Independent Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1842-11-05
MR.. CLAY AND THE TARIFF.

MR.. CLAY AND THE TARIFF.
In former number of our paper W
contrasted the principles of Mr.. Clay wit
the professions of Southern Wings of ls4(
on the Tariff Question. We then attempt
ed, we think successfully, to shew tina
the Wings of the South, cannot supper
Mr.. Clay for the Presidency, without tn
grossest inconsistency and a palpabl,
abandonment of the opinions professed by
them in 1910, in relation to a protective
tariff. We Showed this by exhibiting Mr.
Clay as protective tariff man, and Their
by showing that the Wings of $40 pro-
fessed to be opposed TO Il tariff of protec-
ton, they having even gone so far as to
denounce Mr.. Van Buren, for admitting the
porer, though solemnly and fully pie dyed
to 60 against the principle Of protection.
But the Mississippi Creole, through its
late pro tenn editor, has informed US, that
a certain writer in that paper over the
signature of "Candour" has "blown our
charge to the winds" But quo modo ?
Let US see how he has done so. Now, it
is plain that if the opinions of Mr.. Clay,
and the professions of the Wings of 40
were correctly stated by US, then the
charge Of inconsistency and of abandon
ment of principle as made by US, is ne
cessariIy established. Well, it is not even
pretended that the Wing professions have
been incorrectly stated; what we said of
them may therefore be considered as grant
ed. II our other proposition, to-wit, that
MIR. Clay is protective tariff man, be true,
then it follows. that our charge, instead OF
being "blown TO the Winds" is fully es-
iablished. Well, is it not true? Verify,
it is proven, as broadly as we asserted, by
MIR. Clay's own declarations, extracted
from his speeches, and set forth in the
communication in the Creole, that he is
protective tariff man. This was all we
charged against him.
Candour's cdcoethes scribendi led him
TO review our article. He could not DENY
the truth of our propositions, or avoid the
conclusions which we drew ,herefrom.--
Yet he must say something by way of re-
ply, and to give the appearance of speci-
BUSINESS to it, he wilfully misstates what
we said. In pretending to state our pro.
positions he says that we asserted that
MIR. Clay is in favor of "HIGH protective
tariff" and again he asks us how we can
have the heart to attempt to prove Mr..
Clay to be in favor of "HIGH Protective
Tariff" In each instance the words high
protective tariff are italicized, and marked
with quotations, evidently for the purpose
'f leading his readers to suppose we had
stated, and attempted to prove MIR. Clay
high protective tariff man. But we stated
40 such thing; the words which Candour
has taken the pains to italicize, and mark
With quotations he cannot find in our arti-
lie! We did not say Mr.. Clay is in ia
'or of high protective tariff: to make out
'ur charge it was not necessary for us to
10 80. 1t Was sufficient for our purposes
o shew that he advocated the p, inciple Of
and believed it constitutional.
Whether Mr.. Clay was in favor of pushing
he protective policy to the extreme point,
r of its exercise in comparative modera-
on, could in no wise affect our charge OF
and abandonment of princi-
lie.
Having thus sly ly, falsely and most un-
airly misrepresented our proposition and
rgument, Candour proceeds TO fight
galnst the Gigantic illusion which his
lulxotic imagination had con ured up,"
y attempting to shew thew that Mr.. Clay
not high protective tariff man, and, to
this, he parades two extracts from Mr..
Jays speeches, delivered, ons at Buffa- ,
}, IN 1889 and the other in Senate of U. r
tates. lS42, in the former of which Mr.
lay declares himself ia favor OF "rcdson- |
bic and adequate protection" and in the I
liter of which he says: al do not think
exOrbitant or very high tariff necessary; f
ut one that shall ensure adequate reve
ue and reasonable protection" Again :
says; 81 have ever believed that stabiI.
y, '0ffA a moder ate amount of protection, D
liter than a very high tariff without" p