New-York daily tribune., 1844-09-03

The Tnrim Question.


by you at Watertown, far as 1t related to tht
Tariff. / publish this Speech because | believe
there is very marked and important difference
between the position of your party and that o
mine on the Tariff question: and that yours can
not triumph without bringing down devastation
and ruin on the great Industrial Interests of oul
Country You, of course, think otherwise; and
you are every where known and recognized as a
very able and ingenious champion of your own
party. IT. therefore, you are even hay right, l
freely give your side the advantage Of the diffu-
zion of $4,000 copies Of your able Speech in The
Tribune. This is sort of advantage which
your party i:cver concede to mine. have a
dozen times this season answered articles from
your side, quoting them in full /; but no article of
mine, setting forth the Wing position and policy
on the Tariff, has ever yet been transferred to d
Loco Foco paper, even when labored attempts
have been made to answer it. Only last week,
Mr.. Webster expressed at Albany his hope that
| would answer certain alledgcd " Facts for
Farmers-dedicated to Horace Greeley" He
was not aware that had patiently and fully an
swered those very statistics when they first saw
the light in the Journal of Commences and that
the Journal nor any other paper ever attempted
to dispute the statements with which | confuted
them. My answer went unnotlced by your side,
because it could not be overborne; but the mis-
statements which it exposed were put in hand
bill, as though they had never been questioned,
and sent all over the State thick as forest leaves.
This is fair sample OF the way the two parties,
respectively, carry on the contest.
And let me say here, Mr.. Wright, that it seems
to me that you take hold of this Tariff question
as though you were inclined or impclIcd 10 be-
little ito give the impression that we have all
been ferccy battling these thirty or forty years
for whim, verbal distinction Just nothing at
all. Have we really been natural fools all this
time Is there in truth no difference between
Webster and Calhoun, between Clay and Polk,
between Barnard and Wright, on the Tariff?
All yes, Sir! there is great, vital difference
between us. We have not been convuIsing and
at times nearly dissolying the Union for CHI
mera-a barren abstraction. The Tariff qucs-
ton is the question OF the day-dcepcr, broader,
more momentous, than any, than all other qucs-
tons which divide and agitatc the country. Let
Us treat it as such, then, and not endeavor to
mystify or sink it. 1t cannot be obscurcd by all
the mist that can be raised by the mightiest or
the subtlest among us. We may shroud our
selves, but not it.
You tell your hearers and readers that the Free
Traders Of this Country are not really Free Trade
men, though they call Themselves so'-that the
term Free Trade AT first startled and alarmed
you-but that, on applying to those who assumed
it, you were tranquilized with the assurance that
they did not mean by Free Trade the entire ato.
]iton Of our Tariff, but only having the Trade of
the Country as free as it can be kept, and raise
the Revenue necessary TO support the Government ,
This, it appears, pacifcd you ;-and l must say
you were easily soothed. You say,
Free Trade necessarily implies the entire abscnce OF duties
and have not yet met the r man m public hie this Union
who will admit IN conversation that he IN favor OF such
principle
Now, cannot say how men differ in convcr-
sation' from their public teachings, but know
that there has been very able pamphlet pub
lished at the Plcbcian office in this City, and
widely commended in the journals Of your party,
which argues forciby against all Duties and
Custom.houses, declaring that they enable the
Rich to escape their fair share OF the public bur-
thcns, and insists that all Revenue should bc rais-
ed by Direct Taxes. | know there arc many
honest and able men Of your party in this city
who advocate this doctrine. And it seems TO me
the plainest thing in the world that II your doc
1rines are sound, these men are entirely right.
For if Protection TO Homo Labor be not palpa-
bic and positive good-iE every duty is burthen
on the community and tax on the consumer of
the article on which it is leyicd-then | deny the
rghtfulness of Tariffs altogethor-I see clearly
that they oppress the Poor, and fasten on Labor
the burthens which should be borne by Wealth.
ii Tariff does not benefit the general Industry
OF the Country by its Protective efficacy then 1t
is most unequal and unjust mode OF raising
Revenue, and ought to be abolished. Ii Revenue
is to be the sole object and effect, protest against
raising it in such way as 10 tax the rich miscr
actually less than the poor day-lsborer II, then,
! were any sort OF Free Trader, must be OF
that very sort which you contemplate with so
much anxiety and alarm.
Bnt you tell us that you arc in favor OF dis
elimination in laying du,lcs-that one uniform
rate is absurd-and that you would have Tariff
of unequal duties, the main and principal OBJ
iect of which should be revenue Here then, "
continues your reported speech, I" is an eSplans-
ton of what Mr.. Wright meant bya PrOteetipe
Tariff, and ,ohat his Southern friend meant by
Free Trade. Where, then, toas the DIFFERENCE
.be,ween us?"!!! Where, indeed
Gentle shepherd. tell US where
concede the point at once. What you call
Protective Tariff, and what your Southern
friend so alarpl ~ styled Free Trade, are as
like as Two peas-as ...kcaF las Wright and the
u. s. Senator from St. ,wreace Co, ,y5ose