s p a e c h 
 
 OF 
 
 |MR. JOSEPH H. PEYTON, OF TENNESSEE, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives, June 5, 1844. 
 
 Mr. PEYTON, who, though deeply averse to speaking, excused him- 
 gself for doing so on the ground that it would be expected of him by his 
 |constituents ; but since Mr. Clay, Mr. Van Buren, and Mr. Polk, had 
 gbeen brought into the debate by other gentlemen, he should claim to fol- 
 | low in the footsteps of his “ illustrious predecessors.” 
 
 I Mr. Clay had been traduced and vilified by all who had spoken from 
 I the Democratic side of the House. He had been compared by Mr. 
 IRathbun, of New \ork, to Caesar, to Caligula, and to Cromwell. He 
 jjasked all to look at his acts, to contemplate his public history, and to look 
 I at the conduct of those of the party who opposed him, and then say which 
 | were the acts of a Cromwell. He asked who it was that had been at the 
 jcommencement of this Congress, in favor of maintaining the majesty and 
 I supremacy of the laws ? The Whig party, with Mr. Clay at its head. On 
 I the other hand, who were they who had come up into this hall, and by a 
 jsweeping vote nullified the districting law? And who were they who at 
 | this very hour held seats here directly in the teeth of law ? Who had car- 
 Sried out those doctrines of nullification which South Carolina had only 
 J threatened, and openly trampled the Constitution under foot ? The De- 
 Bmocratic pai ty. 
 
 Look at one of the first acts of this Congress, immediately after its or¬ 
 ganization. The Journal of the House, the record of its proceedings had 
 been deliberately mutilated, by order of a Democratic majority The 
 Whigs had entered their solemn protest against the right of the nullifying 
 recusants to seats in this House, and placed that protest on the journal • but 
 where was it? It had, by an unconstitutional order, been stricken from its 
 place, and was no more to be found there. Yet he talked about Caligulas ! 
 j Mr. P. then referred to the proceedings of the Senate of Tennessee. 
 
 | The Whigs in that State had a majority of votes on joint ballot, and Sen¬ 
 ators of the United States for that State had always been thus elected 
 But a set of men now characterized there and elsewhere as “ the immortal* 
 thirteen,” of which his colleague (Mr. Andrew Johnson) was one af¬ 
 ter having, twice so voted, (for Felix Grundy,) as soon as it was found 
 that there was a majority for Whig Senators, suddenly declared that 
 mode of electing Senators fo be unconstitutional ; and so great were 
 their qualms of conscience, that when the vote was to be taken, they stub¬ 
 bornly retained their seats, and thereby prevented the election, and kept 
 their Slate unrepresented in the other branch of the National Legislature. 
 
 It is a little remarkable, that the consciences of gentlemen should have 
 been so quiet when voting for Mr. Grundy, and that they should have 
 been so much disturbed when called upon to vote for a Whig under pre¬ 
 cisely similar circumstances. 1 
 
 These (Mr. P. said) were some of the tendencies of the Democratic 
 
party. A gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Duncan) had made a speech, not 
 long since, in which he represented the Whigs about the city of Cin¬ 
 cinnati as a set of swindlers, cut-throats, and traitors; and had observed 
 that it was the native tendency of Whiggery to lead to corruption, an¬ 
 archy, and despotism. Mr. P. had therefore presented a specimen of the 
 tendencies of this—not Jeffersonian, no, but this—modern, this latter-day r 
 this Joe Smith, this barn-burning, this Dorrite Democracy, which held 
 that the people had a right to act in masses against both law and Consti¬ 
 tution. These “ immortal thirteen” in Tennessee had nullified the action 
 of their own legislative body. Here was one of the tendencies of modern 
 Democracy. 
 
 As to the Democracy of “ Governor Dorr,” its whole history was one 
 of the most infamous affairs that disgraced the annals of our country. His 
 party b claimed the right in their unorganized mass, as the great magazine of 
 all power, to change laws and overturn constitutions at will ; and, when 
 offered the very things they desired, scorned to receive them through either 
 legislature or convention. There was no perceptible difference as to the 
 latitude of suffrage, or any other democratic right, between the constitu¬ 
 tion they attempted to frame and that agreed to in a lawful assembly ; yet 
 they would not take it, because it came from the hands of the constituted 
 authorities. Yet the Democratic party were ready to back them, and did 
 vote them countenance and aid in proceedings more anarchical than any 
 in the days of Danton, Marat, or Robespierre. When this doctrine pre¬ 
 vails, your laws, your constitutions, vested rights, rights of property, mar¬ 
 riage contracts, the peace and order of society, will depend upon the whim, 
 the passion, and the caprice of the hour. The prevalence of such a doc¬ 
 trine would be the death knell of liberty, and would at once resolve society 
 into its original elements, w hen brute strength, rapine, and violence, w ould 
 usurp the place of justice, order, and civil government. 
 
 As to the charge of Federalism, which had been brought against the 
 Whigs, who, he asked, were they who w'ere in favor of giving to the Pres¬ 
 ident the kingly pow'er of destroying the legislation of both Houses of 
 Congress at his mere will and pleasure ? Was it the Whigs? Mr. Clay 
 was against this power. He held that ought to be the law' of the land 
 which the People’s Representatives in both branches of the Legislature 
 declared should be the law ; but the Democrats par excellence were for 
 vesting all power in one man, and allowing him to cut off the heads of as 
 many legislative acts as might suit his own notions or selfish purposes>. 
 Of these two classes of politicians, which were the Federalists and which 
 the Republicans ? 
 
 Rut to quit principles, and go a little into the personnel of Federalism. 
 Where were the Federalists actually found ? He referred to the old anti¬ 
 war Federalists! 
 
 He would begin wnth James Buchanan ; and w r hat had been his sen¬ 
 timents ? He says : 
 
 “ The Democratic Administration declared war against commerce. They were not satisfied 
 with depriving it of the protection of a navy, but they acted as though they had determined upon- 
 its annihilation. 
 
 * * •**<** * 
 
 “ Time will not allow me to enumerate all the other wild and wicked acts of the Democratic 
 Administration. 
 
 * * * * * * * 
 
 “ After they had, by refusing the Bank of the United States continuance of its charter, embar¬ 
 rassed the financial concerns of the Government, they rashly plugged cs into a war. 
 
3 
 
 **“* degreC,0,he 'but disgraceful in the 
 
 JtaftkL'lfn”/ *5‘ ™ h “ V . e obt , aincd a P eace - b “ d md ‘^graceful as it is. 
 form of^emmZ." )S m setting themselves in array against Jpresent admirable 
 
 0 ri°I^ r -X an Bu / en ’ s l¥ e ) United States Senators 
 
 . -j -.«u«uiciiaiidie united state 
 
 S ro wMa i ne, in iSia, assisted to burn James Madison in effigy.'- 
 
 P Mr V n » l [forB,e 5 ly ] United S,ates ® ena(or from New Jersey, and 
 ^?oor of Congress': ’ ” ade ,he follo ' vin § dfecla >' a '‘<>n on the 
 
 a„ d acled 
 
 < “, He ^ Hubbard, another Senator of the same stamp, and who is now 
 
 ^ -flectipn dJri^th^J^taSrn- 
 
 ary war he should have been a Tory.” 
 
 I relied* Vhlf^ “T"”"* '”, h » d «l>°«”M, ,„<| brf 
 
 t»5BEn> :i3 i‘' g3 ssras; 
 
 ing extracts: * H P 0pini0ns may be gathered from the follow- 
 
 complete triumph of UrerSenLte < ^ SC ^K >: myZiblel 1 h 1 fi ” d !? J ' 6elf cnab,cd t0 announce the 
 have produced the change in fevor'of FedenZnT^h .‘ n ¥ C , aUSe ° f native countr y 
 of my hopes, the summit of my wishes ” “The friuhtfn S | n" laVe 1 amVed at the acme 
 
 head before the Heaven-derived spirit of Federalism* of Democracy begins to droop its 
 roams the Lybian wastes, and jo/s to drench^ Ms tuskTin ^ “T^ aS thatwhi <' h 
 
 0V6 ^r!l W pl e “ Xten tj 0f ° U1 " c u ^ r y a pcrniciou^blas^ ^hmfwiriiers eimry 6 thing’hTouch^” 3 ^ 011 
 
 in ”v' c> en B, J ant ’ ed,tor oft he New York Evening Post the lead 
 
 ■tr.1tu “of : TComTjeffeSoT- ^ 8a '’ e ‘ he f ° llowin S P° etical P- 
 
 ‘‘And thou the scorn of every patriot’s name, 
 
 I hy country s ruin, and her council’s shame ! 
 
 Foor servile thing! derision of the brave ' 
 
 VV ho erst from Tarleton fled to Carter’s cave, 
 
 1 hou, who, when menaced by perfidious GauL 
 llid prostrate to her whiskered minions fall, 
 
 And when our cash her empty bags supplied, 
 
 JJid meanly strive the foul disgrace to hide; 
 
 Go, wretch, resign the presidential chair, 
 ihsclose thy secret measures, foul or fair, 
 
 Go, search with curious eye for horned frogs, 
 
 Mid the wild wastes of Louisiana bogs: 
 
 Or, where the Ohio rolls its turbid stream, 
 p 1 g for hu S e bones, thy glory and thy theme, 
 
 Go, scan, Philosophic, thy -charms, 
 
 £ Hd smk supinely in her sable arms, 
 
 Fut quit to abler hands the helm of State, 
 tt xNor lma S e on thy country’s fate.” 
 
 ffssa: jars, r+arx! ^ 
 
4 
 
 diary, and notorious as the author of the insult from whence sprang into 
 existence the 1 Log Cabin devices,’ which so perplex our opponents, de¬ 
 clared in 1837, that he would 4 never ask forgiveness for the political sin 
 which stamped upon him the name of Federalist; we delight in the name. 
 Again, in 1838, he said : 
 
 « To us, the name of Federalism is a subject of no reproach. We rejoice to hear it, and hop® 
 that our efforts to honor and support it may be such as it merits. While others are endeavoring to 
 hold it up to scorn, and are deserting its standard for the purpose, °f 
 
 from other hands, it shall be our glory to support its cause, and our feeble powers shall always be 
 employed to display its beauties to others .” 
 
 Now, then, he would again inquire, where was Federalism to be found. 
 He thought he had placed it on the right side of the party # line 
 
 [Mr. Ingersoll here asking the loan of the book from which the a ove 
 quotations had been made, Mr. P. replied: « Tatte good care of it, and 
 do not derange its contents ; it is an excellent magazine of Whig ammu¬ 
 nition, and 1 mean to draw on it for some missiles, I hope, to hurl at the 
 
 polk stalks of Tennessee.”] . A A . .. • » * 
 
 1 And now as to this farce of a nomination at Baltimore. A distinguished 
 gentleman from New York so denominated it publicly, and without the 
 slightest reserve ; declared openly that it ought to meet with no respect 
 from the country, and that James K. Polk could not get one electoral col¬ 
 lege, unless that of South Carolina, and that would depend on the mere 
 whim and caprice of John C. Calhoun. . . 
 
 [This annunciation produced very great sensation in Y , 
 
 Mr. STETSON, of New York, inquired of Mr. P. who the New York 
 
 member referred to was. . .. , 
 
 Mr PEYTON replied, that for the name of the gentleman, and all the 
 circumstances, he would refer the gentleman to the Hon. Mr. Black, of 
 South Carolina. He would tell him who he was. 
 
 Mr. STETSON repeated his inquiry, observing that the statement ha 
 
 taken him completely by surprise. • 
 
 f Mr. Black, of South Carolina, advanced across the Hall to the pos 
 
 tion occupied by Mr. P., and requested Mr. P. t0 re P eat th ® an ^ Ua f® *!' 
 leged to have been used ; which Mr. P. did, and Mr. B. bowed assent, 
 
 ^Mr! PEYTON replied, it was a member on this floor, a distinguished 
 member of the House, a great friend to Mr. Van Buren, and, ,n f “‘» c ??' 
 sidered as his right-hand man here. That gentleman had ^ e ?' a ' ed i c ‘ 
 Polk could not get the vote of one electoral college, unless ini South C 
 lina, and that depended on the whim and caprice of.John, C. Calhoun. If the 
 gentleman would apply to the honorable gentleman from South C arol, " a > 
 £is political friend, who was good democratic authority, he could D et 
 
 the information he desired. 
 
 Mr. P. was about proceeding in his speech, when 
 Mr. STETSON again interposed, (Mr. P. not yielding the floor,) a 
 said that, as Mr. P. was the only one wlio had referred to the mem e 
 from the New York delegation, it was to him alone he oug..t to apply for 
 
 PEYTON said he would not be thus interrupted : there was a point 
 
 where courtesy ceased to be a virtue. Baltimore in- 
 
 A majority of the members of the late convention went t , , 
 
 Structed and pledged to vote for Mr. Van Buren; andwith 
 the convention assembled, charged whoever shodId do> ... y 
 
 treachery. And what was the result. A majority di \ • — 
 
5 
 
 Buren ; but for this most Democratic assembly a simple majority was not 
 enough. True, Thomas Jefferson thought a majority ought to rule, and 
 held the maxim, vox populi vox Dei , from which there was no appeal but 
 to arms, which he held to be the appeal of tyrants. But these Democrats 
 were not content with Jeffersonian Democracy. A bare majority was not 
 enough for them; they must have two-thirds. A gentleman (Mr. Mc- 
 Clernand, of Illinois) said, that, with the Texas feeling in his favor,, 
 their candidate would get the votes of a majority of the people of the United 
 States. A majority ! Suppose he did, that would not do. According to 
 the doctrine of the late Baltimore convention, he must have two-thirds to 
 elect him. He hoped gentlemen would carry out their principles. 
 
 The nomination of James K. Polk would fall on the ears of the people of 
 this country like a thunder clap from a clear sky. No ; that was too grand* 
 too terrific, a figure. The idea is better illustrated by a line from an ancient 
 author : “ Parturiunt monies , nascitur ridiculus mus.” The mountain is 
 in labor, but a ridiculous mouse comes forth ! James K. Polk a candidate 
 for the Presidency ! A man never dreamed of, and (if we were to believe 
 the Globe) a man not qualified for the place. There had been, in that 
 paper, a recent war between a Tennessee Democrat and an Alabama 
 Democrat. One of these excellent Democrats was opposed to Mr. King 
 as a candidate for the Vice Presidency, because he had not signalized him¬ 
 self in Congress during the war, and left no memorials to distinguish 
 his name. The other (the Alabama Democrat) tauntingly observed, that this 
 came with a bad grace from one who advocated James K. Polk, whom he 
 ' charged, in substance, with being a coward, and unworthy of being Vice 
 President on that ground ; and, in support of the charge, brought up a scene 
 between Mr. Polk, when Speaker, and Mr. Wise, of Virginia, who, as they 
 were retiring from this Hall, took him by the arm, and said: “ You are the 
 contemptible tool of a petty tyrant.” The question would then seem very 
 naturally to arise, if Mr. Polk was too much of a coward to be Vice Pres¬ 
 ident, is he fit to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy? He 
 proclaimed hirnself for annexation. Now, suppose annexation should lead 
 to war: would the Alabama Democracy support such a candidate to be 
 commander-in-chief of the army and navy ? 
 
 Extract from an article published in the Globe of January 19, 1844, in reply to “ A Tennessee 
 
 Democrat. ” 
 
 “But why attack Colonel King ? Why advert to his earliest legislative history ? Does he feet 
 that the political capital of Governor Polk is quite too limited to secure a nomination from the Re¬ 
 publican party, unless he can pull down the fame of others whose shadow has fallen across the path 
 of his posthumous bantling for the Vice Presidency ? If so, let me warn * A Tennessee Democrat* 
 that his disparagement of Colonel King will add nothing to the political capital of Governor Polk. 
 
 “But if he will convince me that there is a well-founded suspicion—a reasonable doubt—of thfc 
 personal courage of Colonel King, I pronounce him, without hesitation or qualification, totally un¬ 
 fit for the office of Vice President of the United States. I care not how honorable a man may be, 
 if he is a coward he cannot maintain his honor; and hence it is such a man is disqualified for the 
 office of Vice President. 
 
 “ Now, sir, Colonel King has never been insulted day after day ; and, above all, he was never 
 caught roughly by the arm, when escaping from the Capitol, pulled round, and told that he was the • 
 * contemptible tool of a petty tyrant!’ I pledge my head, if he is ever so treated, he will resent the 
 insult in the proper way. Will ‘A Tennessee Democrat’ do the same in regard to Governor Polk ? 
 
 “ w hat are the facts in regard to Governor Polk 5 He has been twice repudiated in his own 
 State by large majorities—defeated by an inexperienced politician ; and it is not pretended that hia 
 name would add one particle of strength to the ticket in any State of this Union. Why, then, talk 
 of his selection as the candidate of the party ? 
 
 “ Again we arc told : ‘ If, on the contrary, you do not run Governor Polk, you may lose Ten¬ 
 nessee.’ Will the selection of Governor Polk prevent that result } He has been run twice for 
 Governor of that State lately, and has been defeated both times most signally. This would seem 
 to be conclusive that Tennessee cannot be carried by the Democracy if Governor Polk is upon th® 
 
6 
 
 ticket. If this he a legitimate conclusion, it is due to the principles we profess, not to jeopard their 
 success by vain attempts to force upon the people of Tennessee a man whom they have twice re¬ 
 fused to honor, notwithstanding the supposed «deep, bold, and lasting impress left by Governor 
 Polk on our public affairs.’ 
 
 “ The truth is, it will not do. Governor Polk has no greater claims upon the people of this 
 Union than any other man of equal ability who has faithfully maintained the principles of his party. 
 There are now at least one hundred men in the Union who have served their party as long, as ably, 
 and as faithfully as Governor Polk ; whose claims are fully equal in every respect to his, but whose 
 names have never been mentioned in connexion with the Vice Presidency, and possibly never 
 will be. 
 
 “ I therefore respectfully suggest to * A Tennessee Democrat’ to abandon that system of puffing, 
 blowing, and swelling, by which a toad may be magnified into the dimensions of an [ox ; or, if 
 he still wishes to persevere, let him do so upon the merits of his own subject , and not upon the de¬ 
 merits of others.” 
 
 These were Mr. Polk’s qualifications in a military point of view. What 
 were his political? Why,he had been found, during his public career, on 
 both sides of almost every important question. Had he originated or given a 
 prominent and leading support to any great measure, or any great and con¬ 
 trolling system of policy ? None. He had never risen higher than to be 
 a mere second-rate man—a tool and follower of some great man. This 
 had been his character all his life. He had been the instrument and sub¬ 
 servient tool of Andrew Jackson, to do his bidding, whatever that might 
 be. Never had he been found one-thousandth part of an inch from Jack¬ 
 son’s track, wind and turn as it might. However contradictory his meas¬ 
 ures or opinions might be, those were the measures and those the opinions 
 of the obedient Mr. Polk. 
 
 He had been strongly opposed to the sub-Treasury, and preferred State ( 
 banks as places of deposite for the public money. He considered them 
 safer, and in all respects to be preferred. Where did he stand now? 
 Now the sub-Treasury was the only safe place. 
 
 Mr. P. had within his reach, though not here, a very precious document 
 concerning this same J. K. Polk—an extract from a circular which Governor 
 Polk published—in which he came out in favor of the constitutionality and 
 expediency of works of internal improvement by the General Government 
 within the States. Now he is opposed to it. He was just so in regard to every 
 thing. This is the champion the great Democratic party had brought out for 
 the four-mile heat in the great contestnext fall! A little, broken-down, twfice- 
 distanced, shuffling poney of Tennessee, to run against the great American 
 Eclipse ! [Much laughter, and some punning among the Democratic mem¬ 
 bers.] There was a turning up of the nose, a sense of the ridiculous, in 
 the bare idea of the parallel. One had been identified with all the great 
 events and measures in our political history for the last 40 years. A man— 
 ay, every inch a man—in heart and intellect, in firmness, grasp, and com¬ 
 prehension of mind—a whole head and shoulders above any man that 
 ever had made a foot-print on this continent, save one. There’s the ex¬ 
 ception, (pointing to the portrait of Washington.) When the tyrant power 
 of Great Britain was seizing our citizens, and confining them in the loath¬ 
 some dungeon of a prison-ship, whose voice was it that sounded in thunder 
 tones of indignation through the land, loud and long and deep, till the 
 whole country w*as roused to resistance and war. Henry Clay’s. And 
 when another crisis (the Missouri question) arose in our affairs—a crisis 
 which shook the Government of the country to its centre, which caused 
 the good man and the patriot to turn pale, and Jefferson himself to 
 declare that it fell upon him like an alarm bell in the dead hour of 
 night, who was it that came to the rescue, threw' himself into the 
 breach^ and saved his country ? Henry Clay. And then, in that other 
 
7 
 
 ^critical and trying hour, when the flag of disunion was raised in South 
 Carolina, and the laws of the Union were resisted at the cannon’s mouth, 
 while we had in the chair of state a man of iron nerve and lion heart, 
 who swore by the Eternal that the laws should be executed, and that if 
 one gun was tired by South Carolina, “ he would hang Calhoun and Mc¬ 
 Duffie, and Hayne and Hamilton, and the other leaders of the rebellion, 
 as high as Haman,” who was it that came again as our deliverer, with a heart 
 deeply penetrated by the crisis of his country’s fate, and, casting on the 
 issue all he held dear in life, once more, by his prudence, moderation, and 
 skill, assuaged the angry elements, and rescued this fair land from the 
 horrors of civil discoid ? It was Henry Clay. When the hour of danger 
 came, there was he; and wherever he came, danger departed, disorder 
 fled, and public prosperity smiled upon her restorer. Now, look upon this 
 picture and then upon that—the counterfeit presentment of two candi¬ 
 dates. u ’Tis Hyperion to a Satyr.” As well compare a “ mousing owl” to 
 the imperial bird of Jove, that springs aloft and soars into the very sun. 
 
 Mr. P. wished to say a few more words on this General Polk—no, not 
 General, he never rose quite as high as that. 
 
 A voice. “Colonel Polk.” 
 
 Another voice. “ Governor Polk.” 
 
 A third voice. “ President Polk.” 
 
 Well, Governor Polk, then, said Mr. P. He had a document in his 
 hand which would show what were General Jackson’s sentiments in rela- 
 tion to a protective tariff', so vehemently opposed by Mr. Polk. He would 
 read it: 
 
 Extract of a letter from Andrew Jackson to Dr. L. H. Coleman, of Warrington , North Carolina. 
 
 “ Washington City, Aprils , 1824. 
 
 <c Heaven smiled upon and gave us liberty and independence. That same Providence has blessed 
 us with the means of national independence and national defence. If we omit or refuse to use 
 the gifts which He has extended to us, we deserve not the continuation of His blessing. He has 
 filled our mountains and our plains with minerals—with lead, iron, and copper—and given us a 
 climate and soil for the growing of hemp and wool. These being the great materials of our national 
 defence, they ought to have extended to them adequate and fair protection : that our manufacturers 
 ■and laborers may be placed in a fair competition with those of Europe, and that we may have with¬ 
 in our country a supply of those leading and important articles so essential in war. 
 
 ‘ 1 1 will ask, what is the real situation of the agriculturist ? Where has the American farmer a 
 market for his surplus produce ? Except for cotton, he has neither a foreign nor a home market. 
 Does not this clearly prove, when there is no market either at home or abroad, that there is too 
 much labor employed in agriculture ? Common sense at once points out the remedy. Take from 
 agriculture in the United States six hundred thousand men, women, and children, and you will at 
 once give a market for more breadstuff's than all Europe now furnishes us. In short, sir, we have 
 heen too long subject to the policy of British merchants. It is time we should become a little more 
 Americanized , and instead of feeding paupers and laborers of England, feed our own ; or else in a 
 short time, by continuing our present policy, we shall all be rendered paupers ourselves. It is there¬ 
 fore my opinion that a careful and judicious tariff is much wanted to pay our national debt, and to 
 afford us the means of that defence within ourselves on which the safety of our country and liberty 
 depends ; and last, though not least, give a proper distribution to our labor, which must prove bene¬ 
 ficial to the happiness, independence, and wealth of the community. 
 
 “I am, sir, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, 
 
 “ ANDREW JACKSON.” 
 
 These were those declarations of General Jackson which a certain mem¬ 
 ber near him had imbodied in a resolution, and asked this Democratic 
 House to adopt, as expressing its sentiments. And who were they who 
 had shrunk from such a motion as from the mouth of a cannon ? Where 
 were the Jackson men on that memorable occasion ? Not one of them— 
 no, not one—would stand up to do honor to the sentiments of his chief. 
 The only friends the old hero had in the House that day were the Whigs. 
 
8 
 
 , no could ever forget the scene ? Mr. P. had often witnessed great con¬ 
 fusion in that House, but never had he seen consternation like that. What 
 running to and fro ! what countenances ! what consultations ! If a ghost' 
 had risen through the floor, or a bomb shell had fallen upon it, scattering 
 its death-dealing fragments in every direction, there could not have been 
 witnessed a greater exhibition of horror. They were alike afraid to adopt 
 the resolutions or to reject them, lest they should be committed on the 
 one hand—or on the other should seem to run off from their great man. 
 But such was modern Democracy ! Such were Democratic metamor¬ 
 phoses. Modern Democracy had well and wisely been declared to be 
 “ progressive”—a sort of migratory thing—its track like the track of a 
 snake. 
 
 ‘ ‘ Tt worbles in and worbles out, 
 
 And left the people all in doubt, 
 
 Whether the snake that made the track, 
 
 Was going south or coming back.” 
 
 These opinions of General Jackson are fully sustained by the wise and 
 good men who formed our noble institutions. 
 
 In his annual message to Congress, January, 1790, General Washington, 
 holds the following language : 
 
 * ‘ The safety and interest of the people require that they should promote such manufactures as 
 tend to render them independent of others for essentials, particularly for military supplies.” 
 
 In various messages General Washington uses similar language ; but I 
 pass over them, and come to his message of the 7th December, 1796. He 
 says: 
 
 “ Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encourage¬ 
 ment of manufactures. The object is of too much consequence not to ensure a continuance of 
 their efforts in every way which shall appear eligible.” 
 
 Mr. Madison, in his special message to Congress of the 20th of 
 February, 1815, holds this language : 
 
 “There is no subject that can enter with greater force and merit into the deliberations of Con¬ 
 gress, than a consideration of the means to preserve and promote the manufactures which have 
 sprung into existence, and attained an unparalleled maturity throughout the United States, during 
 the period of the European wars. This source of national independence and wealth I anxiously 
 recommend, therefore, to the prompt and constant guardianship of Congress.” 
 
 We now come to Mr. Monroe. He says in his message of the 7th of 
 December, 1819: 
 
 “Uniformity in the demand and price of an article is highly desirable to the domestic manufac¬ 
 turer. It is deemed of great importance to give encouragement to our domestic manufactures . 
 In what manner the evils adverted to may be remedied, and how far it may be practicable in other 
 respects to afford them further encouragement , is submitted to the wisdom of Congress.” 
 
 Extract of a letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Benjamin Austin, dated January 9, 1816. 
 
 “We have since experienced what we did not then believe—that there exist both profligacy and 
 power enough to exclude us from the field of interchange with other nations ; that, to be indepen¬ 
 dent for the comforts of life, we must fabricate them ourselves. We must now place the manufac¬ 
 turer by the side of the agriculturist. The former question is suppressed,' or rather assumes a new 
 form : the grand inquiry now is, shall we make our own comforts, or go without them, at the will 
 of a foreign nation ? He, therefore, who is now against domestic manufacture, must be for reducing us 
 either to a dependence on that foreign nation, or to be clothed in skins, and to live like wild beasts in 
 dens and caverns. I am proud to say I am not one of these. Experience has taught me that 
 manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort; and if those who quote 
 me as of a different opinion will keep pace with me in purchasing nothing foreign, where an equiv¬ 
 alent of domestic fabric can be obtained, without any regard to difference of price, it wall not bo 
 our fault if we do not have a supply at home equal to our demand, and wrest that weapon of dis¬ 
 tress from the hand which has so long wantonly violated it.” 
 
 These are the opinions of the fathers of our institutions. But his col¬ 
 league (Mr. Andrew Johnson) in a speech made in the House on the 22d 
 of May, on the naval appropriation bill, and reported in the Globe of that 
 
9 
 
 day, (see Appendix^) contended that the tariff is an oppressive and iniquitous 
 mode of taxation. He says the duty is always added to the price of the 
 article. If this were so, the price of the article would be increased to 
 the amount of the duty. Now for the facts. Have prices risen since the 
 passage of the tariff of 1842 ? Here is a table, with some remarks by one 
 of the Democratic members on this floor from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Brod 
 head,) showing the effect of the tariff of 1842 upon iron and coal, the great 
 staple articles of that State : 
 
 Extract from a speech of Mr. Broadhead on the tariff \ April 27, 1844. 
 
 “Iam prepared to show that the price of coal and iron is now less than it was before the passage 
 of the act of 1842, which increased the duty from $1 26 to $1 75 per ton on coal, and on iron in 
 about the same proportion.” 
 
 ********* 
 
 “Now, sir, here are the prices at which it (coal) sold before and after the passage of the act of 
 1842, in the principal markets ; 
 
 Year. 
 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 New York. 
 
 Boston. 
 
 1841 
 
 $5 50 
 
 $7 50 
 
 $7 00 
 
 1842 
 
 5 00 
 
 6 12^ 
 
 6 25 
 
 1843 
 
 4 25 
 
 4 50 
 
 6 00 
 
 1844 
 
 4 00 
 
 4 25 
 
 5 75 
 
 “The same thing may be said in regard to iron and other products of domestic manufacture. I have 
 a table before me, showing the prices of iron from 1794 to the present time, by which it appears that 
 P( ansylvania iron was never as cheap as it is now. These statements show that, in regard to any 
 production of industry, when the supply of the raw material is ample, the ingenuity, industry, and 
 enterprise of our people, will, by the effects of domestic competition, bring down the price to the 
 consumer to the lowest point at which human labor can effect the object without loss; and thatvery 
 shortly after the dread of foreign interference is taken away. The iron men of this country have 
 always had to contend with a heavy, and sometimes ruinous competition, caused by the large amount 
 of the poor English article brought into our markets. So, too, with our mechanics. Our people 
 engaged in the coal trade cannot compete with the English and Welch coal, if the duty is reduced 
 nearly one-half, as is proposed by the present bill, and will be obliged to resign our markets to for¬ 
 eigners ; and then the price will go up to eight or ten dollars per ton again. ” 
 
 Mr. P. continued : Here is another table, exhibited by Mr. Bidlack, 
 another Democratic member from Pennsylvania, in his speech on the 
 tariff, May 1, 1844 : 
 
 “ The inexhaustible stores of iron and coal spread throughout the vast expanse of this wide Re¬ 
 public will always prevent any danger of combinations among the domestic producers to demand 
 unfair prices from the community. The present tariff may have lessened importations, and thereby 
 given a more extensive home market to our producers, and thus operated to their advantage ; but 
 that it has not enhanced the prices, will appear from the following extracts from the commercial list 
 of Mr. Childs: 
 
 “Turn to August, 1841 and 1842, and February, 1844, and give us the prices of iron at the 
 said dates, respectively. I have it, 6ir ; and answer as follows : 
 
 August 21, 1841 —before the tariff. 
 
 English bar iron - 
 American bar iron 
 American bar iron, rolled - 
 
 English bar iron - 
 American bar iron 
 American bar iron, rolled - 
 
 English bar iron - 
 American bar iron 
 American bar iron, rolled - 
 “ The two former dates si 
 and the latter date shows the price now, while the tariff is in full operation. The result is, that iron 
 is cheaper now than it was before the present ‘ heavy duty ’ was laid upon it!” 
 
 August 6, 1842. 
 
 February 10, 1844 —since the tariff. 
 
 $75 00 to $82 50 
 
 per ton. 
 
 72 50 to 
 
 77 50 
 
 
 75 00 to 
 
 82 50 
 
 €€ 
 
 65 00 to 
 
 67 50 
 
 €C 
 
 72 50 to 
 
 75 00 
 
 C€ 
 
 80 00 to 
 
 85 00 
 
 €C 
 
 60 00 to 
 
 65 00 
 
 « 
 
 70 00 to 
 
 75 00 
 
 €€ 
 
 65 00 to 
 
 70 00 
 
 €€ 
 
 icement of the present tariff, 
 
10 
 
 Mr. P. said, this was good Democratic proof that the tariff of 1842 had 
 not increased the price of iron or coal. What had been its effect upon other 
 articles ? 
 
 Cheese 
 
 Lead 
 
 Nails 
 
 Common shirting - 
 Sheeting 
 
 9 cents per lb. 5 cents per lb. 
 
 3 cents per lb. 3£ cents per lb. 
 
 3 cents per lb. 4£ cents per lb. 
 
 6 cents per yard 6 cents per yard. 
 
 6 cents per yard from 4 to 7 cents per yard. 
 
 (Taken from Boston price current.) 
 
 What, then, became of his colleague’s theory, that the duty is always 
 added to the price ? What became of his wild calculations, that the tariff 
 imposed a burden of many millions of dollars upon the American people, 
 and near $100,000 annually upon the people of Tennessee. Mr. P. said, that 
 the impression had heretofore prevailed,that figures could notlie. He greatly 
 feared that the calculations of modern Democracy had gone very far to bring 
 figures into disrepute, and to undermine the broad basis of mathematics 
 itself. His colleague had said, if laying on heavy duties will bring down 
 the price of manufactures, increase them, and the manufacturer would 
 finally, under this process, have to sell his goods for nothing. Mr. P. said, 
 this was not the first instance of the absurd conclusions of the syllogistic 
 inode of reasoning. By assuming false premises you can prove any thing. 
 An enemy to our institutions might say that General Washington was a 
 great tyrant; that all tyrants ought to be beheaded: therefore, General 
 Washington ought to have been beheaded. But, since his colleague seemed 
 to be fond of this mode of reasoning, he would give him a specimen in his 
 own vein. He is opposed to the tariff—thinks that, the lower the duty, 
 the lower the price of goods. Then, sir, you have nothing to do but to 
 keep lowering the duty until you come down to the free trade point, and 
 you get the goods for nothing. Mr. P. said, it was a bad rule that would 
 not work both ways; and thus, he met one absurdity with another. Mr. 
 P. said, it was the competition between our own manufacturers, and be¬ 
 tween them and the manufacturers abroad, that brought down the price of 
 goods. It was one of the happy effects of this policy, (the tariff,) that w 7 hile 
 it brought down the price of goods to the consumer, it afforded a home mar¬ 
 ket for our agricultural productions, more valuable than all the markets of 
 the world put together, and threw a shield around our domestic labor against 
 the pauper labor of Europe. Would his colleague bringdown the honest, 
 independent mechanic of our country to a level with the half-clothed, 
 half-fed paupers of England, France, and Germany, where there is a per¬ 
 petual struggle to keep starvation from the door ? Suppose he strikes down 
 the tariff, and lets the products of this kind of labor in upon our country: 
 would he not compel our mechanic at once to sell the products of his labor as 
 cheap as they do? And if he sells as cheap, must he not live as cheap? 
 Would he be willing to reduce the proud, the free mechanic of this country 
 to such a fate ? Would he have him to lie on a bed of straw, or dirt floor— 
 work 16 hours a day for 8 or 10 cents—and see his little shivering, ragged 
 children around him, crying and starving for bread ? Unless he is prepared 
 for this, let him not be willing to remove all protection from American la¬ 
 bor; for it must follow, “ as the night the day,” if the tariff is destroyed, 
 and free trade introduced in its stead, our mechanics must be borne down 
 and ruined by this pauper competition of Europe. Mr. P. here exhibited 
 a table ef the wages of labor in Europe, as follows: 
 
11 
 
 Country and 
 district. 
 
 Description of laborers. 
 
 Yearly 
 
 ges. 
 
 wa- 
 
 Daily wages. 
 
 With or 
 
 without 
 
 board. 
 
 With or 
 
 without 
 
 dwelling. 
 
 France. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Calais 
 
 Ploughmen 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 $5 to 
 
 to 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 Shepherds - 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 - 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 15 cents. 
 
 
 
 Boulogne 
 
 Ploughmen - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 7 
 
 
 - 
 
 With - 
 
 Without 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 10 
 
 Without - 
 
 Without 
 
 Havre 
 
 Farm servants generally 
 
 - 
 
 8 to 
 
 12 
 
 - 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 Brest 
 
 Farm servants generally 
 
 - 
 
 2 to 
 
 6 
 
 - 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 Nantes 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 17 
 
 Without - 
 
 Without. 
 
 Charente 
 
 Farm servants generally 
 
 - 
 
 3 to 
 
 8 
 
 - 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 Bordeaux 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 . - 
 
 - 
 
 
 24 to 30 
 
 Without - 
 
 Without. 
 
 Bayonne 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 18 to 12 
 
 Without - 
 
 Without 
 
 Marseilles 
 
 Shepherds - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 10 to 
 
 12 
 
 - 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 9 to 14 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 Corsica 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 22 
 
 Without - 
 
 Without. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dantzig 
 
 Farm servants • 
 
 
 _ 
 
 3 to 
 
 4 
 
 _ 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 9 to 14 
 
 Without - 
 
 With. 
 
 Mecklenberg - 
 
 Farm servants 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 5 
 
 
 - 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 14 
 
 Without - 
 
 With. 
 
 Holstein 
 
 Farm servants 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 4 to 
 
 5 
 
 _ 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 14 
 
 Without - 
 
 With. 
 
 Netherlands— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 South Holland 
 
 Farm servants 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 10 to 
 
 12 
 
 - 
 
 W 7 ith - 
 
 With. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 12 to 32 
 
 Without - 
 
 Without, 
 
 West Flanders' 
 
 Farm servants 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 5 
 
 
 - 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 Italy. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Trieste 
 
 Laborers 
 
 . 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 24 
 
 Without - 
 
 Without. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 . 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 12 
 
 With 
 
 With. 
 
 Istria - 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 16 to 20 
 
 Without - 
 
 Without. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 8 to 10 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 Lombardy 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 8 to 16 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 Genoa 
 
 Farm servants 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 4 to 
 
 5 
 
 _ 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 
 10 to 16 
 
 With - 
 
 Without. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 Without - 
 
 Without. 
 
 Tuscany 
 
 Farm servants 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 2 
 
 
 _ 
 
 With - 
 
 With. 
 
 
 Laborers 
 
 ■ 
 
 - 
 
 — 
 
 
 12 
 
 Without - 
 
 Without. 
 
 Would his colleague be willing to see the tailors struggling against such 
 competition as this? In his speech, the other day, he took occasion to al¬ 
 lude to the circumstance of his connexion with that class of mechanics; 
 and here, Mr. P. said, he took great pleasure in bearing his humble testi¬ 
 mony of the respectability of that class of the mechanics of our country. 
 He numbered many of them in his district, among his warm personal and 
 political friends, and there was no part of the community more honest or 
 more intelligent. If his colleague should succeed in breaking down the 
 tariff, and letting in that flood of goods, of every description, that would 
 rush in from England, France, and Germany, what would become of the 
 tailors ? Would not every city, town, village, and hamlet, in this country, 
 be packed with ready-made clothing from cellar to rafters ? Could our 
 tailors sell their labor at these reduced prices ? No. What would they 
 do, then ? They would be compelled to give up their business ; they would 
 be turned out of house and home, to wander about, dependent upon the 
 
12 
 
 cold charity of the world, or to learn new trades, (perhaps in theirold age,) 
 and for which their previous habits totally disqualified them. Such would 
 be the inevitable effect of this system of free trade and direct taxation upon 
 the mechanics of our country. As he had observed, the fathers of our 
 Republic thought very differently from his colleague : they thought that 
 our farmers, our mechanics and manufacturers, should be protected, sus¬ 
 tained, and made independent of the whole world. They set this great 
 protective system in motion. It has been in operation for more than 
 fifty years—and what has been the result? Are there any privileged 
 classes, any distinctions, any aristocracy, here? None, none whatever. 
 We all stand on one common level—mechanic and professional man ; 
 and there is no passport to favor, affection, or distinction, but that which 
 is won by honesty, integrity, and talent. Our glorious ancestors acknow¬ 
 ledged no distinctions; all classes put their shoulders to the revolu¬ 
 tionary wheel, and none pushed harder, or with more effect, than did 
 the shoemaker, the wagoner, the blacksmith, and the printer, in the 
 persons of the illustrious Sherman, Morgan, Greene, and Franklin. His 
 colleague was himself a strong illustration of the excellence of our institu¬ 
 tions, and the happy results of that policy which our fathers taught and 
 practised. He, sir, has thrown aside his shears, his thimble, and his goose, 
 and occupies a seat on this floor—one of the proudest stations that the am¬ 
 bition of man can aspire to. This reflected infinite credit upon him and 
 the institutions of our beloved country ; but he regretted that his colleague 
 was so much mistaken in his duty (honestly no doubt) to the honorable 
 calling to which he belongs, as to recommend a policy that would inevita¬ 
 bly reduce the free and independent mechanics of this country to a level 
 with the paupers of Europe. 
 
 His colleague had favored the House (in his speech on the naval appro¬ 
 priation bill) with a labored argument in favor of direct taxation, though 
 he disclaimed being an advocate of it. In that speech he pointed out the 
 many evils that would be avoided, and blessings secured to the country, 
 and particularly to Tennessee, by a system of direct taxation. He had 
 long since thought he could perceive a settled design, on the part of the 
 leaders of modern Democracy, to saddle this odious system on this country, 
 whenever they should think that it was safe to make the attempt. As an 
 evidence that every quarter of the country was filled with Democratic ad¬ 
 vocates of this doctrine, he would read an extract from a speech of Mr. 
 J. T. Stuart, of Illinois, on the tariff, July, 1842, and published in the 
 Appendix to the Congressional Globe, pages 861, 862: 
 
 “During the progress of this debate, however, there has been much to induce the apprehension 
 that it is seriously contemplated by the Democratic party to carry this odious system into practice 
 whenever they may have the power of doing so. It has been advocated by the gentlemen from 
 South Carolina, (Messrs. Ruett and Pickets,) by the member from North Carolina, (Mr. 
 Daniel,) by the member from New York, (Mr. Davis,) by the member from New Hampshire, 
 (Mr. Burke,) and, at the commencement of this session by my colleague, (Mr. Reynolds.) 
 Coming thus from members of that party, from every quarter of the Union, and from every sec¬ 
 tion of the party, the country has much reason to apprehend that this will be another of the exper 
 iments of that party upon the institutious and established usages of the country.’’ 
 
 The gentleman from Louisiana, (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 percentage 
 upon every species of property, real and personal, or upon income, is probably the most equitable 
 that could be devised. It is the only means by which the rich can be made to pay their fair quota 
 
13 
 
 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 cheerfully, because unconsciously, pays dollars, in the shape of the 
 enhanced price caused by imposts on articles of daily necessary consumption, would receive most 
 ungraciously the visit of the national tax-gatherer 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 expenditure. 
 
 “■ But, superior as the system may be in theory, there are many and fatal objections to it in practice- 
 It would increase ten-fold the already dangerous and enormous patronage of the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment ; it would, indeed, render its influence all-pervading and irresistible. It would interfere with 
 the peculiar sources of revenue of the States. It is opposed to the opinions, feelings, and prejudices 
 of the people ; and I am one of those who think that even their prejudices should be respected by 
 a sage legislator. There is, however, one conclusive answer to the suggestion of direct taxation ; 
 if the alternative were presented to the people, certainly there is no State, probably not a district, 
 in the Union, where a majority could be found in its favor. Whatever advance may hereafter be 
 made in public opinion on this subject, direct taxation is, for the present, out of the question.” 
 
 His colleague had approached this subject very cautiously; said he was 
 no advocate for direct taxation, but he argued for it very strongly—a lit¬ 
 tle stronger, no doubt, than his co-laborers in this deep, subtle game,, 
 thought was altogether prudent. But this was perhaps attributable to the 
 warmth and excitement of debate, and an absence of that control over him¬ 
 self which a few years here might give him, and which might teach him 
 a practical application of Talleyrand’s definition of language; that it was 
 designed to conceal men’s thoughts. How can he fail to be an advocate 
 of a policy that, he says, will save the country millions, and Tennessee 
 several hundred thousands of dollars ; which will prevent wild and corrupt 
 t expenditures of the public treasure, and which is to prevent ruinous, ini¬ 
 quitous, and oppressive taxation upon the mechanics and laboring classes of 
 society ? What! he observed, are we to be taught a system that will spread 
 far and wide such invaluable blessings as these, and yet our teachers shrink 
 back, and tell us that they are no advocates of such a system ? There is 
 something secret, hidden, mysterious, in this—“ something rotten in Den¬ 
 mark.” The pear is not yet ripe; the Democracy have never yet been 
 sufficiently firm set in power to venture upon this odious system of direct 
 taxation, or we should have had the practice as well as the theory long 
 since. Mr. P. said his colleague had attempted to show, by a calcula¬ 
 tion, that Tennessee contributes $1,700,000 to the National Treasury ~ 
 He would say, for the sake of the argument, that it was one million. 
 That State already paid three direct taxes—the State tax, of about $100,000; 
 the county tax, and a corporation tax. In the name of all that’s charitable, 
 said Mr. P., was this not direct taxation enough 9 Would the people of that 
 State submit to an additional direct tax of $1,000,000 ? How was Tennes¬ 
 see to pay this immense sum ? Mr. P. said he would give the plan as pro¬ 
 posed by two of Governor Polk’s organs in Tennessee. Here is that of 
 the Jackson Republican : 
 
 enue from mules and horses - 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 . 
 
 - $2,500,000 
 
 Do 
 
 neat cattle 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 - 1,000,000 
 
 Do 
 
 sheep 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 500,000 
 
 Do 
 
 swine 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 200,000 
 
 Do 
 
 land 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 - 12,000,000 
 
 Do 
 
 slaves 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 4,000,000 
 
 
 Total 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 20,200,000’ 
 
 The Governor’s organ (Columbia Democrat) in his own town had said : 
 u Our interest is the same, whether the revenue is raised by direct taxes 
 upon our property or by import duties upon the goods we consume.” By 
 
14 
 
 this system, it was clear that the tax would fall principally upon the farmer, 
 whilst the rich capitalist, who lives upon his money, “ clothes in fine linen 
 and purple,” and drinks his foreign wines, was not taxed at all. Mr. P. 
 said the* system of indirect taxation, or the tariff system, was the lightest, 
 the most equal and just, that the wit of man had ever conceived of. By 
 it, none paid the tax but those who consumed the goods. This was volun¬ 
 tary, the other (direct taxation) was involuntary. The tax must be paid 
 by the farmer, whether he consumed foreign goods or not; and the plain 
 cottager, who dressed in the “ homespun,” made by the hands of his 
 thrifty wife, was doomed to pay a tax for the support of the General Gov¬ 
 ernment, upon his land, negroes, cattle, &c., while the man of money , who 
 has no ostensible taxable property, goes free. 
 
 Mr. P. continued. The system we now had was given to us by our 
 forefathers, and he trusted in God that it would never be changed. Sir, 
 said he, let any Administration attempt to saddle a system of direct tax¬ 
 ation upon the people of this country in a time of profound peace, and you 
 will see such a commotion as no man ever beheld in this land before. It 
 would shake the continent to its centre, and would probably end in revo¬ 
 lution, anarchy, and civil war. He did not recollect any attempt to levy 
 a direct tax for the support of the General Government in time of peace, • 
 since that which produced the rebellion in Pennsylvania. All, no doubt, 
 recollected the whiskey tax, which was so stoutly resisted by the honest 
 Dutch of the Keystone State. They resisted until the Government arrayed 
 itself in arms against them ; the militia were called out, and they were com¬ 
 pelled to yield to the superior forces of the Federal Government. Yes, 
 sir, (said Mr. P.,) and whenever it was attempted to collect the vast reve¬ 
 nues of this great nation by direct taxation upon the people, you will find 
 that not only the Dutch of Pennsylvania, but the Irish, Scotch, French, 
 and Natives, every man that had an American heart in his breast,Iwould 
 resist it, and resist it to the knife, and the “ knife to the hilt.” 
 
 He asked, why were we called on to change our present admirable 
 system for this odious mode of direct taxation ? We now collect the taxes 
 which support this Government by duties on foreign goods, imported into 
 this country, principally from England, France, and Germany. And who 
 is benefited, if we give up the tariff and adopt direct taxation ? These 
 foreign nations, of course. They flood our land with their goods free, 
 break down all our domestic manufactures and our mechanics—charge us 
 what they please for their goods—and the prosperity of our farmers and 
 mechanics will be banished by the onerous direct taxation necessary for 
 the support of their Government. This would be the result of the free 
 trade, direct taxation policy to which the arguments of his colleague would 
 lead. Free trade , indeed ! Where is it to be found ? No where, but in the 
 distempered imaginations of some wild, visionary theorist. It would be lree 
 to foreigners, but how would it be to us? They would have all the 
 benefit of the trade, while a mere abstraction of freedom would be left 
 to us, without any of its realities. Do they give us free trade ? Look at 
 their tax upon our staple agricultural productions; it amounts almost to 
 prohibition. They tax our tobacco 1,000 per cent.; England levies a 
 duty of more than $20,000,000 on our tobacco. Yes, sir, if a farmer from 
 this country sends $100 worth of tobacco to England, the tax on it 
 is $1,000. And yet we are called upon to open our ports to England 
 and all the world—to invite them to come—come one, come all, and 
 
15 
 
 fill our land with foreign goods, and you shall not be charged one cent 
 for the privilege. Sir, (said Mr. P.,) this would look like there was 
 springing up among us a foreign party , in favor of foreign Governments, 
 and opposed to our own. It would seem to him that they could not have 
 American hearts in their breasts, and advocate such doctrines. They had 
 been “ misborn,” and ought to be transported beyond the Atlantic, to more 
 congenial climes and Governments, among kings and queens and princes 
 and potentates, where a privileged class u are born booted and spurred, 
 ready to ride the people legitimately by the grace of God.” 
 
 His colleague had said that no nation could prosper with the balance of 
 trade against it. Let us see how this free-trade system, or that which 
 had approached more nearly to it than any thing we have had in the last 
 quarter of a century, had operated. The compromise act brought the 
 duties down to a horizontal rate of 20 per cent. And when we were 
 rapidly approaching that low rate of duty, what did Mr. Woodbury", 
 Mr. Van Buren’s great State financier, say in his report of 1840? 
 Here it is: 
 
 “ The difference between our exports and imports has usually been in favor of the latter. Sev¬ 
 eral years ago it ranged that way about •e-ven millions of deliars annually ; but, of late, the average 
 has risen to near twenty millions annually ; the excess of imports having been, in 1836 even, 
 $61,316,995, and in 1839 $41,063,716.” 
 
 By this statement it appeared that in 1836 the balance of trade against us 
 was upwards of $61,000,000, and in 1839 upwards of $41,000,000. Was 
 there any wonder that we had been involved in a debt of $200,000,000 to 
 t foreign countries ? In the short space of two years our imports exceeded 
 our exports by $102,000,000. Sir, said Mr. P., this was the result of a 
 two-fold cause—the low tariff, inviting the goods of all foreign Govern¬ 
 ments to our shores; and the u pet bank system,” which stimulated credit 
 to the highest possible pitch, and literally set the country on fire with the 
 spirit of speculation. Who was responsible for this tremendous expan¬ 
 sion of the credit system ? The self-styled Democratic party. For ten 
 y r ears preceding their war upon the United States Bank, there had been 
 only twenty-two State banks chartered in the United States, with a capi¬ 
 tal of about $8,000,000. In 1830, the banking capital of the whole coun¬ 
 try was only $110,000,000, and the number of banks was about three 
 hundred. In 1837, the number of banks had increased to 677, with an ag¬ 
 gregate capital of $378,000,000. 
 
16 
 
 Here Mr. P. exhibited the political complexion of the Legislatures 
 which had chartered those banks, by the following table : 
 
 Number of banks chartered , and by whom chartered, from 1S30 to 1837. 
 
 STATES. 
 
 Jackson Legislatures. 
 
 Anti-Jackson Legislatures. 
 
 New 
 
 banks. 
 
 Capital created. 
 
 New 
 
 banks. 
 
 Capital created. 
 
 Maine - 
 
 
 
 
 41 
 
 $3,485,000 
 
 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 5 
 
 871,638 
 
 
 
 Vermont 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 20 
 
 $1,767,375 
 
 Massachusetts - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 72 
 
 20,410,000 
 
 Rhode Island - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 9 
 
 1,500,000 
 
 9 
 
 2,482,605 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 9 
 
 1,100,495 
 
 9 
 
 2,933,636 
 
 New York 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 61 
 
 17,220,047 
 
 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 8 
 
 5,458,000 
 
 
 
 Pennsylvania* - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 1? 
 
 44,048,149 
 
 
 
 Delaware 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 367,175- 
 
 Maryland 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 15 
 
 22,924,505 
 
 
 
 Virginia 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 1,140,200 
 
 
 
 North Carolina.-j- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 South Carolinat 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 3 
 
 5,727,318 
 
 
 
 Georgia 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 5 
 
 4,006,938 
 
 
 
 Florida 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 8 
 
 9,725,000 
 
 
 
 Alabama 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 • W 
 
 1 
 
 14,208,466 
 
 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 11 
 
 48,039,020 
 
 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 10 
 
 20,450,000 
 
 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 2 
 
 4,862,000 
 
 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 4 
 
 9,264,640 
 
 Illinois 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 
 2 
 
 2,800,000 
 
 
 
 Indiana 
 
 - 
 
 * 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 1,980,000 
 
 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 2 
 
 3,500,000 
 
 
 
 Ohio - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 21 
 
 11,445,614 
 
 
 
 Michigan 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 16 
 
 7,400,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 247 
 
 231,892,390 
 
 114 
 
 37,225,431 
 
 
 
 
 
 114 
 
 37,225,431 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 133 
 
 194,666,959 
 
 
 
 * Of the banking capital created by Pennsylvania, $36,000,000 was for the United States Bank 
 of that State. 
 
 j The banking capital of North Carolina was decreased $595,000. 
 
 t The principal part of the increase was under the Calhoun administration. 
 
 And by whose counsel and advice were the Legislatures of the States 
 stimulated, encouraged, and almost commanded, to engage in the race of 
 competition which could charter the most banks and issue the largest 
 quantity of bank paper? Let this circular of Mr. Taney, General Jack¬ 
 son’s Secretary of the Treasury, and these extracts from the Globe, the 
 organ of the then Administration, answer the question : 
 
 Circular of the Secretary of the Treasury to the Deposite Banks. 
 
 “Treasury Department, September 26, 1833. 
 
 “Sir : The Girard Bank has been selected by this department as the depository of the public- 
 money collected in Philadelphia and its vicinity. 
 
 “The deposites of the public money will enable you to afford increased facilities to commerce, and 
 to extend your accommodations to individuals ; and, as the duties which are payable to the Govern¬ 
 ment arise from the business and enterprise of the merchants engaged in foreign trade, it is but 
 reasonable that they should be preferred in the additional accommodations which the public deposites 
 will enable your institutions to give, whenever it can be done without injustice to the claims of other 
 classes of the community. I am, &c. 
 
 “ R. B. TANEY, Secretary of the Treasury . 
 
 “ The President of the Girard Bank , Phil<tdelphia. ,, 
 
17 
 
 From the Globe of December 21, 1832. 
 
 “The intelligent people of the West know how to maintain their rights and independence and to 
 *repel oppression. Although foiled in the beginning, every Western State is about to establish a 
 State bank institution . They are resolved to avail themselves of their own State credit, as well 
 as of the national credit, to maintain a currency independent of foreign control . ” 
 
 And again : 
 
 “So Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Kentucky, are resolved to take care of themselves ” 
 
 And yet again, in connexion with the debts and expenditures of Penn¬ 
 sylvania, the Globe says : 
 
 “ Why should not she establish a bank of a large capital, in which she should be interested as 
 the principal stockholder ? Such a bank, especially if the faith of the State were pledged for the 
 redemption of its paper, would command universal confidence, and would doubtless become the de¬ 
 pository of the public funds accumulated in Philadelphia.” 
 
 Now, said Mr. P., we can clearly see how* it was that the country 
 has been involved in a debt to foreigners of $200,000,000. It has been 
 by the double stimulus of a low tariff and a flood of bank paper. If an 
 individual buys more than he sells, he becomes involved in debt and em¬ 
 barrassment. It is so with a nation. If more goods are brought into the 
 country than are sent out, the balance must be paid in specie, or its equiva¬ 
 lent in the staple products of the country. Fortunately for our country, 
 by the beneficial operation of the present tariff, the trade has been turned 
 in our favor; and, instead of an annual balance against us of $40,000,000, 
 or 860,000,000, the commercial document, which will soon be published, 
 will exhibit about $26,000,000 in our favor, and $20,000,000 of that 
 in specie. Official documents show that the importations of specie 
 for the last year w r ere $23,000,000, and the exports 83,000,000—a clear 
 balance in our favor, in specie, of $20,000,000. Mr. P. said he called 
 upon every farmer and mechanic and professional man throughout the 
 whole land to bear witness to this happy result of the tariff. And this, 
 said he, is the system that the Democratic party, as they call themselves, 
 with James K. Polk at their head, would break down, and let in a flood of 
 trash from foreign countries, in the shape of goods, ruin our domestic man¬ 
 ufactures, and involve the country again in debt and irretrievable embar¬ 
 rassment. Governor Polk is opposed to a protective tariff. He is for re¬ 
 ducing it to what it was when the Whigs came in power—to a horizontal, 
 ad valorem duty of 20 percent. Thifwas the gentleman who did vote 
 a tax on tea and coffee in 1832, when the Treasury was overflowing with an 
 annual surplus of $6,000,000 ; yet, when the revenue was reduced to about 
 one-half of the annual expenditure, under the compromise act, he was op¬ 
 posed to increasing the tariff, and is now bitterly opposed to the tariff of 
 1842, as is every organ in his interest in Tennessee. They denounce it as 
 the “ black tariff.” as a system of plunder, by which the poor are robbed, 
 for the benefit of the rich manufacturer and capitalist. The country will 
 judge between the two systems of policy. Under the one, we have passed 
 through a terrible ordeal of many years of suffering, of deep, universal dis¬ 
 tress. Under the other the country has risen up, refreshed and vigorous, 
 like a strong man from sleep ; every interest, every branch of industry, is 
 reviving and prospering beyond any thing that we have witnessed for 
 many long years; and, with steadiness in the present tariff policy, and the 
 re-establishment of a sound national currency, we may soon expect a re¬ 
 turn of national prosperity never exceeded in the palmiest days of the Re- 
 ublic. * 
 
18 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 From the Globe of May 22, 1844. 
 
 The naval appropriation bill being under consideration— 
 
 Mr. A. JOHNSON observed that he did not know that the remarks he was about to make would 
 be considered strictly in order ; but inasmuch as the debate had taken rather a wide range, he 
 trusted it would not be considered improper for him to discuss the means by which money now 
 proposed to be appropriated was draw a from the people. 
 
 He should oppose this bill more in consequence of the manner in which the money it appropriated 
 was raised, than for any other consideration ; and he held that an examination of the system by 
 which the revenues of the Government were raised was a legitimate course of argument. Ever 
 since this Congress had been in session, there appeared to him to have been a disposition to indulge 
 in the wildest and most visionary schemes of expenditure. Mr. J. here referred to various items of 
 expenditure, such as dry docks, navy yards, &c., and particularly to the two river and harbor bills, 
 involving an expenditure of one million two hundred thousand dollars. He was opposed to the ap¬ 
 propriations in this bill, in consequence of the system by which the money was procured. We 
 have been told (said he) by some of the gentlemen of this House, in a document published by them, 
 of the evils of direct taxation ; and he would therefore say a word or two on that subject. 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 all these extravagant and visionary schemes of expenditure that were now resorted to. In 
 the publication he referred to, the authors supposed that the annual revenues collected for this Gov¬ 
 ernment would be something like thirty-six millions ; and when they came to the State of Tennessee, 
 they showed that if this money was to be collected by direct taxes, the people of that State would be 
 alarmed at the proportion they were to pay, which was estimated at $1,700,000. This was an ad¬ 
 mission, however, that the money was collected from the people. Now, how is it proposed to col¬ 
 lect this $1,700,000 of the people of Tennessee, but by indirect taxation ? It was proposed to col¬ 
 lect it by a mode under which the people would not know the amount collected from them ; that is, 
 to take the money out of their pockets by deception, or, in other words, by the operation of the tariff. 
 Now, if the Southern States would look closely into the subject, they would find that such a system 
 of taxation bore more hardly on them than any other. 
 
 He went on to contend that there were greater advantages to the people in direct taxation for the 
 support of the Government, for thereby much would be saved to the hard-working people. But 
 they were told that this expensive pian of collecting revenue must be persisted in for the protection 
 of home industry ; or, in other words, this system must be persisted in, that the few might be bene¬ 
 fited at th*e expense of the many. It was admitted that £36,000,000 must be collected for the sup¬ 
 port of the Government, and this sum was made by the importing merchants to form part of the first 
 cost of the goods. The merchants transmitted tRose goods to various parts of this Union for sale, 
 adding thereon fifty per cent, as profit; and thus it would be seen that the hard-working consumer 
 not only paid $36,000,000 for the support of the Government to benefit a few manufacturers, but 
 fifty per cent, thereon as profit of the merchant. 
 
 He contended that the argument was very clear in favor of a system by which each State should 
 collect and provide its proportionate share of the revenue which was necessary for the Government. 
 By such a system, much would be saved in the cost of collection. He calculated that of the 
 $1,700,000 which Tennessee would supply, she could save $92,000, which was an important sum. 
 i. He then showed the operation of the protective system on the mechanic, proving that, in relation 
 to the mechanic classes, this protection of home industry was a system of humbug, by which no 
 one was benefited but the wealthy manufacturer. Indeed, to the working classes it was an iniqui¬ 
 tous system of taxation. But (he inquired) was the system for which the people were so honestly 
 taxed a protection of home industry ? Of the amount of capital vested in manufactures and in 
 agriculture, he said this system caused $500 vested in manufactures to yield $72—more than 1,000 
 vested in agriculture ; and yet they were protecting home industry ! To be perfect, the protection 
 of home industry must be its protection by the several and individual States within their own char¬ 
 tered limits; but if that were resorted to, they would hear less of protection of home industry. 
 
 Upon such a principle as this, they might go on increasing the amount of duties progressively, 
 until they brought down the price of the articles to nothing at all. The Government would then 
 be in the receipt of a large revenue from duties on imports, and the goods imported would be pro¬ 
 cured by the consumer for nothing. Was there ever a greater absurdity attempted to be palmed 
 off upon the public 5 It was an insult to the intelligence of the people. 
 
19 
 
 Another extraordinary proposition contained in this literary curiosity, to which he had already 
 ' referred, was that we were actually buying five dollars’ worth of foreign articles for every dollar’s 
 worth that we sold of our own. Was there ever a country that was prosperous and happy while 
 she bought more than she sold ? How long would a Government exist under such circumstances ? 
 & Mr. Stewart said, if the gentleman would examine the argument in that report, he would see, 
 
 not that we purchased five dollars’ worth of foreign articles for every dollar’s worth that we sold of 
 our own, but that we purchase and consume, in the form of manufactured goods, five dollars’ worth 
 of agricultural produce for every dollar’s worth of agricultural produce that we export. 
 f Mr. Johnson proceeded. The gentleman might attempt to explain the matter, but it clearly put 
 
 him to as great difficulty to understand himself, as it did him, (Mr. Johnson,) to understand him. 
 Was the gentleman unacquainted with that plain principle of political economy, that when the 
 balance of trade exists against a Government, that Government must decline in proportion to the extent 
 of that balance ? But they were called upon to imitate the example of Great Britain, and the prosperity 
 of that country had been greatly vaunted. Prosperous ! yes; prosperous in the creation of a national' 
 debt; prosperous in the imposition of burdens upon the people; prosperous in building up an aris¬ 
 tocracy. He might refer to various authorities to show the prosperous condition of Great Britain, 
 but he would not unnecessarily detain the committee. 
 
 Mr. J. adverted to the distributive policy as a concomitant of the high protective tariff. Who, 
 he asked, was the great advocate of that policy—a policy by which the people became the recipients 
 of a bounty first collected from themselves. The advocate of this strange mode of enriching the 
 people was the man who was to be placed at the head of the administration of this Government— 
 the man who was at one time found advocating the principles of one party, and sometimes of another. 
 
 Mr. J. next adverted to the alleged dissensions in the Democratic ranks. For his own part, he 
 intended to act for himself, and, as to any insinuations that had been spread abroad in reference to 
 him, he repelled them. He did not admit the right of any individual to set himself up as the su¬ 
 pervisor or censor of all who belonged to the Democratic party, and to institute a Procrustean bed ! 
 for their opinions. 
 
 
3 0112 061614324