Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1843-08-16

have an important interchange. They tax the admission
OF our productions much higher than We theirs and this
closes the question as to cur English opponents and accus-
ers. 1t rcmains only to deal with our American ones.
IL a Tariff is high or low according only 10 the previous
practice ut the country where il Is laid. aud without taking
into view any financial need, this "high tariff" is rather a
low one in comparison with that of lS25-ior which sgrcst
part of those who inveigh against this law, voted. IL is at
least as moderate as the law OF 1892, which the Jackson
and Van Buren party straightforward as a perfectly Just and
moderate system, the adoption of which would remove,
permanently, all Just cause OF complaint, as to our COM
mcicial burdens.
But if we must define a Tariff as high or low. according
mainly to the Public want of Revenue from that source, it
must be granted that these imposts are exceedingly low IN
comparison with those fixed by former laws--that of 1882,
Of lS9S, Of lS2i, or even of lsl6-all periods, when We
had no need to burden Foreign productions IN order to sup
ply a sufficient public revenue.
All this is perfectly conclusive, in the way of reply TO
those who accuse us-our foreign rivals in trade, and our
domestic opponents in party. However far, in the mere
pursuit OF truth, the argunHeatum ad hominem may be from
being decisive, ii is perfectly 50, when applied to the con-
tests of rivalry, of which the object is to show, not which
is absolutely right, but which of adveraries is the Fighter.
The Chronicle goes on TO say that this Tariff, ut the time
Of its passage, was felt to be too high, and therefore certain
70 be changed atonco. 1t is right, us to the fact, but total
ly wrong, as TO the reason.
AT the passage Of the Act, the political probability was
known To be, that the Legislative majority in the next Con.
gress would be in favour OF the Free Trade party, and that
these, il they dared, would largely reduce the rate of du-
ties. But the confident persuasions on one side were, that
they would barely produce n sulTicien, revenue to support
the Government; while the equally confident declaration of
the party opposed to the law was, that they would not pro-
ducc revenue enough; and while such was the avowcd opin.
ion of the Inter, they gave their voice, in a body, for the
free admission of Tea and Coiiee-auicles the exclusion
of which, as sources of revenue, implied inevitably an ad-
ditional burden OF three or four millions to be laid upon
Protected articles in general. Their vote, therefore, was to
render this Tariff more protective, by the amount Just men,
toned. than the Wings had proposed that il, should be; for
they meant TO raise but n certain amount by imposts; aud
when, for popularty-sako, their INSCRIPTIONS adversaries
moved TO exempt Tea and Coffee, it was voting, in effect,
10 add to the duties on protected Articles all that was taken
from those on these imp rejected ones.
Admit, then, that the law was, in many OF its details, an
injudicious, or unequal one, what then If that affords
when you give your objection in that form, and should on
the contrary say, not that the Locofoco party when they
come into the majority will repeal the Act; but that they
should, at its passage, have applied their strength and skill, in
good faith, TO giving it that just and well.oonsidered body
of details, which would have rendered repeal, or even revis-
ion entirely needless.
Was such their honorable, their patriotic course BY
no means. Negatively, they avoided it; they laboured TO
contound and embarrass all correct settlement Of details
Some they strove TO reduce too low for any such revenue
measure as the public necessities required; others they stug-
ged to make too high, upon the Tariff principle Of voting
what suited the interests of their immediate constituents.
1t was thus that Messrs. Wright, Buchanan and Sturgeon
voted. And further, as we have already said, they voted
almos, to a man, for the free admission of Tea and Coffee
a detail, as To the further protection which it implied, the
worst and most injudicious in the bill.
We have but farther 10 advert TO the part, which Mr..
Webster and his supposed conversion to the Free Trade
doctrines bear to this argument. And, first, it is to be re-
marked, that in this country, MIR. w. is supposed TO have
been led into this strange move, not by any change of OPT
Mon, but by his political, or rather personal hostliiies only.
1t is looked upon only us an exhibition of his willingness to
adopt any course, no matter how fatal TO his own reputa-
ton or connexions, which may aid in foning Mr.. Clay of
the Presidency,
Nothing less than this blind obedience to his hate could
have well led one 50 able into a scheme so hollow, so in
capable of accomplishing any thing whatever, except n
momentary impulse of a part OF the public mind in n di.
rectiOn from which the least consideration will recall it
For the whole idea is bcset with double impossibiitics The
Treaty making power cannot thus, in this country, assume
the whole right Of fixing and levying the taxes TO be laid on
Foreign trade, theIgreat source of our public income; and
If it could, there is not the slightest hope that Britain, re-
nouncing her Corn laws, her Tobacco duties, and her
whole system OF external taxation, would meet us in any
thing approaching 10 Il true reciprocity. The state OF her
treasury utterly forbids i'll and she is not u country to haz-
ard any such extreme and wild experiment as our legisla-
ton is continually ~advenmring.
Certainly, TO escape the first Of these great difficulties, il
may be said that the Legislaive-the tax-levying power,
might, in this matter, consent TO legaize, in advance, a ne.
gotiation set on foot for this purpose of arranging duties by
treaty. But q most strange and irregular transfer of consu-
tutional power would this be, of letting the treaty.moking
power act for them, even subject to their revision. There
are the grayest objections to such a course; and besides the
constitutional ones, others almost insuperable will arise in
pructice; for Congress could never be brought to agree in
the details Of a tariff settled by treaty. 1t is the very last
mode in which the unpopularty attending all Tariffs could
be obviated Every interest in the country would quarrel
with it. Nor do we believe the negoiators themselves could
ever agree upon details presenting so many difficulties
Nay, were it pissed, how long would it remain popular and
Unchanged
The whole notion, then, is only worthy of derision, espe-
cialy for one Of the topics which it strives to make a popular
impression with. "Giye u.s." cries Mr.. Webster, "any
Tariff you please, so il be a PERMANENT one -" And it is
in the name ofpermanency, that he exhorts you to Il new
change-tie pulling down a law, which has not yet stooda
year! Oh, hollowest Of Humbugs! To urge MS to change
for the sake Of s~teadiness Why, this has always been one
Of the arguments of Tnnlf.mon-n conservative dread Of
change; and here now are the very people who wish to sub
vert assuming the conservative cry, and cxclaiming against
change in order To bring it about!
a Misrepresentation on the part Of our puper-manufactu.
rer has left US without our regular supply of paper, and we
therefore tnke the opportunity Of using up some hundred
dollars worth Of smaller sized paper, which we have on
hand, for our daily publication.
0- The Globe very delicatcly hints, in the fol-
lowing lines, abiding to the appointment of Con
suls at Havana, that Mr.. Tyler's sincerity and
t.I- . - r H.. Il 49,.