The hornet., 1843-09-12
IaH Ms Htsftfsa
CLAYTON ASD BHUWN ~ ItprAit


F"IfrH %. ibf fH'fHlfB.tI HfHt8u .H flIf
county. tlH fa4l.-4l4 tla4t4tA ll+4wrf
f."sa ~ Hi.am 1a f.. ijH, fIffbaf H'I.sH
nl ihh fHDf uH Che fIIf fD..pvIHf aggressive
i1Wt. .H 81 m4Hg i.H.fsat F.Haf, be- 'hf fgIa.
~ ] mIf listened f1 Hfm buih siisatta.g
iW7H fI1Ii, fHi maf Hf4b r. fee aHI 'H.I
rtFe#III of iIa Ff.HfI fHI 1Ha.4Ut f fIH
Fifuil 1l Ipfl ffHIHis'ff Ht every Hl#s !
IHIH therefore fIfr fH 1Ti FslfmI .1ulf
Df tIf Wbo.a hss DO. Htst8af IH fIe f1uHif.
pm.i.ufa FaHI#J.lf history sI ihs proceedings
nn sl.H diN
Juitf BDwn drtufsa 1iout oHs.hl.i of ht
'ua boz hF aFrfHHfI fD fHe iIIausflUH o. nH.
'8HiI fu.f'rF. lHd Ihs other bIIf tl iba huuI
question. Efrt candidate p.euH.et generally
1HuHi tive hours 8Ht .Hif tut1e ~ com.
mgueei generally with Hy1nie grand orig.
U4l HtiUu vt bis 0wUi chat % county b. plD4s
pelous boz rfupUriiou 10 tIo nominal value ol
it4eyPDftt llH illustration Uf these doctrine
is, tIli ~ Tlpr1h cuu1ty exported SjOUDU
nsi,nld si00DO tbi5 year that she ig $4,000
poorer This year than shc was last lle also
lays down rs un tncoutfoyprtibe lass Of polil.
zeal economy that au mp1gt duty always dI.
muighcs the exports Of q country am iu.
cIIned 10 think that the aduic Judge has lost
portion Of bis notes, for there IS a rcmarka.
bic hiatus Just az this place, in every one ol
his speeches. He has never yet attempted to
show why or how an impost duty lessens tie
amount Of the exports OF a country. The
people, however, have his word Tor IL. Judge
u. then reads some statistical tables from
which it appears that under the tariff ol 1916,
there was very slow, but gradual increase IN
the amount Of exports, up 10 1882, when the
compromise act was passed-that under the
descending scale OF duties provided for by that
act there was an enormous increase III the
amount of exports, down to 1910. The Judge
attributes all this to the effects of the tarli,
and thus proves very satisfactorily TO himself,
at least, that nothing is so much calculated TO
retard the prosperity of country, as tariff.
Judge Clayton (for believe both gentle
mon rejoice in the title OF judge totally de-
molishes this argument in the pIainest and
simplest manner Judge G. shows that Judge
b. attempts to conceal a portion OF the facts
from the people. lie shows that SO far as the
exports of country are an index to the ma
tional prosperity, that II is not the gross
amount of the nominal value that must be
looked to, but that the excess OF the exports, Oue'
and aboye the imports furnishes the only data
from which true deduction may be drawn.
Judpe C. then shows that from 1892 to lS4O,
the period when Judge B. says the country was
PROGRESSING with such rapid strides to great
ness, wealth and glory, that the imports Of the
country ooere actually much greater than the
erDortS, so that instead of growing richer we
were growing pooer. This single fact, IN
Judge Clayton'S plain ineligible manner of
stating il, totally demolishes the whole OF
Browns theory. The whole of Brow's argu-
ment on the tariff question is a series OF mis-
statement and false deduction. For instance,
he states that the wings in lS4O, pledged them
selves to the country not to disturb the COM
promise act, but that their first act was to pass
the distribution law and the tariff of 1912,
both of which he asserts is violation of that
pledge. Now in the the first place, no such
pledge was ever made. The Wing leaders in
in lS40 did say to the country that il was their
design to adhere to the principles OF the COM
promise act, and it does not require an argu-
ment to show that the principles of that act
have not been disturbed by any act of the
Wing Congress. Another mistatement OF
Judge B. and most pitful subteriuge to be
resorted to by candidate for the dignified
station of Governor is, that the duty OF only
7 per cent. on jewelry and diamonds, was in
tended to favor the rich, while the duties on
iron and salt were intended to opPress the
poor--Every person of common sense knows
that this is not So Judge Clayton explained
this fully by showing that if any thing more
than very small duty were imposed on pre-
cious stones and jewery, that these articles
would be smugged in and pay no duty at ALL
A third misstatement of Judge b. is, that one
reason why Mr.. Van Buren'S administration
was put down was that he was opposed to a
protective tariff Judge c. showed that this
was so far from being the truth, that Mr. Van
Buren, is now, and always has been IN tdOor
of a protective revenue tariff, His Indiana
letter was referred to as conclusive on this
point. But by far the most false demagoglcaI
argument used by Judge B. on this question,
was this: he argued as though every cent OF
duty levied by the present tariff was raised
for the purposes Of protection alone, '0'tho~t
anu yie,0 to revenue This most unstatesman-
like course was exposed, as it deserved TO be-