFF STANDS IN IMMINENT DANGER. If it should even be preserved 
 during this session, it must fall at the vext session. By what circumstances, and through what causes, 
 has arisen the necessity for this change in the policy of our country, I will not pretend now to elucidate. 
 Owing to a variety of concurrent causes, the tariff as it now exists, is in IMMINENT DANGER, and 
 if the system can be preserved beyond the next session, it must he by some means not within the reach 
 of human sagacity. THE FALL OF THAT POLICY, SIR, WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE OF 
 CONSEQUENCES CALAMITOUS INDEED. When I look to the variety of interests which are 
 involved, to tbe number of individuals interested, the amount of capital invested, the value of buildings 
 erected, and the whole arrangement of the business for the prosecution of the various branches of the 
 manufacturing art which have sprung up under the fostering care of this Government, I cannot contem- 
 plate any evil equal to the sudden overthrow of all those interests. History can produce no parallel to 
 the extent of the mischief which would be produced by such a disaster. The peal of the edict of Nantz 
 itself was nothing in comparison with it. That condemned to exile and brought to ruin a great number 
 of persons. The most respectable portion of tbe population of France was condemned to exile and ruin 
 by that measure. But in my opinion, sir, the sudden iiepeal of the TAniFF policy would bring 
 RUIN AND DESTRUCTION ON THE WHOLE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. There is no 
 evil, in my opinion, equal to the consequences which would result from such a catastrophe." 
 
 Does this look like a previously expressed wish to abandon the Piotective principle! Let us, however, 
 look a little further : 
 
 In the speech delivered by Mr. Clay on the 25th of February, 1833, he said : " He did not fear any 
 misconstruction of the pledge contained in the bill ; and he hoped that the manufacturers would go on 
 and prosper, confident that the abaxdoxment of protection was never intesued, and looking to 
 more favorable times for a RENEWAL OF A MORE EFFICIENT TARIFF." 
 
 THE COMPKOMISE ACT. 
 
 The friends of Col. Polk have labored to impress on the mind of the people, that the Congress of 1S42, 
 in " changing the taritT" had violated the most sacred pledges, &c. if he, or any one el.*e, will turn to 
 the act itself, they will find it expired by its own limitation on the 30th .lune, 1842. And then refer to 
 Mr. Woodbury's Treasury Report of December, 1840, they will rind him calling the attention of Con- 
 gress to the tariff in this language : 
 
 " Another practicable mode would be to resort to direct taxes. But this is so unsuited to the general 
 habits, and so uncongenial to the opinions of most of our population, that its adoption is not to be antici- 
 pated. Some other permanent resource must then be looked to. The choice will probably rest between 
 the large reduction of expenditures, with other accompanying measures before specified, and some exten- 
 sive modification of the present tariff. Explanations have heretofore been given by the undersigned in 
 favor of the former course; and it would probably prove sufficient to meet the emergency, if the reduction 
 be pushed vigorously, and especially if the imports after 1841, shall have excelled those in 1838, which 
 is regarded as probable. 
 
 " But Congress may not coincide with him in opinion on those points, and, for covering the contin- 
 gency, may consider the adoption of some permanent change in the tariff as preferable, and as not too 
 early at the piesent session, to give full notice of its character, before going into operation, in order that 
 the different interests most affected by it, shall have time to become gradually adjusted to its provisions." 
 
 If the Whigs, in modifying the tariff or compromise act after its expiration, are guilty of a violation 
 of that "sacred compact," what must we think of the course proposed to be adopted by Mr. Woodbury, 
 Col. Polk's political friend and associate ! Recollect how he used to talk of the " bill of abominations'^ 
 — " legalized plunder,'' &c. 
 
 THF, PROTECTITE TARIFF OF 1842 WHO ARE ITS ENEMIES. 
 
 We have often expressed the wish that every voter in the country could see the organs of the Locofoco 
 party. We know that the mass of the people (especially the laboring classes) are honest — that they de- 
 sire to do all in their power to promote the prosperity of our nation — that they aie ever ready and willing 
 to vote for pure patriots and eminent statesmen — that they will never support demagogues who entertain 
 no regard for the interests of their fellow-citizens, and that they are the friends of the Whig tariff of '42. 
 The selfish and unprincipled leaders of the Locofoco party, also know that this is the case, and since they 
 have nominated for the Presidency a man who is in favor of the immediate annexation of Texas, and 
 opposed to the protective policy, they have, as we have often before said, attempted to deceive and mislead 
 the people of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, by telling them, in the face of the records of Congress, and 
 of innumerable speeches and letters, that James K. Polk is a tariff man. We assure the people that there 
 is not one liOcofoco speaker or editor in this State, who does not know that Polk is opposed to all protec- 
 tive tariffs, and that he is in favor of repealing the tariff of '42. We assure them also, that the leaders 
 of the Locofoco party know, when they say that he is " a better tariff man than Mr. Clay," that they ar« 
 uttering a AeWheidiie falsehood. Aware, however, that the people have no opportunity of reading Locofo'o 
 papers from all parts of the Union, these falsifiers hope, in this dishonest manner, to secure to Mr. polk 
 the votes of those who would otherwise support Henry Clay. Mr. Polk has never cast a vote or delivered 
 
17 
 
 a speech in favor of the protective policy ; but has invariably, while a member of Coqgress, and during 
 the time that he has been canvassing the State of Tennessee, as the Locofoco candidate for Governor, 
 strenuously opposed that beneficent system. We have in the preceding page published numerous extracts 
 from his addresses, and from the records of Congress, which show the position he occupied in regard 
 to that measure. 
 
 That he is a/ree trade man, no one who has read the Richmond Enquirer and Nashville Union, and 
 other Locofoco papers can doubt, for all must have observed that they haverefused to re-publish his speeches. 
 Had he ever uttered one sentence in favor of protection, the Locofoco papers would have published it 
 long ere this ; but being unable to find one, they hope that their " mere assertion" that he is " a 
 tariff man," will he believed by the yieople. The Globe, the Plebeian, the Richmond Enquirer, and other 
 leading Locofoco papers, advocate the election of Mr. Polk on the ground that he is opposed to the protec- 
 tive policy ; and so do all of his friends in the southern and southwestern States. The Whigs through- 
 out the Union, are in favor of the tariff of '42 ; and Mr. Clay has said in a lecent letter, that he is " op- 
 posed to lis repeal''^ Will not all admit, then, that the course pursued by the Locofoco papers is dishon- 
 est, and calculated only to deceive those who desire to perform their duty to themselves, to their fellow- 
 men, and to their country 1 
 
 Although the intriguing demagogues who conduct the Locofoco papers, and address assemblages of 
 people, will not candidly and honestly speak of the position and views of the majority of their party, we 
 are determined, on all occasions, so far as may be in our power, to favor our citizens by publishing the 
 resolutions adopted, and sentiments uttered, in opposition to the tariff, at Locofoco meetings in the different 
 States in the Union. We have now before us the Washington Spectator (a Polk and Dallas paper) of 
 the 23d inst., in which we figd the proceedings of a Locofoco meeting held in Charleston, S. C , on the 
 evening of the 19th inst., at which a scries of resolutions, offered by Hon- F. H. Elmore, were adopted. 
 The Spectator, in a few prefatory remarks, says : 
 
 " The preamble and resolutions reported by Hon. F. H. Elmore, and unanimoirsly adopted by the 
 meeting, breathe the true spirit of patriotism in its broadest sense, and at the same time a sacred devo- 
 tion to the rights of the State. They are amce/ved und expressed in the true spirit. South Carolina 
 goes with one heart, and with all her energy for the election of Jamks K- Polk, relying with confidence, 
 that under his auspices every thing will be done that his wisdom and energy can acco iiplish, to remedy 
 the legislative ills that press so heavily upon the south." 
 
 Now, what are the " legislative ills" of which the Locos in South Carolina complain, and what senti- 
 ments are contained in the resolutions which the Spectator says, " breathe the true s{)irit of patriotism in 
 its broadest sense V We copy from the same paper the following resolution, which, without a single 
 word of comment, answers this query : 
 
 " Resolved 2. That while we are fully sensible that the partial and oppressive action of the General 
 Government on the jjeople, property, and industrial pursuits of the south is not rela.xed, but has been ag- 
 gravated by the perfidious breach of the faith pledged in the compromise of 1833, and the passage of the 
 odious tariff of 1842, we yet see in the present condition and prospects of public affairs, and in the posi- 
 tion and wishes of our Democratic friends in other States, reasons sufficiently strong to induce us to dep- 
 recate as a great calamity, any division and conflict amongst our brethren in this State, and to make it 
 our duty to disagree to the couise proposed by a portion of them, so as to forbear at present to resort to 
 the sovereign action of the State to address our grievances. Because, 
 
 " Fins'. There are very many amongst ourselves, and our friends elsewhere, (whose opinions are worthy 
 all respect from us,) who have not lost every hope of redress ' from a returning sense of justice in the 
 Democratic party,' should it succeed in the coming elections, especially while they see the continued and 
 decided extension oi free trade principles in the new agricultural States, which are rapidly growing into 
 power and influence in the west and northwest. 
 
 "Second. By the election of James K. Polk, and the defeat of Henry Clay, a substantial victory will 
 be gained for the Constitution, the Presidential power and influence will be in the hands of a southern 
 man — a friend of free trade, and identified with us and our institutions, and an enemy if the protective 
 policy and abolitionism, and we ought n >t, by any action of our State, to embarrass or lessen the chances 
 of his election, in which much may be gained, or cause his defeat, whereby so much must be lost, and by 
 which we shall draw on ourselves the blame of our friends in other States, change their kind feeling into 
 coldness, perhaps resentment and hostility, by unnecessarily weakening and embarrassing them, and thus 
 increasing the numbers and spirit of our enemies, and adding to our difficulties in obtaining justice. 
 
 " Third. The union of those States having interests, property, and institutions identical with our own, 
 or of a portion of them, against the tariff and abolition, and for the great American measure, the annex- 
 ation of Texas, is of the highest importance, and should be procured if possible, so that they may present 
 with us one course of measures and action ; and until an effort has been fairly made, and failed to obtain 
 such constitutional consultation and co-cperation as will pioduce it, it is not advisable for South Carolina 
 to resort to her own separate action." 
 
 The Nashville Union (Mr. Polk's organ) contains two columns against the whole tariff policy, and 
 proves conclusively, by undeniable extracts, that Mr. Clay and his Tennessee friends are in favor of it! 
 and calls upon the Democracy to put them down on that account. Hear its concluding appeal : 
 
18 
 
 " After reading these several proofs as to the injustice of the Whig policy in regard to tarifi" ta^tation, 
 and the effects which this policy has upon prices — upon the prices of the plain necessaries of life, and 
 even the price of implements of labor fjrmed of iron and steel — upon salt, sugar, clothing, &c., &c. — 
 who, what man, not blinded by party prejudices or deceived, can approve of such a system, or repose 
 faith in those who are its advocates, or in the head and father of the entire system itself, Henry Clay, of 
 Kentucky 1 We ask the question in sincerity. It is for our countrymen to decide. They will repudiate 
 Mr. Clay and his fakely named American system." 
 
 And yet, in many of the States, a deliberate effort is made by the leaders of the party, to prove Polk a 
 tariffite. Never was a bolder game of political hypocrisy practised upon the American people 
 
 We have another and equally full explanation of the views of Mr. Polk on the tariff. The one we 
 give below can admit of no doubt. It is clear and explicit, and comes from his immediate organ at Nash- 
 ville, and was probably written by himself. 
 
 The following is the leading editorial in the Nashville Union (Mr. Polk's paper) of Saturday, 27th 
 July, 1844: 
 
 " The Tariff. — The Banner pretends to show the difference existing between Gov. Polk and Mr. Clay 
 on the tariff. Every word it utters about Gov. Polk's position is untrue. The whole paragraph is en- 
 tirely the reverse of truth. 
 
 The true difference is this : 
 
 Gov. Polk is in favor of a revenue tariff. 
 
 Mi. Clay is in favor of a protective tariff. 
 
 The object of Gov. Polk's tariff is revenue, (that direct taxation may be averted,) while fair and just 
 protection to all the g-reat interests of the whole Union, without partiality, become incidental. Revenue 
 is the object — protection is the incident. 
 
 The o/ject of Mr. Clay's tainS is protection, ivhich must inevitably fosttr one branch of American in- 
 dustry at the expense of another. With him the object is protection — revenue is but the incident. 
 
 Here then is the issue : 
 
 Gov. Polk is for a revenue tariff. Mr. Clay is for a^ protective tariff. The former is a substantial anJ 
 feasible measure of national policy, which has always worked well. The latter, if not the fancy of a 
 mere politician is at best a scheme to rob one portion of our countrymen for the benefit of another. 
 
 Behold the true difference." 
 
 REASONS WHY Mil. CALHOUJV SUPPORTS POLK, AND THE VIEWS OF THE LOOCOFOCOS ON THE TARIFF 
 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 Here s the reason, then why Mr. Calhoun supports Mr. Polk, and one of the great reasons why Mr. 
 Polk is supported at the south. 
 
 Fort Hill, Sept. 24, 1843. 
 
 Dear sir : You are right in reference to my opinion on the tariff. I deny the right of imposing any 
 duties but for revenue, or to make discrimination but on revenue principles. I also deny the right of 
 raising revenue but for the constitutional and economical administration of the Government 
 
 Yours, &c. J. C. CALHOUN. 
 
 Previous to the nomination of a candidate, Mr. Calhoun published an address to his pohtical friends 
 dated Jan. 20th, 1844. In it he says : 
 
 "Under no circumstances shall I support any candidate voho is opposed to free trade and in favor of 
 the protective policy, or whose prominent and influential friends are." 
 
 At a meeting of the Democratic party of Culpeper county, Virginia, held pursuant to notice, on Mon 
 day, the 1.5th of July, the following resolution was adopted : 
 
 3d. That an adequate revenue must be raised to supply the legitimate wants of the Government ; and 
 to effect this necessary object, the Democratic party are in favor of collecting the amount required, by 
 duties laid upon foreign importations, which duties are to be levied at the lowest point at which sufficient 
 revenue can be collected for an economical administration of the Government. At the same time, they 
 repudiate the tariff of 1842, as wholly departing from the revenue standard, as oppressively lodging a 
 contribution upon one branch of industry for the benefit of another. 
 
 Mr. Black, of Georgia, said: "Mr. Black alluded to Mr. Clay's constant support of a tariff. Did it 
 become (asked he) the avowed friends of FREE TRADE to lend their support to the father of the 
 American system]" 
 
 Extract from a letter of J. C. Calhoun, 30th June, 1844. 
 
 The Republican Party : May it succeed in the coming election, and may its success be followed by the 
 restoration and firm establishment of its original principles and policy. — Charleston Mercury, Aug. 9, 1844. 
 
 By Hon. W. F. Colcock. — Messrs. Polk and Dallas, the nominees of the Baltimore convention: 
 South Carolina will advocate ttieir election, as pledged to the overthrow of the protective system, the an- 
 eic at ion of Texas, and to bring the Government to a strict adherence to the Constitution and all ite 
 nrvisions. 
 
19 
 
 The above toast was given at a public meeting of the citizens of Beaufort district, South Carolina. — 
 See Charleston Mercury, a free trade Polk paper, August 29, 1844. 
 
 MR. FOLK AND HI3 VOTES UPOIV THE SOLDIER'S PENSION. 
 
 The absolute unfitness of James K. Polk, by any public service or patriotic work he has done for his 
 country, for the highest office in the gift of this great and free people, must be apparent to every attentive 
 and serious observer. The history of this country scarcely bears his name. There is no pac;e made 
 bright by the record of his deeds. His only merit at the convention that nominated him was, that he was 
 so much opposed to the protective policy, and so much in favor of the immediate annexation of Texas, as 
 to receive his nomination by the anti-tariff delegates. 
 
 But Mr. Polk, in his brief career, has shown himself cold-hearted and unmindful of the services of 
 those whole hearted patriots of the revolutionary war, who periled life for the purchase of our liberties. 
 Those earnest hearted men wore out their best days in the service of their country, and how grateful to 
 any American who loves liberty should it be to afford them, out of the Treasury of the nation, some 
 crumb of comfort to cheer their declining days. But Mr. Polk's ear was deaf, and his heart callous to 
 their cry for relief. Read the record of his votes relative to the relief of the toil-worn soldier. Here is 
 chapter and verse, where the sober solemn facts may be found recorded. 
 
 Folk voting against the old patriots of the Revolution. 
 
 March 13, 182S, on the passage of the bill for the relief of surviving officers of the revolutionary war, 
 Mr. Polk voted in the negative. — Cong. Deb. vol 4, part 2, page 2,670. 
 
 Subsequently, on a bill to pay certain militia, &c., he voted in the affirmative. 
 
 March 18, 1830, he voted against the revolutionary pension bill. — Same, vol. 6, part I, page 629. 
 
 March 19, " Mr. Polk spoke some time against the bill," and voted against it. — Same, page 635. 
 
 February 17, 1831, he voted against the bill for the relief of revolutionary soldiers. — Same, volume 7 
 page 730. 
 
 May 2, 1832, he voted against the revolutionary pension bill. — Same, vol. 8, part 2, page 2,713. 
 
 The above extracts from the Register of Debates, were copied into the " Whig Text Book," and it was 
 deemed advisable by the Editor of the Globe to check the influence of those facts, if possible. The 
 Globe dares not publish this statement, and attempt to disprove it. No, every word of it is true ; the record 
 proves the whole. The Globe proceeds to assert that Polk has been calunniiated, to sustain this false- 
 hood, it hunts up certain votes given by Mr. Polk upon collateral questions, while it conceals all of Mr. 
 Polk's votes given against the passage of the pensio7ts — votes which completely sustain our position. 
 The Globe takes up a garbled falsification of the record, and represents Mr. Polk to be in favor of pen- 
 sions to the old veterans. This is the history. Now the facts from the record convict the Editor of the 
 Globe of gross frauds upon their readers. We quote from the Globe. 
 
 In the House of Representatives, Thursday, April, 1826. — "The House proceeded to the consideration 
 of the bill for the relief of the surviving officers of the army of the revolution. A motion was then made 
 by Mr. Mitchell, of Tennessee, that the further consideration of the said bill be postponed until the first 
 Monday in July next ; and the question thereupon being put, it was decided in the negative — yeas 39, 
 nays 128. James K. Polk voted with the nays against the postponement." — See House Journal, 1st 
 session, 19th Congress, p. 497. 
 
 From Mr. Polk's vote against the postponement of the bill until July, the Globe attempts to palm upon 
 the nation the false inference, that he then voted as the friend of the revolutionary soldier's bill, in order 
 the better to sustain it. W^ell, let us follow this bill to the final action had upon it, and see how Mr. Polk 
 then voted — for it is the last vote that determined his support or opposition to the bill. The Globe, in 
 giving Mr. Polk's votes, stops at page 497, which gives but the partial action of the House upon the bill ; 
 but trace its final destiny to pages 504 and 505 of the House Journal, and you will find James K. Polk 
 voting not to sustain the bill — but voting to commit it to the Committee on Military Pensions. Thus 
 defeating the bill by taking it from the control and action of the House, and sending it back to a commit- 
 tee from which it never emerged. Why, if the Editor of the Globe wished to give the truth and the 
 whole truth, did he not publish the last vote — evidently that he might deceive and mislead by the partial 
 and garbled statements of Polk's vote. But to the Globe again : 
 
 " In the House of Representatives, Tuesday, January 16, 1827, the bill for the relief of the surviving 
 officers of t\ie army of the revolution being under consideration, John Woods, of the Ohio delegation, 
 moved to lay it on the table. James K. Polk voted against if. 
 
 " On the same day, a motion was made to postpone the consideration of the bill until the 3d March, 
 which was to defeat it. James K. Polk voted against it. — See House Journal, 2d session, 19th Congress, 
 pages 167, '8." 
 
 Here again, is but })art of the record ; but here, as upon the other bill, a gross deception is attempted, 
 foy not publishing Mr. Polk's subsequent votes upon the same bill. 
 
 Following up his votes, the reader will find that Mr. Burgess, a Whig, moved to recommit the bill to a 
 Committee of the Whole House, and make it the order of the day for to-morrow. Mr. Polk voting against 
 the motion. Yeas 97, nays 92. — Pages 170 and 171. 
 
20 
 
 On the 22d of January, Mr. Burgess moved that the orders of the day, which precede the bill for the 
 relief of the surviving officers of the army of the revolution, be postponed, and that the House do now 
 resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the said bill : and the question being taken there- 
 on, it passed in the affirmative — yeas 93, nays 77. James K. Polk, voting >o ! — Pages 193 and 194. 
 
 On the Seih of January, Mr. Burges again moved that the several orders of the day, which preceded 
 the bill for the relief of the surviving officers of the army of the revolution, be postponed, and that the 
 House do now again resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on that bill : and the question 
 on being put, was lost — yeas 87, nays 88. James K. Polk voting so ! — Pages 207 and 208. And here 
 terminated the fate of the revolutionary soldiers' bill, by the casting vote of James K. Polk ! Can these, 
 votes, reader, by any torture or jierversion of construction, be made to convey the idea or inftreuce, that 
 Mr. Polk was voting to sustain the bill ! 
 
 For the sest^ion of 1827, -'8, the Globe gives nothing; and we are therefore compelled to quote as 
 follows: 
 
 The House resumed consideration of the bill from the Senate, [No. 44.] entitled "an act for the relief 
 of certain officers and soldiers of the army of the revolution." — Journal, p. 734, 
 
 On the question : Shall the main question be now put? yeas 100, noes 82, Mr. Polk voted no. — 
 Pages 735, 'fi. 
 
 On the question : Shall the bill be read the third time 1 yeas 122, noes 62. Mr. Polk voted no. — 
 Pages 737, '8. 
 
 On the question : Shall the bill pass ? yeas 115, noes 58, Mr. Polk voted no. — Pages 789, '91. 
 
 Here are three important votes, and the last emphatically a test vote, on which Mr. Polk voted against 
 the bill for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the revolution ; but it is concealed by 
 the Globe. 
 
 In the session of '29, the Globe finds this : 
 
 "In February, 1829, the question coming up on the final passage of a bill 'to provide for certain per- 
 sons engaged in the land and naval service of the U. S. in the revolutionary war' — Mr. Polk voted aye.''' 
 
 As to the above bill, the imposition is to be found in the title, it was simply one to "amend an act to 
 provide," &c. 
 
 On the 25th Feb-, 1829, Mr. Polk voted to reconamit this hill in order to inquire what expenditures 
 would be required, and also to limit the provision made by the second section to persons who need the as- 
 sistance of their country fur support. This failing, Mr. Polk voted for the bill. It did not pass the 
 Senate. — Journal, pages 335, '6, '7. 
 
 Let us ask if this bill can, by any perversion, be held up as evidence of James K, Polk's voting in favor 
 of pen.sions to the revolutionary soldier ] Is he here voting for a bill to give pensions to the revolutionary 
 soldiers, or is he not voting for a bill to amend, an act to provide for ceitain persons, &c ; and docs the 
 Globe give us the features of his bill or amendment ? It must have been too objectionable, for we find 
 that it did not pass, and that Mr. Johnson voted against it in the Senate. — Journal of Senate 1829, p. 148, 
 
 The Globe omits very important votes given at the session of 1829, '30 ; we supply the omissions and 
 specify them as impositions. 
 
 Feb. 13, 1829, Mr. Polk voted for the third reading of a bill for the relief of sundry officers and sol- 
 diers. This bill provided simply for the addition of sundry persons to the rolls; hut on the passage of 
 the bill, March 23, .Mr. Polk voted no. — Journal, p. 457. 
 
 March 18, 1829, the bill (No. 248) being under consideration, Mr. McDuffie moved an amendment to 
 deduct six dollars annually for each hundred dollars a pensioner is worth over $300. Ayes 50, noes 
 124. Mr. Polk voted ate. — Journal, p. 435. 
 
 The amendment being rejected, the question was put on ordering the bill to be engrossed — ayes 123, 
 noes 48. Mr. Polk voted no. — Journal, pages 438, '9. 
 
 Mr. Williams moved to include in this bill the officers and soldiers of the militia — a motion by an en- 
 emy of the bill to embarrass it. Ayes 74, noes 107. Mr. Polk voted ays. — Journal, p. 442. 
 
 On the passage of the bill, the ayes were 122, noes 56. Mr. Polk voted xo, along with Mr. Williams, 
 — Journal, pages 443, '4. 
 
 Pension bill of 1832. 
 
 We are told by the Editor of the Globe, that " Mr. Polk voted in the affirmative on a motion to grant 
 pensions to those who defended our frontiers in the Indian war from 1776 up to the treaty of Greenville, 
 in 1795." iSo he did — but reader he was not here voting upon the passage of any bill, but simply upon 
 an amendment to the bill of 1832. 
 
 Amendments and vote on the passage of the bill. 
 
 May 1, an amendment was moved to give a pension to those who had served three months, as well as 
 those who had served six. Mr. Polk voted no. — Pages 683, '4. 
 
 Mr. Craig moved an amendment to exclude all who shall be worth exceeding dollars. Mr. Polk 
 
 voted AiE, — Pages 685, '6. 
 
21 
 
 Mr. Craig then renewed the motion, with the blank filled with "$1,000." Mr. Polk voted ate, 
 
 Pages 686, '7. 
 
 On the question of ordering the bill to be engrossed, Mr. Polk voted xo. — Page 692. 
 May 2, Mr. Wilde moved to postpone the bill indefinitely. Mr. Polk voted ate. — Page 69.3. 
 On the question: Shall the bill pafs? the ayes were 1'26, noes 48. Mr. Polk voted no. — Page 696'. 
 Contra.«t these facts, with the delusive impressions attempted to be given by our adroit opponents. 
 From the above, it is grossly and falsely attempted to make the reader believe that James K. Polk voted 
 for this bill of 1832, when the record proves, that although he voted for amendritents to it, he voted 
 against its passage. — Pages as before given — 695, 696. 
 
 Passing to the next and last statement of our opponents, to wit : 
 
 "In House of Representatives, Thursday, May 24th, 1832, the question being on ordering to a third 
 reading the bill from the Senate, supplementary to the act for the relief of certain surviving officers and 
 soldiers of the Revolution, James K. Polk voted in the affirmative." True he did vote for ordering the 
 hill to a /"A/rc/ reading and for the previous question — but when previously, upon the same day, the te-^t 
 vote was taken, as to putting the previous question, which was ordering the bill to a third reading, we find 
 Mr. Polk voting ai^ainst it — yeas 90, nays 74. Finding that notwithstanding his opposition, the question 
 for the main question would prevail, he changed his vute and voted for the main question's being put — 
 Pages 792, 79-3, and 791. — And on the 31st of Maj', he adhered to his last vote. The bill, when put 
 upon its passage, \vas determined in the affirmative, but there were no yeas and nat^s taken. This is the 
 history from the record of this last bill. And who, let me ask, from his previous votes upon .'similar bills, 
 and from his opposite votes upon this bill, when ti>o there were no yeas and nays taken upon its passage, 
 can say that James K. Polk voted for it ? It would indeed be stretching credulity in the very face of his 
 previous voics. 
 
 The Globe concludes with the session of "32. We add the following facts from the journals of 1 833, '4. 
 Feb. 1 1, 1834. Mr. Folk voted in favor of a committee to inquire into the expediency of extending the 
 act of 1833, so as to embrace those who were in the Ihdian wars between the close of the revolution and 
 the treaty of Greenville. A bill was reported, but no action was had upon it. A bill to provide for the 
 settlement of certain revolutionary claims (respecting half pay to widows and orjihans of revolutionary 
 officers,) lingered a long time in the House, but was at last recommitted. May 27, 18S4, the vote was 
 taken on reconsidering the vote to recommit — ayes 76, noes 104. Mr. Polk voted so. This vote killed 
 the bill. 
 
 In conclusion, then, it seems that Mr. Polk has voted for amendments to pension bills, perhaps designed 
 to kill them — but in investigating his votes on the pension iilh, we find him voting against them on the 
 direct question of their passage ; and yet by providing the amendments for which he voted, and concealing 
 his direct votes against the bills, the Locofoco editors undertake to bolster up this man ! We are compel- 
 led to characterize such conduct as nothing less than a wicked fraud upon the peojile and the old pea- 
 sioners. These editors cannot maintain their cause by truth and fair and honest discussion. 
 
 Georgia militia. 
 But what plea or answer will be made to the revolutionary soldiers of Georgia and their descendants, 
 for Mr. Polk's votes against their claims, for services renderetl during the years 1792, '93, and '94 ] 
 
 By reference to the Journal of the House of Representatives, Feb. 19, 1827, pages 312, 313, and 314 
 you will find the following : 
 
 "The House proceeded to consider the amendnrents reported from the Committee of the Whole House 
 on the State of the Union, to the bill making appropriations for the military service for the year 1827,. 
 when .several of said amendments were concurred in : and the question was stated to concur in that 
 amendment which proposed to insert in said bill the following item : 
 
 " For the .settlement of the claims of the militia of the State of Georgia, for services rendered during 
 the years 1792, "93, and '94, agreeably to the estimate of Constant Freeman, and to be paid under the 
 sanction of the Secretary of War, $129,375 66." The yeas and nays being taken upon this amendment, 
 are, yeas 102, nays 73 — James K. Polk voting against it! Pages 313 and 314. 
 
 We have thus furnished a transcript, from the records, of the votes of Mr. Polk upon revolutionary 
 pensions — with dates and pages — subject to the examination and scrutiny of all. What say you veteran 
 soldiers of the revolution 1 What say you sons of these noble sires? What say you heart-warm-lovers 
 of freedom 1 Shall this man, whose cold heart could withhold justice from the soldiers of our country, 
 receive the plaudits of the people, and be elevated to the highest honors in the nation? No ! It can 
 never be. The people cannot so far forget their duty to themselves, and the honored station once filled 
 by Washington. 
 
 folk's outrage on popular suffrage. 
 The conduct of James K. Polk in rejecting the two Representatives of Mississippi, in the well known 
 election case, was one of the greatest outrages ever committed on the rights of the people. It showed all 
 his pretensions to republican principles to be the hollow devices of a demagogue. The facts should be 
 pondered on by the people, and never forgotten. 
 
 m 
 
Martin Van Buren was inaugurated President on the 4th of March, 1837, the old Congress having^ 
 expired by limitation on the previous day. On the 10th of May, and thereabouts, the banks suspended 
 specie payment, payments of revenue in any currency nearly ceased, and the Government was nearly run 
 ashore for funds. Mr. Van Burcn summoned the new Congress to assemble in extra session on the 4th 
 of September. Most of the States had already chosen members of that Congress, or would choose before the 
 1st of September; but .Mississippi and Arkansas neither had chosen, nor would seasonably choose in 
 regular course — the former not till 1st November, the latter not till October. In this dilemma, the Gov- 
 ernors of the two States severally took the responsibility of afipointing special elections in each, expressly 
 specift/ing that they were to c/ioose members of Congress for titc extra session only. A special election 
 was accordingly held in each of these States and Locofocos elected. The notice was short, the season 
 that at which the greatest number of Southern people are absent from their homes, and the rest did not 
 see fit to make great exertion to fill seats in Congress which were expressly limited to tiie (necessarily 
 short) extra session, when regular elections were soon to supervene, whereat the whole people would 
 be out, and members be chosen for the regular term. The vote in Mississippi stood: 
 
 J, F. H. Claiborne, Loco 11,203 S S, Prentiss, Whig 7,143 
 
 Sam'l.I Gholson do. 9,921 E, L. Acee, do. 6,092 
 
 Claiborne and Gholson elected by some S.-'iOO. 
 
 They received regular certificates from the Governor, stating that they had been elected to serve as Re- 
 presentatives in Congress from the State of Mississippi /or tlie extra session, and departed for Washington. 
 But now commenced a game of intrigue, disgraceful to the actors and to all who countenanced them. 
 The new functionaries resolved to stretch their tenure of oifice over the regular term also ! To this end 
 they declined exhibiting to the House their regular certificates of election, but procured from the Secretary 
 of State a certificate of the state of the poll, and presented this to the Hou^e. The House did not half 
 understand this manoeuvre, but on the '36 if October an extraneous resolution, founded on an ex parte 
 presentment of facts, was put through the House, declaring that Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson were 
 duly elected members of the 2.5/A Congress.' 
 
 Meantime the Governor issued his proclamation for a general election, setting forth that " two members 
 
 of the 2.5th Congress" were among the officers to be chosen. But a portion of the Locos perceiving that 
 
 their defeat, on a full vote, and in the existing state of the country, was inevitable, resolved to disregard 
 
 the Governor's decision, and not vote for members, trusting to the Locofoco majority in the House to 
 
 keep in Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson. Another portion, however, seeing that here was an attempt to 
 
 commit a great fraud and wrong, since they knew full well that the people had voted for members, not for 
 
 the eniire term, but for the extra session only, went forward and voted as usual. The result was declared — 
 
 S.S.Prentiss, Whig 1 3,-547 J, F, H, Claiborne, Loco 5,990 
 
 Thos. .1. Word, do. 12,144 Sam'lJ. Gholson, do. 5,869 
 
 Picntiss and Word chosen by some 7,000. 
 
 They, of course, went on to Washington and claimed their scats, (at the regular session,) but found 
 them absurdly occupied by Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson! — who insisted that the people, though they 
 had meant to choose them only for a sixty days term, had saddled themselves with them for two years, 
 and could not escape them ! 
 
 Let us glance a moment at the rival case. Arch. Yell, in July, was chosen from Arkansas for the 
 extra session, and served through it. In October he was again chosen for the regular tivo years at the 
 regular election, presented his credentials founded on that election, and took his seat without question. 
 Now this same Yell voted to keep in Claiborne and Gholson, and shut out Prentifs and Word, yet he 
 declared that if he had not received a majority in October, he would have relinquished his seat ! 
 
 On the 30th of .fanuary the House, in regular session, passed a resolution moved by Hon. John Bbt.l, 
 of Tennessee, rescinding that which declared .Messrs, Claiborne and Gholson duly elected members of 
 the 25th Congress — yeas 1 19, nays 1 12 — 7 majority against the usurpers, in a House largely Van Buren. 
 On the 17th of that month a resolution had been offered, as follows: 
 
 " Resolved, That Messrs. S. S. Prentiss and T, J, W^ord are not members of the 25th Congress, and 
 are not entitled to seats in this House as such." 
 
 This resolution was in palpable contradiction to the common sense and honest judgment of every in- 
 telligent man in the land. Certainly some members of Congress had been chosen from that State ; the 
 House decided that Messrs Claiborne and Gholson were not the men ; who then but Prentiss and Word? 
 They had received a large majority of the votes at the regular election, appointed and held on the regular 
 day when members of Congress were uniformly chosen; the notice for that election expressly declared 
 that it was to choose members for the full term, as that for the special election at which Messrs, Claiborne 
 and Ghokson had been chosen, specified that it was an election for the extra session only. Now it is easy 
 to see that here was a chance for the technical objection interposed by Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson , 
 that members could not be chosen for a part of a term, unless for the whole remainder of it, and that 
 Messrs, C. and G. were so elected for the whole term. But it is manifest that this is to ii terpose a legal 
 point to defeat a moral right, and to nullify the voice of the people. If the election of Messrs. C. and G. 
 was invalid — if Mississippi had no right to choo.se members for a part of a term — that could not give to 
 her special election an intent and effect never contemplated by it; could not defeat her clearly expressed 
 
23 
 
 purpose in choosing Messrs. Prentiss and Word by a much larger vole and a larger majority for the full 
 terra. All these considerations, and many more, were pressed with unsurpassed cogency and eloquence, 
 especially by Mr. Prentiss, who was heard in vindication of his right, through the debates on this occa- 
 sion, until at last the House divided— yeas 117, nays 117; so the resolution was lost, untilJawes A, 
 Polk, Speaker, gave the cmiing vote in the affirmative, and turned the fairly chosen Reprexentattves oj 
 Mississippi out of the House. The vote of' Archibald Yell, who held his seat by just such a certificate 
 as Messrs. Prentiss and Word offered, made the tie, and James K. Polk untied it by turning Mississippi 
 out of doors. So the Governor was compelled to order still another election in April, when Prentiss and 
 Word were triumphantly returned to their seats. 
 
 JAMES K. folk's HOSTILITY TO S.AlLORS. — THE LOSS OF THE HORNET. 
 
 All recollect the loss of the United States sloop of war Hornet, and her gallant officers and crew, m 
 1829. " Thev were all in the deep ocean buried." A bill having been brought into Congress by Mr, 
 Dorsey, of Ma'ryland, to give the surviving families, &c., of these brave men six months' pay, the lol- 
 lowing were the proceedings on that proposition : . ,„.^„ 
 
 ^ ^ ' ^ ■ T uv^ST, AY, February, IS30. 
 
 And engrossed, " An act for the relief of the widows and orphans of the officers, seamen, and 
 MARINES of the sloop of war Hornet," was read the third time; and the question was stated, bhali tlie 
 bill pass.' when — m i Af 
 
 A motion was made, by Mr. Test, that the said bill be recommitted to the Committee on Naval Af- 
 fairs, with instructions to amend the same by striking out these words: "and, it there be no P^'^entr 
 then the brothers and sisters;" so as to exclude brothers and sisters from the benefits proposed to be 
 granted to the relatives of the officers, seamen, and marines on board of the sloop ot war Hornet 
 at the time of her loss. And on the question. Shall the said bill be recommitted with the instructions 
 aforesaid.' it was decided in the negative— Mr. Polk voting in the affirmative. See House Journal, 1st 
 session 21st Congress, page 309. 
 
 The question was then put. Shall the bill pass.' Yeas 138, nays 42— Mr. Polk voting in the negative, 
 and against granting any relief to the widows and orphans of the lost crew. See House Journal, ist 
 session "ilst Congress, page 309. , . 
 
 There were many of the ship's company who contributed to the support of their sisters as well as tneir 
 parents; and, if the mother was dead, it was certainly an unkind, not to say a harsh, restriction in tlie 
 bill which should deprive her daughter of the trifling contribution to her comfort. The sister stands in 
 about the same relation to the party as the mother ; and, admitting her or her brothers to sliare in the 
 distribution, the bill provides, on the same principle, what claims the mother had to participate in it. 
 In both cases, we assume, what we know frequently exists, that the officer or sailor contributes from 
 his pay to the support of his sisters or younger brothers, as well as his parents; and there was no reason 
 for Mr. Polk in making any discrimination between them. The Journals of Congress establish the 
 f2ict that he voted against giving to the ividows and orphans of the gallant tars who were 
 lost in the Hornet a small pittance— six months' salary— as a mark of public consideration and. 
 sympathy. 
 
 MR. clay's and MR. POLk'S VIEWS OF RELIGIOfS OBLIGATION CONTRASTED. 
 
 While the Locofoco press is teeming with the most malicious representations of Mr. Clay, artful at- 
 tempts are, at the same time, made to conciliate the moral feelings of the people in behalf of IVlr. Polk. 
 Now, we here recall a case in which both these gentlemen took part, and the reader will judge who 
 manifested the truest sense of moral obligation. In 1832, while the cholera was raging with alarming 
 fatality, attacking and desolating whole towns and cities, and baffling the skill of man, Mr. Clay intro- 
 duced a resolution in the Senate of the U. States lor the appointment of a committee to wait upon the 
 President, and to " request that he recommend a day— to be designated by him— of public humiliation, 
 prayer," &c. The following were the proceedings in the Senate : 
 
 " June 28, 1832.— The following resolution, oflered by Mr. Clay, was taken up for consideration : 
 " Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, That a joint committee of both Houses wait 
 on the President, and request that he recommend a day of public humilitation, prayer, and fasting, to be ob- 
 served by the people of the United States with religious solemnity, and with fervent supphcations to 
 Almighty God that He will be graciously pleased to continue His blessings upon our country, and that 
 He will avert from it the Asiatic scourge which has reached our borders— or if, in the dispensation ot 
 His Providence, we are not to be exempted from the calamity, that, through his bountiful mercy, its 
 severity may be mitigated, and its duration shortened." 
 
 Mr. Tazewell asked for the ayes and noes. , 
 
 Mr. Clay rose and observed, »' that he had only one word to express. The resolution had not been sub- 
 mitted without consultation with the members of the Senate, whose opinion was entitled to more res- 
 pect than his own. It was, indeed, first suggested to him by a reverend member of the clergy, and 
 after deliberate consideration, he (Mr. Clay) thought the occasion fit for the recommendation of the re- 
 ligious ceremony which the resolution contemplated. It was the practice of all christian nations, m 
 seasons of general and great calamity, to implore Divine mercy. Of all the pestilential scourges which 
 had afflicted our race, the Asiatic cholera, in some of its characteristics, was the most remarkable. 
 
22 
 
 Martin Van Buren was inaugurated President on the 4th of March, 1837, the old Congress having 
 expired by limitation on the previous day. On the 10th of May, and thereabouts, the banks suspended 
 specie payment, payments of revenue in any currency nearly ceased, and the Government was nearly run 
 ashore for funds. Mr. Van Buren summoned the new Congress to assemble in extra session on the 4th 
 of September. Most of the States had already chosen members of that Congress, or would choose before the 
 1st of September ; but .Mississippi and Arkansas neither had chosen, nor would seasonably choose in 
 regular course — the former not till 1st November, the latter not till October. In this dilemma, the Gov- 
 ernors of the two States severally took the responsibility of a()pointing special elections in each, expressly 
 specift/ing that they were to choose members of Congress for the extra session only. A special election 
 was accordingly held in each of these States and Locofocos elected. The notice was short, the season 
 that at which the greatest number of Southern people are absent from their homes, and the rest di<t not 
 see fit to make great exertion to fill seats in Congress which were expressly limited to the (necessarily 
 short) extra session, when regular elections were soon to sujiervene, whereat the whole people would 
 be out, and members be chosen for the regular term. The vote in Mississippi stood: 
 
 J. F. H. Claiborne, Loco 11,203 S S. Prentiss, Whig 7,143 
 
 Sam'1.1 Gholson do. 9,921 E. L. Acee, do. 6,092 
 
 Claiborne and Gholson elected by some 3,.'i00. 
 
 They received regular certificates from the Governor, stating that they had been elected to serve as Re- 
 presentatives in Congress from the State of Mississippi ybr tlie extra session, and departed for Washington, 
 But now commenced a game of intrigue, disgraceful to the actors and to all who countenanced them. 
 The new functionaries resolved to stretch their tenure of oliice over the regular term also ! To this end 
 they declined exhibiting to the House their regular certificates of election, but procured from the Secretary 
 of State a certificate of the state of the poll, and presented this to the Houi^e. The House did not half 
 understand this manoeuvre, but on the 3d if October an extraneous resolution, founded on an ex parte 
 presentment of facts, was put through the House, declaring that Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson were 
 duly elected members of the 'Z5th Congress/ 
 
 Meantime the Governor issued his proclamation for a general election, setting forth that " two members 
 
 of the 2.5th Congress" were among the officeis to be chosen. But a portion of the Locos perceiving that 
 
 their defeat, on a full vote, and in the existing state of the country, was inevitable, resolved to disregard 
 
 the Governor's decision, and not vote for members, trusting to the Locofoco majority in the House to 
 
 keep in Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson. Another portion, however, seeing that here was an attempt to 
 
 commit a great fraud and wrong, since they knew full well that the people had voted for members, not for 
 
 the entire term, hut for the extra session only, went forward and voted as usual. The result was declared — 
 
 S.S.Prentiss, Whig 13,547 J. F. H. Claiborne, Loco 5,990 
 
 Thos. .1. Word, do. 12,144 Sam'l J. Gholson, do. 5,869 
 
 Picntiss and Word chosen by some 7,000. 
 
 They, of course, went on to Washington and claimed their scats, (at the regular session,) but found 
 them absurdly occupied by Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson ! — who insisted that the people, though they 
 had meant to choose them only for a sixty days term, had saddled themselves with them for two years, 
 and could not escape them ! 
 
 Let us glance a moment at the rival case. Arch. Yell, in July, was chosen from Arkansas for the 
 €Xtra session, and served through it. In October he was again chosen for the regular two years at the 
 regular election, presented his credentials founded on that election, and took his seat without question. 
 Now this same Yell voted to keep in Claiborne and GhoLson, and shut out Prentiss and Word, yet he 
 declared that if he had not received a majority in October, he would have relinquished his seat! 
 
 On the 30th of January the House, in regular session, passed a resolution moved by Hon. John Bki.l, 
 of Tennessee, rescinding that which declared .Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson duly elected members of 
 the 25th Congress — yeas 1 19, nays 1 12 — 7 majority against the usurpers, in a House largely Van Buren. 
 On the 17th of that month a resolution had been offered, as follows: 
 
 " Resolved, That Messrs. S. S. Prentiss and T. J. Word are not members of the 25th Congress, and 
 are not entitled to seats in this House as such." 
 
 This resolution was in palpable contradiction to the common sense and honest judgment of every in- 
 telligent man in the land. Certainly some members of C/ongress had been chosen from that State ; the 
 House decided that Messrs Claiborne and Gholson were not the men ; who then but Prentiss and Word? 
 They had received a large majority of the votes at the regular election, appointed and held on the rei^ular 
 day when members of Congress were uniformly chosen; the notice for that election expressly declared 
 that it was to choose members for the full term, as that for the special election at which Messrs. Claiborne 
 and Gholson had been chosen, specified that it was an election for the extra session only. Now it is easy 
 to see that here was a chance for the technical objection interposed by Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson, 
 that members could not be chosen for a part of a term, unless for the whole remainder of it, and that 
 Messrs. C. and G. were so elected for the whole term. But it is manifest that this is to ii tcrpose a legal 
 point to defeat a moral right, and to nullify the voice of the people. If the election of Messrs. C. and G. 
 was invalid — if Mississippi had no right to choose members for a part of a term — that could not give to 
 her special election an intent and etfect never contemplated by it; could not defeat her clearly expressed 
 
23 
 
 purpose in choosing Messrs. Prentiss and Word by a much larger vote and a larger majority for the full 
 term. All these considerations, and many more, were pressed with unsurpassed cogency and eloquence, 
 especially by Mr. Prentiss, who was heard in vindication of his right, through the debates on this occa- 
 sion, until at last the House divided— yeas 117, nays 117; so the resolution was lost, until James iv.^ 
 Folk, Speaker, gave the ca.st'mir vote in the affirmative, arid turned the fairly chosen Representatives oj 
 Mississippi out of the Housed The vote of Archibald Yell, who held his seat by just such a certificate 
 as Messrs. Prentiss and Word offered, made the tie, and James K. Polk untied it by turning Mississippi 
 out of doors. So the Governor was compelled to order still another election in April, when Prentiss and 
 Word were triumphantly returned to their seats. 
 
 JAMES K. folk's HOSTILITY TO SAILORS. — THE LOSS OF THE HORNET. 
 
 All recollect the loss of the United States sloop of war Hornet, and her gallant officers and crew, in 
 
 1929. " They were all in the deep ocean buried." A bill having been brought into Congress by Mr, 
 
 Dorsey, of MaVyland, to give the surviving families, &c., of these brave men six months' pay, the lol- 
 
 lowing were the proceedings on that proposition : „^„ 
 
 ^ " ^ ■ Thursday, FeZyrxary, 1830. 
 
 And engrossed, " An act for the relief of the widows and orphans of the officers, seamen, and 
 marines of the sloop of war Hornet," was read the third time; and the question was stated, Shall the 
 bill pass.' when — m i Af 
 
 A motion was made, by Mr. Test, that the said bill be recommitted to the Committee on Naval Af- 
 fairs, with instructions to amend the same by striking out these words: "and, it there be no parent, 
 then the brothers and sisters;" so as to exclude brothers and sisters from the benefits proposed to be 
 granted to the relatives of the officers, seamen, and marines on board of the sloop ot war Hornet 
 at the time of her loss. And on the question. Shall the said bill be recommitted with the instructions 
 aforesaid.' it was decided in the negative— Mr. Polk voting in the affirmative. See House Journal, 1st 
 session '21st Congress, page 309. 
 
 The question was then put, Shall the bill pass.' Yeas 138, nays 42— Mr. Polk voting in the negative, 
 and against granting any relief to the widows and orphans of the lost crew. See House Journal, 1st 
 session -ilst Congress, page 309. , . 
 
 There were many of the ship's company who contributed to the support of their sisters as well as their 
 parents; and, if the mother was dead, it was certainly an unkind, not to say a haish, restriction in the 
 bill which should deprive her daughter of the trifling contribution to her comfort. The sister stands in 
 about the same relation to the party as the mother ; and, admitting her or her brothers to share in the 
 distribution, the bill provides, on the same principle, what claims the mother had to participate in it. 
 In both cases, we assume, what we know frequently exists, that the officer or sailor contributes irom 
 his pay to the support of his sisters or younger brothers, as well as his parents; and there was no reason 
 for Mr. Polk in making any discrimination between them. The Journals of Congress establish the 
 f2LCiX\\3.t\\e voted against giving to the widows and orphans of the gallant tars who vvere 
 lost in the Hornet a small pittance— six months' salary— as a mark of public consideration and 
 sympathy. 
 
 MR. clay's and MR. POLk's VIEWS OF RELIGIOUS OBLIG.4T10N CONTRASTED. 
 
 While the Locofoco press is teeming with the most malicious representations of Mr. Clay, artful at- 
 tempts are, at the same time, made to conciliate the moral feelings of the people in behalf of Mr. Pol^. 
 Now, we here recall a case in which both these gentlemen took part, and the reader will judge vvho 
 manifested the truest sense of moral obligation. In 1832, while the cholera was raging with alarming 
 fatality, attacking and desolating whole towns and cities, and baffling the skill of man, Mr. Clay intro- 
 duced a resolution in the Senate of the U. States; for the appointment of a committee to wait upon the 
 President, and to ''request that he recunimend z. day — to be designated by him — of public humiliation, 
 prayer," &c. The following were the proceedings in the Senate : 
 
 " June 28, 1832.— The following resolution, offered by Mr. Clay, was taken up for consideration : 
 
 " Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, That a joint committee of both Houses wait 
 on the President, and request that he recommend a day of public humilitation, prayer, and fasting, to be ob- 
 served by the people of the United States with religious solemnity, and with fervent supplications to 
 Almighty God that He will be graciously pleased to continue His blessings upon our country, and that 
 He will avert from it the Asiatic scourge which has reached our borders — or if, in the dispensation ot 
 His Providence, we are not to be exempted from the calamity, that, through his bountiful mercy, its 
 severity may be mitigated, and its duration shortened." 
 
 Mr. Tazewell asked for the ayes and noes. 
 
 Mr. Clay rose and observed, " that he had only one word to express. The resolution had not been sub- 
 mitted without consultation with the members of the Senate, whose opinion was entitled to more res- 
 pect than his own. It was, indeed, first suggested to him by a reverend member of the clergy, and 
 after deliberate consideration, he (Mr. Clay) thought the occasion fit for the recommendation of the re- 
 ligious ceremony which the resolution contemplated. It was the practice of all christian nations, m 
 seasons of general and great calamity, to implore Divine mercy. Of all the pestilential scourges which 
 had afflicted our race, the Asiatic cholera, in some of its characteristics, was the most remarkable. 
 
24 
 
 Should the resolution be adopted, (said Mr. Clay) the act of the President, in conformity to its request, 
 will be merely recommendatory. Voluntary as to all, it would be obligatory on none. There seems 
 to be a peculiar propriety, on the ground of uniformity, in the proposed measure. Already, in different 
 parts of the Union, the clergy of several denoniijiations have, it is believed, had their attention turned 
 to the subject. Different days of prayer and humiliation will be probably recommended. It is desira- 
 ble that the whole nation, on the same day, shall present its united prayers and supplications to the 
 throne of mercy. There can be but little doubt that, although there will be nothing coercive in the 
 recommendation of the President, there will be general acquiescence in it. The measure will be grate- 
 ful to all pious and all moral men, whether members of religious communities or not. In times of na- 
 tional or individual distress, all who suffer, feel an irresistible impulse to appeal to that Being, who is 
 alone able to afford adequate relief 
 
 I should have hesitated to present this resolution, (said Mr. Clay,) if it had been unsanctioned by pre- 
 cedent. But during the late war, a similar resolution was adopted by Congress, at the instance of a 
 member of the House of Representatives from Virginia, and President Madison issued his recommen- 
 dation accordingly. 
 
 A single word, Mr. President, as to myself. I am a member of no religious sect. 1 am not a profes- 
 sor of religion. I regret that I am not. I wish I was, and trust that I shall be. But I have, and always 
 have had, a profound respact for Christianity, the religion of my fathers, and for its rites, its usages, and 
 its observances. Among these, that which is proposed in the resolution before you, has always com- 
 manded the respect of the good ani devout. And I hope it will obtain the concurrence of the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen said he inferred from the call of the yeas and nays, that this resolution would be 
 opposed, and he therefore desired again to refer the Senate to the precedent of 1814. The resolution 
 at that time was induced by the state of war into which the country had been plunged with Great Brit- 
 ain, and was offered by Mr. Clopton of Virginia. The preamble, which he read, laid it down as the 
 duty of Congress to adopt measures of this character in times of " calamity and war." The proposition 
 had passed the Senate without any opposition If in time of war it was the duty of the people to ask 
 the special protection of God, and to supplicate the interposition of His mercy, how much more incum- 
 benl was it in reference to a scourge which had in its progress swept many millions of human beings 
 into eternity, which went abroad on the earth as the agent and minister of God, to do his errand, and 
 to come and go at his bidding, and over which human ])ower had no influence. No occasion could 
 be so fit and appropriate for humiliation as this. He hoped that no constitutional objection would be in- 
 terposed to check tliis resolution, which was nothing more than a recommendation. It was our duty 
 devoutly, and in the conviction of our entire dependence in G.'d, to ask for the interference of his mer- 
 cy ; and lie hoped that the present lesolution would pass, a^ did the resolution of 18 14. — See J\lies' Re- 
 gister. Vol. 42, pages 343 and 344. 
 
 The resolution was adopted — yeas 30, nays 13. In the House of Representatives, on the 5th of July 
 following, Mr. POLK, in a large minority, voted to lay the resohdion on the table for the balance of 
 the session — yeas 46, nays 91. On the 9th of July, he again voted to lay it on the table The motion 
 having failed, on motion of Mr. Bell, the resolution was referr 'd to a select committee. — See Jour. H. of 
 JR-'p. of Con. of 1832, jiases 1093, 1110. 
 
 The esteem, it maybe added, which the religious community in Kenluckv, where he is best known, 
 cherish for Mr. Clay, affords the most conclu^^ive refutation of the virulent slanders of his enemies 
 abroad. A signal evidence of th s esteem was given in November last, when he was elected by the 
 clergy to preside over the public discussion in Lexington, between Messrs. Cauipbell and Rice. 
 
 IS JAMES K. POLK FRIENDLY TO THE POOR M.\N .' 
 
 What can they say of James K. Polk, after reading the subjoined extracts from the journals of the 
 Legislature of Tennessee of 1823. 
 
 At page 136, of the Journals of the House of Representatives, the following is extracted : 
 
 On motion of Mr. Grundy, " A bill supplementary to an act to dispose of the land lying between the 
 rivers Hiwassee and Tennessee, and north of Little Tennessee river, was taken up. 
 
 " Mr. Grundy moved to strike out the words "two dollars" in the 7th line of the 5th section, and in- 
 sert the words "one dollar and fifty cents." 
 
 The yeas and nays being required, the said amendment was adopted, there being yea-i "24, nays 13. 
 
 Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. Speaker, Barns, Crisp, Cheatham, Douglass, Dickson, 
 Hogan, Holt, Lytle, McClellan, Polk, Walthen and VVatterson.— 13. 
 
 Mr. I3uchanan mo -ed to strike out one dollar and fifty cents, and insert "one dollar and twenty-five 
 cents." Tlie yeas and nays being required, there were, yeas 18, nays 18. 
 
 Those wlio voted in the negative— Messrs. Speaker, Barns, Carriger, Cheatham, Crisp, Douglass, 
 Dickson, Grundy, Hogan, Holt, Lytle, McClellan, Polk, Smith, Walton, Walthen, Watterson, and 
 Young— 18. 
 
 So, by a rule of the House, the proposed amendment was rejected. 
 
 And at page 191 of the same journal, Mr. Po//f is found voting again against the poor man's interest. But 
 he is not only found voting against the poor man's interest, but against the poov tvidaiv woman also. 
 
 At page 242 of the same journal, there was introduced " A bill to enable the poor unfortunate wid- 
 ows in the Hiwassee district to save the quarter-section of land on which they live, was taken up, read 
 and put upon its passage, when the yeas and nays were required. There were yeas 18, nays 19. 
 
 Those who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs. Balch, Buchanan, Carriger, Cowan, of B., Crockett, 
 
25 
 
 Gore, Jones, Kelly, I.ytle, Pierce, Reneau, Smith, Stephens, Scanland, Taylor, Whitson, Williams 
 and WaLterson — 18. 
 
 Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs- Speaker, Allen, Barnes, Brady, Cowan of L., Crisp, 
 Cheatham, Douglass, Dickson, Grundy, Hogan, Holt, iMcClellan, Nelson, Polk, Sharpe, Walton, Wat- 
 kins and Young — 19. 
 
 Such is the protection which Mr. Polk has heretofore extended to the poor man, ^.nAXhe poor widow 
 also. 
 
 COL. folk's gorgeous chair. 
 
 James K. Polk is a wonderful talker about " economy and republican simplicity." He speaks of it, 
 he writes of it, and preaches very piously in favor of preserving the people's money. Such was the 
 course of the Van Buren adminis'tration, /o which Mr. Polk strict! t/ adhered; yet it squandered more 
 money than any other — first, to give regal splendor to the President's House ; and second and last, to 
 feed our extravagant soldiery to fight a'handful of Indians, and to furnish hundreds of thousands of dol- 
 lars to absconding Government officers, all of whicii came out of the pockets of the people. Mr. Polk, 
 in his letter to Kane, says he approves the fbllowing resolution of the Baltimore Convention 
 
 " 5. That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to force and practice the most rigid ecnoo- 
 my in conducting our public affairs." 
 
 How does Col." Polk practise this principle .' When he was Speaker of the House of Representa- 
 tives, the chair used by the former Speaker was not gorgeous enough for him. A new one was procured, 
 of which the cost is given from the workman's bill : 
 
 Washington, Dec. 1st, 1838. 
 The House of Representatives of the U. States of America, Dr. 
 
 To Buch and Oliver, Upholdsters, 465, Broadway, New York.^ 
 To crimson velvet chair for the Speaker - . - - - 
 
 To 27 yards of silk bullion fringe, with gimp head, per yard 
 To 13 yards of silk and worsted do'' . . . - - 
 
 To 4 pair of crimson silk drapery tassels - - - - - 
 
 To 2 pair of do do large ----- s 
 
 To 20 yards of silk cable cord - - - - - 
 
 To 2 large silk slides -...-.- 
 
 To 11 pieces of India satin damask . - - . - 
 
 To 152 yards of crimson Florence silk . . . - - 
 
 To 143 yards of muslin interlinings 12^ . . . - - 
 
 To iron fixtures ....---- 
 
 To shield and ornaments ------- 
 
 To making curtain over Speaker's chair - . - - - 
 
 To boxing and packing ------- 
 
 To freight and cartage ------- 
 
 To expense and time in the summer to measure - - - - 
 
 Do do to put up cu tain - - - - - 
 
 Do do of man to assist . - . . . 
 
 To 3 yards of silk and worsted fringe $'9 - 
 To 18 do crimson orris lace 18^ - 
 
 Cr. by cash on account 
 
 Balance due $654 27i 
 
 Gentlemen— I have examined this bill, as the manufacturer of the fringe, tassels and rope, and find 
 the prices to be the usual Upholdster's charge. 
 
 (Signed) JOHN JOHNSON, 437 Broadway. 
 
 New York, Feb 13,1839. 
 
 I have the best reason to believe that the charge made in the written bill are such as afford to the 
 undertakers of the work nothing more than reasonable profit, and such as are paid by private persons for 
 the same materials and labor. 
 
 (Signed) T. L. SMITH. 
 
 Feb. 26, 1839. 
 
 Mr. T. L. Sniith was the Register of the Treasury, and a locofoco. The chair on which Hon. John 
 Bell sat when Speaker cost about ^30. We submit the case without another word. 
 
 TEXAS, 
 
 How can Mr. Polk's present opinions in reference to Texas be reconciled with the views he entertained 
 in 1826 ? Then, when the question was before our Congress whether it was expedient to send a minister 
 to the Congress of American Nations, about to assemble at Panama, Mr. Polk introduced among others,, 
 the following resolution : 
 
 - 
 
 S;i65 00 
 
 $24 
 
 648 00 
 
 9 
 
 117 00 
 
 35 
 
 140 00 
 
 45 
 
 90 00 
 
 2 
 
 40 00 
 
 6 
 
 12 00 
 
 30 
 
 330 00 
 
 1 
 
 05 159 60 
 
 - 
 
 17 86 
 
 - 
 
 43 00 
 
 . 
 
 139 OO 
 
 - 
 
 40 00 
 
 . 
 
 20 00 
 
 . 
 
 12 44 
 
 . 
 
 50 00 
 
 . 
 
 50 00 
 
 - 
 
 50 00 
 
 . 
 
 27 00 
 
 - 
 
 3 37i 
 
 
 $2,154 274 
 
 - 
 
 1,500 00 
 
26 
 
 " Resolved, That it is the sense of this House, that the sending of Ministers on the part of the United 
 States to take part in the deliberations of the Congress of the South American Nations at Panama, would 
 be a total departure from the uniform course of policy pursued by this Government, from the adojition of 
 the federal Constitution to the present period, and might, and in all probability would, have a tendency to 
 involve the nation in ' entangling alliances,' and endanger the neutrality and relations of amity and peace 
 which at present happily subsists between the United States and the belligerent powers — Old Spain and 
 the Southern Republics of this Continent." 
 
 At this crisis of Col. Polk's political career, it seems that he entertained a sott of holy horror against 
 our being involved in " entangling alliances," and deprecated, in the strongest language, the slightest ap- 
 proach towards any such catastrophe. But the lapse of time has quieted all his qualms of conscience, 
 and the disposition he manifested, like Dallas, when he was young in his legislative career, to sustain the 
 true Washington policy of the country, has long since disappeared. 
 
 POLK AND 011EG0>-. 
 
 In December, 1828, a bill was introduced into the lower House of Congress, authorizing the " imme- 
 diate" occupation of Oregon. Ja^iks K. Polk, then a member of the House, objected to the bill, and 
 actually made a speech against it, taking the ground that the passage of the bill would violate our existing 
 compact with Great Britain ! 
 
 In the National Intelligencer of January 6, 1829, now before us, the entire speech of Col. Polk on 
 this subject is reported. He objects to the " annexation^'' of Oregon, on the ground that " war will ensue" 
 
 . (^jjjjj I. a. Standin.o- Army would be necessary" — and that " the national honor is pledged not to violate 
 
 national engagements !" Finally, Col. Polk adds . 
 
 " With these facts before us, contained in the official documents on our tables, who can doubt, if we 
 send a mihtary force there, during the continuance in force of these treaties, but that Great Britain will 
 send one also, and if so, collisions between the aimed forces of the two countries might, and probably 
 would, be the consequence, and we might thus be compelled to decide by arms, that which would be much 
 better settled by negotiation." 
 
 Thus it will be seen, Mr. Polk had great regard fur our national honor in 1829, as well as a most holy 
 horror of war and standing armies ; but now that the Texas humbug has been sprung, and it is the last 
 hopo of Polk and his friends, why, treaty obligations and war are small matters in his eyes ! What a 
 hypocritical set of politicians these leading Locofocos are ! 
 
 We allude to this subject thus briefly, to show up the inconsistency of Polk and his supporters. Let 
 the facts here charged be once denied, and we pledge ourselves to prove them from the Journals of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 JEFFF.nSOS JACKSON PUBLIC LAICDS. 
 
 The public lands which were ceded by the States to the United States, were ceded upon the invitation 
 of the old Congress, /o conntitute a fund for the payment of the debts incurred in the war of the revolu- 
 tion. The deeds of cession declare the grant to be for the only use and benefit of such of the States as 
 are,or shall become numbers of the confederacy, to beheld and disposed of by Congress, solely for the 
 common use and benefit of the States then in the confederacy, and such as might thereafter come in. It 
 
 was so accepted. , , r t , • 
 
 After the adoption of the Constitution, Congress on the 3d of .\ugust, 1790, passed a law relating to 
 these lands, accepting them to pay the Revolutionary debt, to be applied solely to that use until the 
 said debts shall be discharged. We annex the 22d section of this act, with Gen. Washington's approval. 
 Read, and remember it 
 
 "Sec. 22. And be it further enacted, Thai the proceeds of the sa.]es of public lands in the Western 
 Territory, now belonging, or that may hereafter belong to the United States, shall be, and arc hereby appro- 
 priated towards sinking or discharging the debts for the payment whereof the United States now are, or 
 by virtue of this act may be holden, and shall be applied solely to that use UNTIL the said debts shall 
 
 ^^?Appro?ed," August 4, 1790. " GEORGE WASHINGTON." 
 
 It is thus conclusively shown, that the lands wcie ceded by the States, and accepted by the United 
 States, for the sole purpose of paying the debt of the Revolution. It was not contemplated, in the orig- 
 inal grant, ta apply any portion of the proceeds of the lands to meet the current expenses of the Gov- 
 
 In 1806 the income of the United States had increased to such an extent, as to be adequate to the 
 discharge of the current expenses and the instalments of the National debt, as fast as they became due. 
 Beyond this there was a prospect of a surplus beyond the proceeds of the land. Mr. JefTer-son, who waa 
 then President, in his annual message to Congress, called the attention of that body to the subject. Hi.1 
 advice was 7iot to suppress the impost, (the Tariff,) and give that advantage to foreign over domestic 
 manufactures. But he proposed the establishment by donations of land of a national establishment for 
 education. This is the first recommendation to Congress to keep the proceeds of the public landa oat 
 
27 
 
 of the National Trpasury, in or&er permanently to protect' American vianufacfures. Remember that. 
 
 He says — "The present consideration of a national establishment for education, particularly, is ren- 
 dered proper hy this circumstance also, that if Congress, approving the proposition, shall yet think it 
 more eligitile to found it on a donation of ptihlic lands, they have it now in tlieir power to endow it." 
 
 This object was not accomplished, and the matter remained until GEN. JACKSON was elected Pre- 
 siderit. In his tirst message to Congress, he recommended the APPORTIONMENT OF THE PRO- 
 Ct;EDS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS AMONG THE STATE8. His language is— 
 
 "It appears to me that the most safe, just, and federal disposition which could be made of the surplus 
 revenue, would be its APPORTIONMENT among the States, according to the ratio of representation." 
 
 In his second message, he said — "I have felt it my duty to recommend the adoption of some plan for 
 the DISTRIBUTION of the surplus funds which may at any time remain in the Treasury after the 
 NATIONAL DEBT shall have been paid, among tlie States in proportion to the number of their 
 l^epresentatives, to be applied by them to the objects of INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT." 
 
 Again, in his fourth message he more explicitly says: 
 
 " Previous to the formation of our present Constitution, it was recommended by Congress, that a por- 
 tion of the waste lands owned by the States, shnuld be ceded to the United States for the purposes of 
 general harmony, and as a fund to meet the expenses of xuar, (law of 1790 above quoted,) and the lands 
 may now be C(msidered as relieved from the pledt^e, the object for which they were ceded having been ac- 
 complished, (by the payment of the war debt,) it is in the discretion of Congress to dispose of them in 
 such a way as best to conduce to the quiet, harmony, and general interest of the American People. 
 
 " It seems to me to be our true policy, that the public lands shall cease, as soon as practicable, to be a 
 source of revenue. 
 
 " It seems to me best to abandon the idea of raising a future revenue out of the public lands. 
 
 " I have expressed my conviction, that the Constitution does not warrant the application of the lands 
 of the General Government to objects of Internal Improvement, which are not national in their character. 
 If the States feel themselves competent to these objects, why should this Government wish to assume 
 them 1 If the money (from sales of the public lands) can be collected and applied by those more simple 
 and economical machines, the State Gavernnients, it will unquestionably be safer and better for the peo- 
 ple, than to add to the splendor, the patronage, and the power of the General Govtmment." 
 
 It is now seen, that if the present Whig measure is a Federal measure, as the Locofocos assert, Mr. 
 Jetferson and Gen. Jackson are the Federalists that first started the project. 
 
 In 18'27, De Witt Clinton recommended distribution. In IS'^O, Gov. Throop, the "Democratic" Gov- 
 ernor of New York, recommended the distribution of the surplus revenue (not the proceeds of the lands 
 alone) among the States. He says : 
 
 " In a very few years the national debt will be paid off; and as but a small portion of the revenue wil! 
 be consumed in conducting the affairs of the Union within the constitutional limits, and as there are pru- 
 dential 1-eusonsfor continuing the duties, to a certain extent, there can be no valid objection to the dis' 
 triljutions on the surplus revenue among the States, to be dispose of at their discretion." 
 
 In his message of the 4th of June, 1831, Gov. Throop, again alludes to this subject as follows: 
 
 "In reference to the subject of revenue and internal improvements, I submitted to the consideration of 
 the last Legislature, the propriety of taking measures to ' procure a distribution of the surplus revenue of 
 the United States ' The same suggestion was made by the President (General Jackson) to Congress, in 
 his first message, and has been renewed by him in his late communication to that body. I esteem it of 
 sufficient importance to renew the suggestion, and press it earnestly upon your consideration." '' 
 
 In I83G, the last year of General Jackson's administration, Congress passed a law for distributing, ^ 
 way of deposite with the States, the surplus revenue, including the proceeds of the public lands. The 
 1.3tli section of this act, with Gen. Jackson's approval, is as follows: 
 
 Sec. 13. And be it further enacted. That the money which shall be in the Treasury of the Tnited 
 States, on the tirst day of December, 1837, reserving the sums of ^^S, 000, 000, shall be deposite with 
 the several States, in proportion to their respective representation, as by law authorizing the Trea'^rer, or 
 Other competent officer, to receive the same. 
 
 "Approved, June, 1836. ANDREW JACF'ON." 
 
 Who can doubt of the origin of the distribution project, with this evidence before them 1 ^ originated 
 with Mr. Jefferson, Gen. Jackson, and the " Locofoco party." Then it was a constity^nal, aqd a 
 most salutary measure. Now it is unconstitutional, and subversive of the liberties of the fO\)\e ! 
 
 Let us now briefly sum up this testimony. In 1790, the General Government rece/ed the public 
 domain as a source of revenue " until" the debt incurred by the revolutionary war sho'*'^ he paid. In 
 1806, Mr. Jefferson announced that the revenues of the Government, from imposts alonis were more than 
 sufficient to pay the revolutionary debt, and defray the current expenses of the Goveflrnent, and he ad- 
 vised the appropriation of the income from the sale of public lands to the purpose^ ot education.^ In 
 1827, De Witt Chnton, Governor of N. York, recommended the distribution of theHirplus funds of the 
 General Government. In 1829, General Jackson first recommended to Congress tl^esamc measure in aid 
 
28 
 
 of internal improvements, in which the State had enHsted with zeal, and continued to press the point till 
 it was done in the last year of his administration. In 1830, Gov. Throop, of N. York, pressed the same 
 measure upon the attention of the Legislature, and the next year urged it with increased vehemence. 
 All these recommendations, and the only ones thit have been made till quite recently, were made by ' 
 Presidents and Governors vauntingly denominated Democratic; and yet they have the insutTerable impu- 
 dence to call distribution a " Fediral measure " Indeei, that is the only objection, if it can be called one, 
 they have made to distribution. 
 
 We are in favor of distribution, not because it was advocated by Locofocos or Federalists, but be- 
 cause it is a measure of justice to the States, and in the highest degree politic. The avails of the public 
 lands have accomplished the patriotic puipose for which they were given to the General Government. 
 The national Treasury is new rich ; and the State governments need the procet-ds of the public lands to 
 enable them to maintain their faith with creditors ; to complete internal improvements ; promute education 
 and endow institutions for the care of the insiue, blind, and dumb. For these sound reasons, the Whig 
 party is in favor of (distributions ; and for the same reasons, the voice of the people uttered through the 
 ballot box, will sanction it 
 
 AVEHAOE AXSCAL PHOCEEUS OF THE LAND SALES- 
 
 The average annual and n^t proceeds of the sales of the public lands from 1830 to 1840, inclusive, 
 eleven years, were $6,964, 4.'i9, those of the whole period, being $76,609,0.59. In the former part of this 
 period the inciea.se of the sales was gradual, and may be con.silered heakhful. About the middle of it, 
 they rose to an unprecedented and unnatural amount, the proceeds of 1835 being $14,757,600, and those 
 of 1836, §84,641,979, from which time they eradually fell off, till in 1840, they had sunk to $3,292,220, 
 having started in 1830 at ^2,329,356. The disastrous history of the twelve years destructive dynasty, 
 which first inflated and then destroyed general credit, will account for this. As the land sales from 1828 
 to 1831 were considered moderate, showing an average annual increase of 23 per cent., as appears by 
 Mr. Clay's report to the Senate in 1836, that is, more than doubling every five years, it may perhaps be 
 assumed that the average annual proceeds from 1830 to 1840, as above stated, are not very much, if at 
 all, in exce.ss of a natural and prosperous state of things, at the present period of our history under a 
 good administration of the Government. Doubling the income every five years on |.2, 329,3.56, which 
 were the net proceeds of 1830, those of 1S40 would have been $9,317,424. As the annual sales arc 
 now gradually increasing again, it can hardly be many years, if the country should recover its fair condi- 
 tion of prosperity, before the proceeds from sales of the public lands will rise to ttn millium a year. Be 
 It more or less,_^ffi or seven, or ten millions, it cannot fail to be a very handsome and convenient sum, 
 annually increasing, to be distributed among the States, according to their Federal representation. As- 
 suming either of these, or any other given amount of annual proceeds, with a table showing the repre- 
 sentation in Congress, to which each State is entitled, senators included, it will be easy for any person to 
 work out the respective annual distributions among the States, if the General Government shall finally 
 award to them their just claims. When the proceeds shall be eight millions a year, the distribution for 
 such year will be as follows — 
 
 Maine 
 
 .'1^257,706 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 $741,936 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 $372,759 
 
 Missouri 
 
 200,716 
 
 N. Hampshire 
 
 172,040 
 
 Delaware 
 
 86,021 
 
 Ohio 
 
 659,498 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 86,021 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 344,086 
 
 Maryland 
 
 229,356 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 172,040 
 
 Michigan 
 
 143,369 
 
 Khode Island 
 
 118,279 
 
 Virginia 
 
 487,455 
 
 Indiana 
 
 344,086 
 
 Florida 
 
 28,673 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 172,040 
 
 N. Carolina 
 
 3 1.5.4 12 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 172,040 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 28,673 
 
 Vermont 
 
 172,040 
 
 S. Carolina 
 
 257,706 
 
 Illinois 
 
 257,706 
 
 Iowa 
 
 28,673 
 
 New York 
 
 1,032,258 
 
 Georgia 
 
 286,7,38 
 
 Alabama 
 
 257,706 
 
 D. of Columbia 
 
 28,673 
 
 ^ew Jersey 
 
 200,716 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 344,085 
 
 
 
 
 
 $4,857,600 69 
 
 1837 
 
 $6,883,556 46 
 
 1840 
 
 $3,494,356 41 
 
 1843 
 
 $1,963,028 82 
 
 14,757,600 75 
 
 1838 
 
 3,214,183 93 
 
 1841 
 
 1,470,295 12 
 
 1844 
 
 * 2,250,000 00 
 
 24,877,179 86 
 
 1839 
 
 7,267,447 94 
 
 1842 
 
 1,434,878 58 
 
 
 
 W^hen the annual proceeds shall ri.se to sixteen millions — they have been over twenti/'four millions — 
 Oo~f)le the above apportionments respectively, and they will be the quotas of distribution. 
 
 l^ceipts into the Trea.sury from Lands, from 1834 to 1844, inclusive — 
 1834 - 
 1835 
 1836 
 
 * Estriated by the Secretary of the Treasury 
 
 POLK ASD THE CATHOLICS- 
 
 -bvery l^p^ paper in this country is denouncing tlie Whigs on a false assumption that they are hostile 
 
 to !ne natuiiiz.jtion of foreigners, and disposed to deal illiberally with the Roman Catholics. To sustaia 
 
 P Tif ^!^^^^^'°"^ ^''Py offer nothing but assertion ; but this is not the case we pursue in regard to Mr 
 
 , ° ". "^ '®^e nothing in regard to him to rest upon surmise, though from the tiny character of the man 
 
 °T, '" "■^g'^rd I, talents and principles, but little evidence is requisite. 
 
 ver since thi establishment of our Government, it has been a practice to relieve all reUgious sects 
 om the paymenvof all duties payable upon such church furniture, books, &c., as may have been pre- 
 sented to Congres by donors in foreign lands. This has annually been done by the passage of laws to 
 re und the duties piiA upon such church propeity. Sometime prior to 1834, certain persons in France 
 •donated to the Romai Catholic church in St. Louis certain bells, worth about $8,000. In the session of 
 
 ■I 
 
29 
 
 that year, the Senate of the United States passed a bill to refund the church those duties. The bill was 
 referred, in the House of Representatives, to the Committee of Ways and Means, and, o?i the lOlh day of 
 June, 1834, Mr. Polk, from that committee, reported that bill back to the House, with a recommenda- 
 tion that it be rejected ! ! But that is not all. When, on the 30th of June, the bill was put on its pas- 
 sage, the said James K. Polk, now the pretended advocate of foreigners and Roman Catholics, voted 
 against the bill ! !— See Niles' Register, vol. 46, page 263. 
 
 On page 298, of the same volume of Niles' Register, referred to above, we find the following: 
 A correspondent of the New York American, under date of Washington, June 16, said: "In the course 
 of the past week Mr. Polk astonished the House, by reporting that the Committee of Ways and Means, 
 of which he and Mr. Cambreleng have, it is well known, complete control, recommended the rejection of 
 a bill passed by the Senate for the relief of the Roman Catholic church in St. Louis. The circumstance 
 has created much sensation here. The inhabitants of that city, it would appear, have received a present 
 of a set of bells from France, of the estimated value of six or seven thousand francs, [say $1,500,] the 
 duty on which was estimated, and a sum of $618 deposited at New Orleans with the collector, to await 
 the result of an application to Congress to permit this importation free, which, under such circumstances, 
 was usual. Mr. Verplanck has always acted on the principle that all ornamental or useful articles of any 
 kind, designed foi public emifices of any kind, presented to them as free gifts, were, for so much, a 
 public benefit, and, as such, ought to be admitted free of the duty on importation. 
 
 CLAT IX RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF AMERICAN SEAMEX. 
 
 The following passages will convey some idea of the stirring and impressive eloquence which Mr. 
 Clay brought to the aid of his powerful arguments in support of the measures necessary for conducting 
 the war with ^efficie^ncy— the deep interest he took in the welfare of NATURALIZED CITIZENS 
 and IMPRESSED SEAMEN. They are from his speech on the New Army Bill, January Sth, 1813. 
 
 " We are told by gentlemen in the opposition, that Government has not done all that was incumbent 
 on It to do, to avoid just cause of complaint on the part of Great Britain— that, in particular, the certifi- 
 cates of protection, authorized by the act of 1796, are fraudulently used. Sir, Government has done too 
 much in granting those paper protections. I can nev^r think of them without being shocked. They re- 
 semble the passes which the master grants to his negro slave.—" Let the bearer, Mungo, pass and repass 
 without molestation." What do they imply .' That Gfeat Britain has a right to seize all who are not 
 provided with them. From their very nature they must be liable to abuse on both sides. If Great Britain 
 desires a mark by which she can know her own subjects, let her give them an ear mark. THE COLORS 
 THAT FLOAT FROM THE MAST HEAD SHOULD BE THE CREDENTIALS OF OUR 
 SEAMEN. 
 
 There is no safety to us, and the gentlemen have shown it, but in the rule that all who sail under the 
 flag, (not being enemies,) are protected by the flag. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THIS COUN- 
 TRY SHOULD EVER ABANDON THE GALLANT TARS WHO HAVE WON FOR US 
 SUCH SPLENDID TROPHIES. Let me suppose that the Genius of Columbia should visit one of 
 them m his oppressor's prison, and attempt to reconcile him to his forlorn and wietched condition. She 
 would say to him, in the language of gentlemen on the other side, " Great Britain intends you no 
 harm; she did not mean to impress you, but one of her own subjects; having taken you by mistake, I 
 will remonstrate, and try to prevail upon her, by peaceful means, to release vou, but'l cannot, mv son, 
 fight for you." If he did not consider this mere mockery, the poor tar would address her judgment 
 and say, " You owe me, my country, protection ; I owe you, in return, obedience. I am no British 
 subject ; I am a native of old Massachusetts, where live my aged father, my wife my childien I 
 have faithfully discharged my duty. Will you refuse to do vours .' Appealing to her passions, he 
 would continue : "Host this eye fighting under Truxfon, with the Insurgente: I got this scar before 
 Tripoli ; I broke this leg on board the Constitution, when the Guerriere struck." If she remained 
 still unmoved, he would break out, in the accents of mingled distress and despair— 
 " Hard, hard is my fate ! once I freedom enjoyed. 
 Was as happy as happy could be ! 
 Oh ! how hard is my fate, how galling these chains !" 
 
 I will not imagine the dreadful catastrophe to which he would be driven, bv an abandoment of him 
 io his oppressor. It will not be, it cannot be, that this country will refuse him'protection. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 It remains only to remind our Whig friends that this is the moment for spirited and vigorous exertion, 
 as well as for constancy and firmness. The great engine played against Mr. Clay is calumny ; not the 
 ebullition of individuals, not the occasional extravagance of an irresponsible press, but an organized sys- 
 tem of detraction and falsehood. In the language of the Locofoco party, "the public press is to be brought 
 to bear" on every man who is its enemy, and whose talents and character are obstacles to its success. 
 What they mean is, that the public press, from Maine to Louisiana, is to denounce and defame every 
 such man, and proclaim him an object of public hatred or public scorn, in utter disregard of all truth, and 
 with no fault to lay to his charge, except resistance to their will. We feel the deepest humiliation, not 
 as friends of Mr. Clay, bot as American citizens, at the countenance given by those from whom better 
 
30 
 
 things were expected, to this atrocious practice of personal abuse. We see, with mortification and grie/, 
 as vvell as with something of irrepressible indignation, instances, not solitary, in which outrageous slan- 
 der, the lowest and most disgusting scandal and defamation on liis public and private character, does not. 
 turn away from its authors the liberal streams of patronage. 
 
 If we may judge of the manner in wliich power will be exercised, by the means by which it is sought 
 to be obtained, there is enough, truly, to alarm our fears, and to call forth all our exertions. America has 
 ceased to be America; this country is no longer the country we have been taught from our youth to lave 
 with the warmest attachment, if there be not virtue enough yet left among us, to meet with stern rebuke, 
 and punish with just retiibution, this unbounded license of falsehood, this ferocity of calumny, which 
 threatens to plunge society into violence or carry it back to barbarism. 
 
 Kelying on a good cause, let the friends of Mr. CLAY breast this storm. Let them appeal to the good 
 sense and the good feehng of the Pkoplk. Let them labor to dispel prejudice, confute error, and correct 
 misrepresentation, and meet barefaced falsehoods with unqualified denials. Let them exert the powers of 
 truth and of reason, to convince those around them of the importance of the present crisis. Events are 
 on the wing, which will leave consequences of long duration and strong bearing, for evil or for good, on 
 these Unite°d States. If our own opportunities of observation, upon men and things, have eiiabled us to 
 form any true judgment, the success of the Locofoco candidate for the Presidency would be f'aught with 
 disastrous consequences to the Government and to the country. Convinced, for ourselves deeply, that the 
 great question nearly concerns the public safety, prosperity, and happiness; and resolved, for ourselves, 
 one and all, to do our whole duty in exerting our utmost endeavors to carry on the cause to a triumphant 
 result, we now invoke you, in the spirit of patriotism, to use your strongest exertions to elevate to the 
 Presidency Henut Clay — a statesman who is profoundly versedin the history and Constitution of his coun- 
 try ; who understands its connections and relations with foreign Powers, its political and commercial in- 
 
 power „ ..... 
 
 conceded to him on all sides; no political writer ever pretended to deny them; none of any reputation or 
 authority ever omitted to give him credit for them. But the positive merits of Mr. Clay are not less ob- 
 vious than his comparative qualifications. The many important stations he has filled with honor to him- 
 self and advantage to the country, and to which he was raised by no unworthy act— no low intrigues 
 prepared the way for his elevation. Rome herself does not afford an instance of gradation of honors ir.ore 
 fairly earned, or more earnestly supported, by any of her citizens. To an eminent rectitude of under- 
 standing, and sound and practical wisdom, he unites a peculiar dignity and integrity of principle, and 
 such unatfected republican simplicity of character, as to make him appear like the posthumous offspring 
 of a Ruman age. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 James K. Polk's votes, taken from the Journals of the House of Representatives. 
 
 THE TARIFF.— WOOL AND WOOLLENS. 
 
 1 The bill to amend acts imposing duties on imports— to protect woollen manufacturers and wool grow 
 ers-passed-yeas 106, nays 95. James K. Polk voting way—Journal of H. of R. 1826-'27, page 282. 
 
 ^^0 'The amendment imposing or Brussels, Turkey and Wilton cai-pets, &c , a duty of 70 cents persquars 
 var^d • on Venetian and ingrain carpets, &c., 40 cents per square yard ; on all other kinds of carpets, &,c., 
 of wool, flax, hemp, or cotton, &c., 32 cents per square yard, was agreed to— yeas 125, nays 6t). James 
 
 ^3 The^amendment— "On woollen blankets 40 per cent, advalorem," was rejected— yeas 78, nays 105; 
 
 '^T*n\^"am''endmenT— '''on worsted stuflTgoods and bombazines, 35 per cent ad valorem," was rejected- 
 yeas 73 na^-sl07. James K. Polk vot.ng nay.-Jomml of H. of R. 1827- '28, pages 487, 489, 491 ; April 
 
 5 The tariff bill of 1828 passed— yeas 105, nays 94. James K. Polk voting nuj/.— Journal of H. of R 
 1827-'28, page 607; April 22d, 1828. , , n, • . , co -i.in t v 
 
 6 The amendment to reduce the duty on wool and woollens rejected— yeas 68, nays 120. James K. 
 Polk voting y6a.- -Journal ot H. of R 1829-'30, page 6i6; May 11th, 1830. 
 
 7 ThH amendment of 40 per cent, ad valorem duty on unmanufactured wool was agreed to— yeas 113, 
 Js 75 JamefK. Polk vot.ng «a.v.-Journal of H. of R. 1831-'3-2, page 919; June •22d, 18.32. 
 
 8 The amendment to raise duty on woollen yarn to 50 per cent, ad valorem was agreed to— yeas 110: 
 nays 79 James K Polk vot.ng ,W--J->nal of H. oi;^R. 1831-'32, page 922; June 22d, 1832. 
 
 q The amendment to raise the duty on mits, gloves, bindings, blankets, hosiei-y, and carpets, &c., ex 
 .-Zt Rr issels In°rain, and Venetian carpets, from 25 per cent, ad valorem to 30 per cent ad valorem 
 wa?rejectecS--yeas gS: z.ays 94. James K. Polk voting nay.-Journal of H. of R. l33I-'32, page 991 
 
 ''"lO The'amendment imposing on flannels and baizes a specific duty of 16 cents per sq. yard was agre© 
 
31 
 
 —yeas 93, nays 91. James K. Polk voting noi/.~ Journal of H. of R. 1831-'82, page 1009; June 27tb, 
 IIS32 
 
 11 The amendment to raise the duty on Brussels carpet to 63 cents per sq. yard was agreed to — yeas 
 >8, nays 92. James K. Polk voting nay. — Journal of H. of R. 1831-'32, page 1006; June 27th, 1832. 
 
 B. 
 
 IRON, COTTON, HEMP, &c. 
 
 1 The amendment on other manufactures of hemp and flax, a duty of 30 per cent, until June 30th, 
 ^829 — and thereafter an annual increase of 5 per cent until the whole ad valorem duty shall amount to 
 10 per cent — was rejected — yeas 48, nays 143. Jas. K. Polk voting nay — Journal of H. of R. 1827-'28, 
 )age491; April 7th, 1828. 
 
 2 The amendment on bar and bolt iron, made wholly or in part by rolling, a duty of #37 per ton, was 
 igreed to— yeas 117, nays 71. James K. Polk voting nay — Journal of H. of R. 1827-'28, page 515 ; 
 Vpril 9th, 1828. 
 
 3 The amendment fixing rate of duty on raw cotton at 2 cents per pound was rejected — yeas 80, nays 
 !1. James K. Polk voting wo^y— Journal ot H. of R. 1832-'33, page 377; February 20th, 1833. 
 
 OIL CLOTHS, LEAD, OILS, &c, 
 
 4 The amendment ' on all patent floor cloths 50 cents per square yard; on oil cloth carpeting, &c. 25 
 ents per square yard ; on furniture oil cloth i.') cents per square yard ; on floor matting made of flags, &c. 
 .5 cents per square yard, was agreed to — yeas 99, nays 93 — James K. Polk voting nay. Journal of H. 
 .f R. 1827-'28, page 573; April 15th, 1828. 
 
 5 The amendment ' on all lead in pigs, bars or sheets, 3 cents per pound ; on leaden shots, 4 cents per 
 >ound ; on red or white lead, dry or ground in oil, 5 cents per pound, &c., was agreed to — yeas 1 13, nays 
 >7 — James K. Polk voting J^ffy. Journal of H. of R. 1827-'28, page 753 ; May 15, 1828. 
 
 6 The amendment imposing on linseed, hempseed, and rapeseed oils a duty of 25 cents per gallon; oh 
 ive oil 20 cents per gallon, was agreed to — yeas 86, nays 75. James K. Polk voting nay — Journal of 
 
 a. of R. 1832-'33, page 387 ; February 2 1st, 1833. 
 
 HATS, SADDLES, BOOTS, &c. 
 
 7 The amendment imposing 'on cabinet wares, hats and caps of fur, leather or wool, whips, bridles, 
 laddles, and all manufactures of leather not otherwise sjiecified, carriages and parts of carriages, and blank 
 "Ooks, a duty of 30 per cent, ad valorem ; on boots and shoes $1 50 per pair, was agreed to — yeas 105, 
 lays 75 — James K. Polk voting nay — Journal of H. of R. 1831-'32, page 927 ; June 22d, 1832. 
 
 DISTILLED SPIRITS, SUGAR. 
 
 8 The amendment imposing 30 per cent, additional duty on impoited distilled spirits was rejected — 
 reas 58, nays 131. Jas. K. Polk voting nay — Journal of H. of R. 1827-'28, page 502; April 8, 1828. 
 
 9 The amendment imposing 15 per cent additional duty on imported distilled spirits was agreed to 
 
 reas 106, nays 87. Jas. K. Polk voting nay — Journal of H. of R. 1827-'28, page 506 ; April 8, 1828. 
 
 REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS. 
 
 10 The motion to postpone the orders of the day, and take up the bill for the relief of the surviving of- 
 icers of the revolution failed — yeas 87, nays 88. James K. Polk voting nay — Journal of H. of R. 1826 
 
 'i47, page 207 ; January 26th, 1827. 
 
 1 1 The Senate bill for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the army of the revolution, 
 was passed — yeas ! 15, nays 58. James K. Polk voting nay — Journal of H. of R. 1827-'28, pages 734, 
 ?39; May 1 3th, 1828. 
 
 12 The bill entitled 'An act declaratory of the several acts to provide for certain persons engaged ia 
 '.he land and naval service of the United States in the revolutionary war ' was passed — yeas 122 nays 56. 
 James K. Polk voting nay — Journal of H. of R. 1829-'30, page 443; March 19th, 1830. 
 
 13 The additional act providing for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the Unit- 
 ed S(ates in the revolutionary war was passed — yeas 126, nays 48. James K, Polk voting ??ay Journal 
 
 Df H. of R. 1831-'32, page 695; May 2nd, 1832, 
 
 AMERICAN SEAMEN. 
 
 14 'An act for the relief of the widows and orphans of the officers, seamen, and marines of the sloop of 
 var Hornet,' was passed — yeas 1 38, nays 42. James K. Polk voting nay — Journal of H. of R, 1829-'30, 
 oage 309; February 18th, 1830. 
 
 THE UNFORTUNATE. 
 
 15 The bill to provide for the indigent sufferers by fire in Alexandria passed — yeas 109, nays 67. '■ 
 
 James K, Polk voting 7iay — Journal of H. of R. 1826-'27, page 183 ; January 19th, 1827. 
 
 0. 
 
 The Tariff— Wool and WooUens. 
 I A question of consideration of motion to reduce the duties on iron, wool, woollens, and cotton bagw 
 ging, decided in the negative — yeas 66, nays 1 M, Jas. K. Polk voting yw — Journal of H. of R. 1630- 
 31. page 59; Dec. 14, 18,10. 
 
 ■^' 
 
32 
 
 2 The amendment of theSenate, increasing the duty on Merino shawls, and other manufactures o 
 wool, to 57 per cent, ad valorem, was rejected — yeas 84, nays 91. James K. Polk voting nay — Journa 
 of H. of R. 183 1 -'32, page 1123; July 10th, 1832. 
 
 3 The amendment imposing on cloths, kerseymeres, merino shawls, and other woollen manufactures,! 
 duty of $3.5 for every i^lOO in value thereof until March 2d, 1835, then a duty of |30 until March 2(1 
 1836, and thereafter a duty of $25, was agreed to — yeas 106, nays 73. James K. Polk voting nay— 
 Journal of H. of R. 1832-'33, page 356 ; February 18th, 1833. 
 
 Iron, Cotton, Hemp, etc. 
 
 4 The amendment imposing on cotton bagging a duly of 4^ cents per square yard until June 30tl 
 1829, and thereafter a duty of 5^ cents per square yard, was agreed to — yeas 112, nays 77. James K 
 Polk voting Jjftjy— Journal ofH. of R. 1827-'28, page 496 ; April 7th, 1828. 
 
 5 The amendment to raise the duty on hemp to $10 per ton was agieed to — yeas 98, nays 93. Jame 
 K. Polk voting rtffy— Journal of H. of R. 1831-32, page 1003 ; June 27th, 1832. 
 
 6 The amendment fixing rate of duty on raw coiton at two cents per pound was rejected — yeas 80, naj 
 81. James K. Polk voting /iojr— Journal of H. of R. 1832-'33, page 377 ; February 20lh, 1833. 
 
 Sugar. 
 
 7 The bouse refused to reconsider resolution repealing the duty on sugar — yeas 83, nays 98. Jami 
 K. Polk voting ^^ea— Journal of H. of K. 1830-'31, page 49 ; December 13th, 1830. 
 
 Coffee and Tea, 
 
 8 The amendment to strike out the duty on coffee was agreed to — yeas 117, nays 57. James K. Po 
 voting ??a_//— Journal of H. of R. l832-'33. page 390; February 21st, 1833. 
 
 9 The amendment to strike out the duty on teas was agreed to — yeas 108, nays 62. James K. Po 
 voting nay — Journal of H. of R. 1832-'33, page 392 ; February 21st, 1833, 
 
 REVOLUTION.ARY SOLDIERS. 
 
 10 The bill entitled ' An act supplementary to the act for the relief of certain surviving officers and s 
 diers of the revolution,' pussed — yeas 132, nays 52. James K. Polk voting nay — Journal of H. of 
 1830-31, page 323; February 17th, 1831, 
 
 The Poor. 
 
 1 1 The resolution to appropriate 30 cords of wood to the suffering poor of Georgetown, D. C , v 
 adopted — yeas 108, nays 79. James K. Polk voting riay — Journal of H. of R. 1830-'31, page 2 
 February 1st, 1831, 
 
 District of Columbia, county of Washington, to wit : 
 
 I certify, that on the 10th day of September, one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, I compa 
 the votes of James K. Polk, as stated in the paper hereunto annexed marked A, and numbered from 1 
 11 inclusive, with the Journals of the House of Representatives, and find them to be correctly copied. 
 
 W. THOMPSON, J. P. 
 DiSTTiicT OF Columbia, county of Washington, to wit : 
 
 I hereby certify, that on the eleventh day of September, one thousand eight handred and forty-fou 
 compared the votes of James K. Polk, as stated in the paper hereunto annexed, (^marked B,) and ni 
 bered from 1 to 15 inclusive, with the Journals of the House of Representatives, and find them to be c 
 rectly copied. JNO. L. SMITH, J. P 
 
 United States of Xjiihricx, Department of State : 
 
 To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting. 
 I certify, that W. Thompson and John L. Smith, whose names are subscribed to the paper herei 
 annexed, are now, and were, at the time of subscribing the same, justices of the peace for the count 
 Washington, in the District of Columbia, duly commissioned, and that full faith and confidence are 
 to their acts as such. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I, John C. Calhoun, Secretary of State of the United States, have hereunto i 
 scribed my name, and caused the seal of the Department of State to be affixed. Done at 
 [seal.] city of Washington, this twelfth day of September, A. D. 1844, and of the independence of 
 United States of America the 69th. J, C. CALHOUN. 
 
 Distuict of Columbia, county of Washington, to wit : 
 
 I certify, that on this 17th day of September, 1844, 1 compared the votes of James K. Polk, as state 
 the paper hereunto annexed marked C, and numbered from one to eleven inclusive, with the journa 
 the House of Representatives, and find them to be correctly copied, 
 
 W, THOMPSON, J. Peat 
 
 For sale at Gideon's Piinting Office, Washington, D. C. Price $2 per 10 
 
i 
 
I 
 
Lfc Ap '09 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 783 270 3