Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-08-06
In he Edilors nf Mc Enaniret.

IL.
July ., 1914. SOUTHAMPTON.
To tie Editors Of Hc Enquirer
FAuoUIER COUNTY, July 81.
On last Monday, the two Electors for this dis
trict met al or Courthouse 10 debate publicly
the questions which divide the two great parties
of the day. There were a great many persons
present.
Mr.. Janncy. the Wing Elccor opened discus
sion by affirming. against the assertion Of the De-
Iuocratic Address from Richmond, issued last win
Ter, that the principle of protection had been recoS
niZed bv all parties in this Government, from lis
origin 10 hisiimc He labo-ed To show, that the pro-
ieciive policy was advocated b. the Democratic ia
Tiers even as far as and down 10 Gen. Jackson,
whom he quoted at large. Heidi nottouch the ques-
ton of the present odious Tariff. This he care
fully avoided; conientng himself with maintain
i'm merely the Soundness OF the principle. /
would not omit to state here an argument oil Mr..
Janney, upon which he particularly relied. lie
said, that if our Government had not Inc power
10 protect our commerce, by imposing tax on
foreign tonnage foreign vessels would drive ours
from the ocean. This, he said, must be coEcedci
and if so, then must The power Of protection in
the General Government BE- conceded. To thls
he called Mr.. Smiths particular attention, ask
iBg him 10 reply In what he should say on this
occasion. bv fair argument ana logical induction
Mr. Janncv next affirmed, that United STATES
Bank was rot Il Federal measure, but Demo
cratic or Republican one And this he sustained
BY a reference 10 the vote oil parties IN the Two
Houses OF Congress, on the Bank till OF 1916.
He rext dwclt upon the Texas question and
tan.cly repeatcd Is arguments against lis imme
Giae annexation. what had been so much better
said by Van Buren,, Clay and Benton.
The talented Wing eecior then closed speech
Of three hours, perhaps, By an eloquent enloSy
upon the character and services OF Henry Clay.
Mr. VIM Smith, the Democratic clecior, rose
and replied, first TO The eulogy. by endeavornS 10
show. ,ha, there was no man in the Union more
Objectionable than SIR Clay, both politically and
mraiip
To the frs. question raised b. Mr.. Janncy, he
replied that he should differ with his worthy op-
p0ncn, upon the meaning OF The term protection,
as held bv The fathers Fact. showed Ina. their
protection was always 4 low raic Of duties low
cr,han he. as a Democrat, or the Democratic par
IT, was willing 10 endure. And he was willing
to conccde their principle, if the Government,
would give rs their practice. But particularly
referring To Mr.. Jefferson. as one 81 the Demo
cratic fathers, he quoted from letter oi his writ
ten in 1925 To Mr.. Giles in which he denounced
The protective polio; IS riding and ruling OYER
The plundcred ploughmen and be9gared woman
lv OF the country" He also alluded 10 the mes
sigcs of President Jackson in 1852, in which he
was explicit; and full against the Tariff OF iSeS
and said tina; Mr. Clay had originated the Com
promise Act with the intention, as he declared in
his speech. frN1 mrc Mc Iaif from the attack
Of Jackson and his party-and not 10 save his
country or Souh Carolina, as MIR. Janney had
improperly averret in his eulogy. But Mr..
Smith did not Stop here. He did, what his friend
Mr.. Ianney had failed 10 do, for reasons best
known to that gentleman. or. peric:S for want of
time. He viewed orr present Tariff as cues
ton holn Of principle and practice; and showed,
conclusivcy lis partial. ust and oppressive
character For Ibis purpose, he relied upon sound
reasoning ana stubborn facts. To the argument
npon This protective policy, drawn from protection
- our tonnage, Mr.. Smith replied, that this
power was expressly granted by the Constitution.
The Democratic Eiccior then passed 10 the
question, whether the Bank was Federal or De-
lnocra!ic measure Here he showed that while
once in the history Of our country, the De-
mocra,ic party had yielded 10 what they con-
sideicd The force Of circumstances. they had.
with this exception, uniformly resisted that
measure Hamilton was The father of il,
and pressed il against the opposition OF Jciicr-
son and Madison. The Democrats opposed II ~
1911: and though they yielded in 1916 they crush
cd il a, the earliest opportunity under the Old He
70. 1t is remarkable NlcsSr>. Editors. THAI, while
Mr. Ianncy besought his opponent TO make only
Loricm indncticns. he himself should have made
one So utterly Hogicci. He inferred a general
principle YOU perceive. from single TACT; and
that too 0"0nlS ar array Of counter facts from
which Mr.. Smith logically dc,'uce! an opposite
principle. But his is strong argument IN The es-
tilnal;on Of Wigs and will be boosted Of no
doubt as Wing riumuh in the public journals.
Mr. Smith then passed 10 the Texas question,
and placed that measure upon lis ue basis as il
~. ln n ~ TO-
-ervaion lo that portion Of the Union and lis in
sluions Showing that Mr. Clay had changed
ground upon this question, he asked the reason
Of the change. and pressed his demand home up
ON his opponent. He could sec but ono reason
and that was base desire TO cater Ia the vi,iated
taste of that respectable and considerable por-
tom OF this conicdcraoy, the Northern abolition
ISIS. This motive he charged directly upon Mr..
CLAY: and he intended so to charge it, until bet
ter reason WIS fully made ou;
Mr. Janney then rose agan, and, after happily
answering the cHssoW remarks OF Mr. Smith, re-
piled that Mr. Clay, in treating with Mexico for
ihc cession OF Texas. intended, no doubt, 10 90
further, and ask also the consent oil SPAN lie
did not deign to make a rep Y 10 Mr.. Smiths able
arguments against the present Tariff. Upon this
subject he made but one remark. which was
reply to q single argument. The Democratic
clecior had said. that or manufacturers needed
10 DtCduSc tli'.i Iuuid 1phlS'~ "'''
foreign paupcr labor in foreign and distant mar
keis. as the official documents clearly showed
Mr.. Jannev said that this sword cut both ways;
for if the Tariff raised prices here, our manulac-
turer, woald sell here, and never export.
Mr.. Smith rcjoned. He said he had never
heard or reed OF the explanation now given
of Mr.. Claws conduct in regard 10 Texas. II
Clay had intended also 10 ask SPANS consent ne
demanded some proof Of that fact. Mr. Janncy
said from his scat, the burden OF proof was upon
his opponent This Mr.. Smith denied. 1t is
wonderful, sir, that so able and experienced law
yer as Mr.. Janncy should state an affirmative Pre-
position. and when his opponent denies ii, should
hold him bound 10 prove that negative. This,
YOU observe too, is another Wing triumph. Mr.
Smith did not again touch The other controyerted
points. He gave usseveral brilliant passages ard
repar,ecs TO his opponents al copion@n'"s, or !
on,hi to saw perhaps, to the declama!ory parts OF
his opponents speech. Thus closed the day.
Let us sum up. The argument OF Mr. Janney
upon the first question raised, was fairly
met and answered. IL is clear that the pfofec-
ton of our fathers was moi such as is imposed by
the black Tariff OF 1912. lfsuch Tariff as that
Lad been laid in their day, they would have resist
ed il: ave. if in order to do eiieciually, ii had
been necessary. they would have boldly met and
con,rovel,cd Tie principle, though it had been
against any Just or unjust differences from tnelr