Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-03-01

hoa, more successful in convincing readers OF
hs sl.en Gifts authors, than of the truth OF their
allee cations. Still, some minds may nav s"ch
rrs;nd;csd s. az the fame and character OF such
= ,o,n belonp 10 The nation, they should not DC
suffered TO be assailed wi.nou' soou
the aspersion pass unheeded. AZ,
7, would be sufficient justification iof MI
WIS vote on the woclen question, simply 20 say
that his views of home policy, IN certain &c
sneets. had changed with the change oil circu"-
stances and of general opinion; Such mas pee"
the slow but sure effect OF certain causes con-
nected with this great question:, upon the in,ha,
of vast numbers Of the people oil the oni,ea
States, not only among the constituents VI 'A'
Webster. but throughout the Union; ana mas
much as susceptibility to the force OF reason is
much better evidence Of true greatness OF mind
than obslinacy, even on this score Mr. w. misn'
claim superiority over his assailantS VINO nave
been lettering behind the Announcements oil the
age, and are still hugging the errors SO many
enIiphtened minds have abandoned. IL lncon-
sistency is to be tested by the mere admission
Of palpable truths that have once been douo'eo'
but which are subsequently confirmed oy the
test Of experience, science and the arts, from
the most ancient period, have been manly In
debted to inconsistent men Tor their progress.
A wise man will sometimes change his opin-
ion. A fool never does. We presume these ~
York Editors, had they lived in the days oil Co.
lumbus. and doubted his theory, would never
have avowed their belief in the discovery ofthe
New World for fear of the charge OF inconslst-
ency! Ii Mr. W. is inconsistent in this parllc-
ular he should not be alone accusedSpf il Of
the New England Repre- senta,ives, butt four have
voted against the woollen bill this session. In
1924, but one member from each Of the States
of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine,
voted for the revision Of the Tariff, (,he former
the intrepid Mr.. Dwight, who has in three years
seen his bold prediction verified, that all his
colleagues who then opposed him would before
long adopt views similar 10 his own.) II Mr..
| Webster is inconsistent, what becomes oil The
consistency Of Messrs. M'Lane, lngham and
| Buchanan, who oppose now the same princi-
pies they so strenuously advocated in l824!-
How comes il TOO, that all the wisdom upon
this subject is comprised within the city OF N,
York with her three Representatives, in oppo-
sition to all except two Of the remaining Dele
cation Of that State? In the vote upon the
woolen bill twenty seven of the Representatives
| from the state Of New York were found the un-
deviatng advocates Of the measure, while but
FIVE, and but Two OF these out OF the city, were
found among the nays Will the New York
| pFetcDu tndt tncSc uSe dIe oSltSt az
quainted with the true policy Of government,
and the real interests Of the great state Of New
| York than the other twenty seven? and yet they
make as great an outcry against the passage OF
| this DILL as If every interest in the state had
been sacrificed to ii, when in fact that state has
given the measure stronger support than any
other two states in the Union, except the unit
ed votes Of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts!
| Does not this sho that after all, the monopoly
that such an uproar is made about, is altogeth-
n ~ rursrnrrct, auu orher SER m
teresied persons in the city oil New York! Their
influence undoubtedly extends 10 the papers OF
that city, and we doubt not as honestly as the
Interest Of the manufacturers operates upon
Ours here. But the facts conclusisely show it
to be the intsrsst, not of the state OF New York,
but of monopoly III the city OF New York. AS
ii regards The relative talents Of the five nays s.
| the twenty seven yeas on this question, we be.
leve there will not be much question. Mr..
Slorrs alone will more than balance the three
| city representatives.
| We began this article for the purpose Of
showing the fallacy & illiberalty of the charge
of inc consistency attempted TO be fixed upon Mr.
Webster. In his speech delivered in Congress,
April 1924, against the revision Of the Tariff
will be found reservation in favor Of affording
protection TO woollens Thet part Of the bill
MIR Webster was disposed to advocate. He
declared that some parts Of the bill met his ap-
| probation, but these could not be separated in
the vote he was required to give upon it as a
whole. In reference TO the provision for Wool
| lens, 1t will be seen he predicted the very result
lha: has taken place. It's fulility in affordlng
projection TO the manufactures; and on this
ground the woollen manufacturers have proceed
ed in their recent memorials to Congress. We
subjoin the passage 10 which We allude and
which, while we admit Mr.. WIS decided oppo-
sition to the Tariff Of 1924, we think will show
there is less ground for charging him even with
change Of opinion as TO the woollen interest,
than the New York editors take for granted.
The first section proposes an augmented du-
ty upon woollen manufactures. This, if il were
unqualified, would no doubt be desirable to
those who are engaged in that business. have
myself presented petition from the woollen
manufacturers Of Massachusetts, praying an
augmented ad palorem duty upon imported
woollen cloths; and i ain prepared to accede to
that proposition, to a reasonable extent. But
then this bill proposes, also, very high duty
upon imported WOOL and as far as I can learn.
majority OF the manufacturers are at least ex-
tremely doubtful whether TAKING the 60 two nro.