The North-Carolina standard., 1844-10-09

Hypocrisy Of Henry Clay on tile Tarf
q"estion-his twO faces, one for The North
and the other for the South.
HIS SOUTHERN FACE.
In a letter to Messrs Bledsoe and Branham of
Georgia, dated July %, ls43 Mr. Clay uses
the following language:
81 NEVER WAS IN FAVOR OF DUTIE.S
BEING so HIGH AS TO AMOUNT TO
PROHIBITION OF ARTICLES ON WHICH
THEY WERE LAID. HAVE THOUGHT
1T BEST FOR ALL INTERESTS THAT
THERE SHOULD BE COMPETITIoNn-
Again: q A Tariff for that purpose revenue ought
to be SO djusted TO afford reasonable encouEge
ment TO our domestic manufactures" "To mpatI
10 it thar character, ii should be Nj MODERATE'l
"I was not in Congress III 1928, and therefore DID
NOT VOTE FOR THE TARIFF OF THAT
YEAR. The duties in many instances mp.
ses by that Tariff were EXTRAVAGANZA
HIGH" >\..-
Here Mr. Clay says he never was in avOrd
duties being so high as to- amount to prohibition
Very good in theory, but what Is the pracicsi
The present tariff is so high that number Of ar
ticlesare prohibited, land among them that Of
hemp, which enables Mr.. Clay himself to sell
hat Article at an enormous proft) and yet Mr.
Clay says he would consider its repeal geG!
calamity! i!
But our object is to show his Southern face
On the second day of October, 1843 Mr. Clay
wrote as follows to Mr. Merriwether, of Georgia
i did not vote fer the Tariff of 1928 for whi5
ic1oeUeg, Mr.. VAN BUREN. Col. Benton. Col
lol TON, Mr.. Ii et and OH MerS of our oppoRerh
'ID5voTE. ANBITIs REMARKABLE, THAT FROM THi
'ERIoD, MY EXERFIONS IN CONGRESS
jAYE BEEN DIRECTED TO THE RE-
0UCTIONs AND MODIFICATION OF IA
3iFFS. Tins, in 1892 | supported that Tam
which GREATLY MODIFIED AND REDU'
cED the ariff of 1923, insomuch that it acas sup
'oSed by reasonable men that ii 1Dould or Ougs
oSATISFY THE NULLIFIERS OF SOUIET
CAROLINA. The next year, 1888. IBROI
FOR WARD TIE Ca911PRD D1ILSE. II,l
NEVER WAS IN FAVBR OF WHAT RE,
5ARDED AS A HIGH T4RIFF. NO MORE
REVENUE SHOULD BE LEVIED THAN D
NECESSARY TO AN ECONOMICAL AZ Az
TION of the government" b.
SHOULD HAVE EPREFERRED THAT THh
COMPROMISE IN NALLIIIS. PARTS lg9G nE
orm duties Of 20 per cent COULD HdtD
BEEN ADHERED TO-"
HIS NORTHERN FACE.
The following letter was written by Mr. C4
D certain gentlemen in Pennsylvania, under 0''
f fSeptember9, 1874:
Gentlemen: I this Gay received your letter. ar
ressing two inquiries to me-"lst. Are you n a
avor Of the Tariff Act of 1842''-and ''2. WOuS Wn,
ou if elected, support that act as it is wIlgGs
notification: or would you be in favor OF moOD'
ng it,"
: 1 have so often, gentlemen. expressed my OPD
% in favor of the Tariff of 1912, that the only
ret feel is that you should deem it at all necss
to7request any renewed expression OF IT,. n 'om
Hheless, Itake. pleasure in complying with ~.
eqdest, in saving that lam of opinion that tnT
lf of 1842 has been emnently saluntary MHonI
an decidedly opposedto rs repeal that sn1ri .ni
Pgard It's repeal as great national calamIly Gf.
lat am unaware OF the necessity OF any mo' o is
alton OFT. j am therefore opposed alike t;osb ~
speal or modification. A fixed and stable PonsjJ
hat the country now most needs, and sfnc;SI
opethat the Tariff of 1912 may be naInlaiD
nd TINS afford a security for that deslderaluw
am, respectfully, ,7your obedien1 se[yanaY raaY.
Such facts are too plain to require any ns4 4
ent. What say you, Messrs Hines and D'
sfa