Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1843-12-06
THE SUGAR LETTER.

Long before the Richmond Enquirer
thought proper TO publish MIR. Calh"n'i's
letter to Mr.. Nicholas, both the Charles
ton Mercury and the Republican had de-
MED The correctness Of the interpretation.
which Mr Calhonn's enemies had en-
deavored TO pur upon it. When the En-
uuirer did publish it, the Republican aSaln
corrected The improper impression derivh
bile from the Enqnirer-noI one word did
the Enquirer say 10 remove 1t, nor one
word would il ever have said, unless Mr.
Calhoun had himself thought 1t worth
while TO rebuke lhr unjust course pursued
row ards him. The Enquirer however
produced The .sincnrrec, impression" ''un-
'Iesieuedly,' aud now "cheerfully," "re.
moves" Misunderstanding Rep.
Prom The Richmond Enquirer.
To remove any incorrect impressions
which may have oeen undesignediy pr"
duced by our remarks, we cheerlnlly lay
before our readers. the following letter
frnri Mr.. CaIhoun-received by yester-
day mornings mail:
Fort HILL. 18th Nov. ls43.
Dear Sir:-I write This 10 correct The
mistake you made. in supposing. that. in
nv letter to a gentleman Of North Caro-
lima on the subject Of The Tariff publish
cd in the Enquirer of the 7Ih instant } |
referred to my letter to Mr.. Nicholas If
Louisiana, published in The same article.
The letter referred to, was to Mr. Della
ney of Louisiana, aud was in answer 10
one addressed 10 me from North Carolina
The answer To Mr.. Nicholas was 10 one
IN very different subject II you had
adverred to dates. you would have avoid
ed the mistake. The North Carolina LEI
Ter refers to one recently written. II is
daled the oath September last. and the
letter TO Mr.. Nicholas 7,h May, 1872,
more than ID months before.
rrg.er the mistake. Unauthorized
liberty has been taken with my letter to
Mr.. Nicholas, by printing portions Ia
Italics, and the woId protecting in 9 ar.
ns Capitals calculated to make the i'm.
preston, that ], too, am the advocate ut
The protective policy; aud that. t"o' by
editors protesting 10 he opposed I" pr) &c
tion and friendly To me, as well MS rh"s"
in favor. and polirlcalIy hn>Iilr 70 me.
BY such means, hasIy readers nt news
paprrs have heen led 10 believe. that AL
mil HE right of protecting The Louisiana
sugar planters against fnreian competition
by The imposition of duties on The foreign
article for thar purpose, directly against
the plain import of my letter. The pro
Lection of which | spoke is expressly STA
ted 10 be. not against fnreign r"npe,ion.
hui 'asainsl the nlachinaIions of the op
moments of slave labor" intended sim
ply to say. lha would resist. in adjusting
The Tariff. any attempt thai might he
made to take of or reduce the duty, that
foreign sugar oughI fairly to pay. on r.v-
enue principles, on the ground ordlsconrae
ing The dnmestic article. because il was
the product of slave labor.
Wha regret in your mistake Is. that II
is calculated to strengthen the false i'm
preston made by the unauthorized Italics
aud Capital letters, not only by publish
ing my letter with them, but sill more
strongly, by publishing it as The "ne re-
lerred to in my North Carolina letter. in
confirmation aud calculation Of any opin-
ion on The subject Of protection.
As il IS my wish to be fully and expiril
ly understood on that and all other public
subjects, must request yon to publish
what have written. in the Enquirer.
With respect, an, DC, &c.
). e. CALHOUN
THos. RITcHrE, Esq