Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-09-07
Tbe constitutional Gygt,iU,

.
From The Charleston Mercury
LETTER OF
ROBERT ". HAYNE
TO Committee Of the State Rights and Ere
!rGde idrty, embracing reply TO Cot. D,ay
toms late ADDRESS.
[coNcLupEDI
=, - mas hcen asserted Ivy Col. Drayton. thnt Mr.
miD"iiie's Bill contained rs plain an admission,
OF the protet ting principle, by lcrislatisy :
inc conilnuant Of Some protecting ems dur
rug SINGLE year, as by rgisla ing for them all
without any limitation rs to time" Ii appears
10 me, however, thut there Is very manf. st
distinction between n bill providing for the e.
veniual accomplishment Of the prot q princi
pie already introduced into tie legislation {
The country, and bill retaining that principle
and making no provision whatever for rs nl,nn-
donment. But, in This case, Mr.. hlcDuffie's
l''ii was To have gone into operation Immediate
~ aud before the puolc debt WAS raid. Aud
surely higher duties might, on the rouudest
Pr'nripirS. he Imposed. while there change
OF SlS OCO,COO per aunum on the Treasury, than
couId De J"s'hed after that charge was removed,
hy MIR. McDutfie's Hill, tho duties On the pro.
tected artc es were to he reduced to I23 per
cent, thereby securing abanton,ncut even
tually OF tic principle of neutrality-suspicious.
by The new Bill, duties of 40 ,ud 50 per cent
"ud upwards, are imposed upon the same ar,i-
c'es, after the final extinction If the - bile deh,
by The one, the abandonment of the prot, ctinc
principle was secured, by the other, as hum
bly, conceive. il mas been established And
there Is this further difference hetw cen these tw
BUS, that while the rInsr, as a hill of comma
mise, would have satisfied the Suulh the latter
Is satisfactory only To the manuiac turrrs.
VIII new proceed TO :. tcc Ger ala n lodged
errors, which Col. Drayton has kindly underta.
ken 10 point Oul in the address Of the majority of
the South Can Gilman Delegation. Col. Draw.
ton commences his comments upon that address,
oy in'Imaiing that more than common ocurncy
was to have been expected "heca,Ise il must
he presumed 10 have been drawn up with the
utmost delihcratiou"-and then goes on to cx-
press his surprise ut the statement made i'm the
address, that the burdens of the prot, citing tIu-
ties are decidedly decreased. estimating the cash
duties aud d!:nnisheh credits, and they now
s'an'' at nn average Of more than 30 per cent,
"hlle the duties on tie unprotec ell articles,
which u;ion every principle Of equality and JUS
ice, sii"uii sustain the princpal part of the bur
dens of taxation are, with few inconsileralle
exceptions, entirely rtpedled-"wuEN(says Col.
~ THE AMOUNT OF ALL THE DUTIES DECLARED
FREE BY THE ACT OF 1882, ARE ESTIMATED IN
THE SETTLEMENT CT THE TREASURY AT No MORE
THAN 500 ,0O0."-Now, if the authors of the
ADDRESS had committed So gross and palpable an
error as that into which Col. Drayton has here
fallen, IL might have been urged AS an exercise
Tor them, that though the principles on which,
the address sbased, and the general character of
the new Is il Ind been maurely considered, yet
ST.,
sity have been very hastily prepared. imasuurh
as II was written and printed, i'm the civ of
washington, after the passage Nl the new Bill,
and before the adjournment of Congress, whirh
as Colonel ID. well knows embraced a period
OF only or 2 days. The authors of The address
were not IN sufficient favor lit the Treasury 10 be
furnished SitiI statement. kindly prepared for
their us",-and yet, Col. DraytoD. lahorinS um-
der none If these disadvantages, af,r n delay of
several weeks, "n,l the most careful preparation,
With Treasury document in his hands comes
out IN paper of so grave character" that
il has been likened TO Il voice from the mount
and which, it must be presumed, ,cos drawn
up with the utmost deiiberation-and assert
that The amount of all the duries declared free
by the act Of 1882 is no more than S4OO 900 ;,
when it appears on the face Of the very state
ment ITSELF on the authority Of which this
most extraordinary assertion has been made,
that besides 100000, there are other articles
declared free by the act of 1892, to the amount
of no less than S270S 63l, making together the
sum Of So l0S,73l.
Now whatever errors the authors of the nd
dress may have committed they have certainly
committed none half so extraordinary or un-
accountable as that into which Col. Drnyton
has himself fallen. lie tells us expressly that
his support Of tie Bill depended entirely
upon tho amount and character Of the proposed
reductions. IL Is not passing strange therefore
that he should have given his vote, as we must
now presume IT. at lie did, under the impression
that the articles made free under the bill anoni,-
ted only TO a few hundred thousand dollars
when in the truth they Hmouut 10 UPWARDS Of
SO 100000. This is certainly so extraordinary
ii Circumstance, that il he had NOT him, elf given
us the information, il wopld hardly have been
credited in This community. If, CO.! Drayton,
from careful examination Of The provi, ions of
this bill, had asceriained thar IL cmbracFd free
articles to- The amount of SO 0G0, 600, NIGH; this
not have changed his views entirely as To the true
character US tie measure and even now, if she
pride OfopUinn," for we will rot mpuic To linn
the lust If power shall ~ be suffered to IL it,
ence IiIe decision, Hiay net hope that by u
careful re examination Of the provisions Of this
Bill, lie viii yet discover that II has no features
OF cOupromise which ought To re ndcr ii accept
able To The South. In relation To the other
aiIedgcd error said 10 have been committed hy
the authors Of the addrcss, in asserting that IhY
burdens Of The protecting duiics had been in
creased. estimating The cash duties and dimin
1Shed crcdiiS TO IN amount which as beiicUcd To-
bc upwards Of million G dollars il will he
seen from ibe very form OF the expressions here
used, as well as the whole scOIc and charac er
Of the address, that minute accuracy rs 10 the
amount Of reduction, was not aimed NJ, and IN
der the circumstances Of the case, must hlve
been altogether unattaluabe. Our opposition
10 the new Dhi depended in no degree upon
the question, whether the Bill was tu effect an
incousiderable reduction on the protected urti-
Giles, or TO increase The duty 10y all equrl amount,
"a few hundred thousand dollars more or lest.
in adjusting a re: cnue rs or 30 rl!lions, be-
ing little importance in our estimation tbs
general character Ofthe Bill WAS manifest on it's
FACET had Clearly aggravated tie inequality
Il -