The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1831-08-24
STATE ELECTIONS.

the representation to Congress from thi
State. Both parties claim ma lority of thu
members elect. Our readers are referred
to an article on the subject from the Ken
lucky Reporter by which it will be seeI
that, however they may finally stand, Il grea
majority of the voters Of the State are op
posed to the present Administration, as vel
as majority Of the Legislature. Ifthe lat
er returns do not give so favorable a result
as those first received gave us reason tc
anticipate, it should he recollected that the
first returns are from the older and moro
enlightened parts of the State, near the
great thoroughtares, where the means OF
lntormatien are more accessible than in the
remoter portions Of the State, and that they
shew most astonishing falling off from the
Jackson ranks. But light is progressive
and Will soon find Its way into the most hid
/ den and secret places; and the revolution
In opinion which has commenced and made
such progress, will 90 OH till Jacksonism
VIII be known only as a thing that was, and
the wonder will then be that it ever should
have been.
INDIANA. In this State the National
Republicans divided their votes for Gov
ernor between two candidates. Notwitb-
standing this division there appears to be
good reason to believe that Gen. Noble. one
ofthelr candidates: is elected. The returns
from 81 counties stand as follows: Noble,
Repnbllcan) l4,032; Stapp, (do.) 1906
Read, (Jackson) l1,I26. 1t will be seen
that thus far the aggregate of votes for the
Republican candidates is nearly twice as
great as the Jackson vote. The Legisla-
ture, it is supposed, will be Anti-Jackson
by large majority. In the first district it
Is supposed that Gen. Mccarthy, the Jack
son candidate is elected to Congress in
consequence of two candidates being voted
for by the Republicans, the aggregate of
whose votes considerably exceed those for
Mccarthy. The returns are only partially
IN from the other districts, but the papers
speak confidently of the success of the Clay
candidates.
TENNESSEE. The Washington Tele-
graph states that Thomas d. Arnold has
been elected in the Knoxville district by
243 majority over Pryor Lea, the late mem
Der. The same paper says, "Mr. Arnold
was the author Of a violent anti-Jackson
pamphlet during the canvass of 1928, and
contested Mr.. LEAFS right 10 the seat in the
last Congress.
MISSOURI. Spencer Pettis is reelected
to Congress from this State by large ma
jority.
u In the few remarks which we made
last week on the communication of A
Friend to Free Trade" we did not suppose
we were opening the way for a renewed
discussion, in our columns, of the principles
of Trade and of the Tariff System, nor is it
our present intention to engage in such
discussion. The arguments contained in
the following communication have been re-
peatedly urged through the columns of this
paper F.; particularly, a few years since, in
two series of numbers written by two of the
first writers on that side of the question, in
the State. The result Of the discussion
growing out of those articles, we believe,
was, great accession of numbers to the
friends of the protecting system in this
county, and, if we are not much mistaken.
one of the writers, has, himself become
convert to the theory which he then oppos-
ed.
We do not feel ourselves at liberty to oc-
cupy the columns of our paper in replying
to arguments which have so often been an
swered satisfactorily, in our opinion-as
those have in the article which follows.
C1'ii W iiIuJ NC To make one OF
two remarks. And first, although the prin-
clple Is true that "one nation cannot import
the commodities of another without giving
something IN exchange for them, either of
their own production or what they get in
exchange for their own production" is true,
yet the illustration Of it is calculated to give
erroneous Impressions. The ability of Eng
land to purchase the Cotton of the Southern
States does not depend at all upon the con-
tlngency of our buying or not buying their
goods, but, upon the simple fact, whether
they can turn the cotton, either in raw or
manufactured state, Cor enough, including
expenses and profits, to pay for itself If
they can, then they will buy it, because it
is for their interest to do so, even though
we may not buy of them to the value of
single cent.
That is " the Agricultural interest" that
is chiefly affected by the operations of the
present Tariff" we admit; but not that it
has been unfavorably affected, as is in effect
argued, though not directly asserted, by
" A Friend to Free Trade" THE fact
that in 1918, the sum Of $73,854 437 in do
mestlc produce was exported from the Unit
ed States after supplying the consumption
of the country" neither proves one thing
MOI another in relation to this question, I'M
less it he also shewn that the tariff has di-
minished the value Of such productions, and
that they have, therefore, "ceased to be
produced" as "a Friend of Free Trade"
argues that they must. This, however, is
not the case. The amount produced has
increased, and, we believe that the official
records will shew that the quantity export
ed has also increased. This, however, is
of little Importance one way or the other.
! The main question is, whether the same
quantity of produce, or rather the same
amount of labor, will now buy as much of
such articles MS the farmer stands in need
| of, as it would formerly, or not; and, that
it will buy much more, there cannot be the
shadow of doubt. 1t makes no difference
to the farmer whether his neighbor buys his
produce for his own consumption or to ship
abroad, if he gets Il fair equivalent for it.
With these remarks, and the additional one
that under the operation of "the present
tariff" the Agricultural interest has become
unusually prosperous, "a fact, by the way
! worth n Thousand fine sDuu theOrleS,) we IN.