The Evansville journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1834-184?, 1844-07-25
From the National l~ntelligencer.
FOREWARNED, FOREARMED.

-
/ can tell gentlem that the present tariff
will be reduced as soon as WE democracy
are in full power. We very well knew thai
it was of no use to pass it in the House now.
as we have not the majority in the Senate.
Cine us a majority there, and then see fire
do not pass the bill. We riU do 1T! for
such is our purpose-such IS our r~esolute
determinatiOnLMr. Henley's Speech.
There is no need to impress upon any of
our readers the Importance and the conse-
quence of this avowal by one of the leading
orators of the "Democratic" party in the
present House Of Representatives. 1t is
stated by him SO plainly that he who runs
may read, that in the possible (but not pro-
bailey event of that party obtaining a major
iiy in the next House of Representatives,
the axe is to be laid at the root of the tree,
planted by the late Wing Congress, which is
already yielding visible and abundant fruits
Of national prosperity and wealth. This
alone would be inducement enough TO the
Wings Of the Union to exert themselves TO
prevent the possibility OF so great an evil as
would result from their allowing "the Dem
cracy'' to retain the ascendency, which they
now boast, in the House of Representatives.
Bnt we recur TO these declarations by Mr..
Henley for the purpose of pointing out 10
our readers, of Whale yer political complex
ion, the utter inconsistency of the profession
of faith and promise of action made by him,
in the nam9 of his party, with the claims set
up by other leading organs of that party for
Mr.. Polk and Mr.. Dallas that they are friend
ly TO the policy which he denounces and
dooms 10 destruction in case oftheir success
in the coming election. With what face can
ciples among "ihe Democracy" TO be per-
feet and unavar able, undertake 10 declare,
in the teeth of such demonstrations, that
that party is opposed TO protection, and means
to pull ii down? Is the Democracy ofLouis-
ana opposed to a protective duty on sugar?
Is that of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
and Missouri adverse TO high duties on hemp,
cotton Bagging, bale rope and Irvine? Is
the anti-iariff party of Missouri and Illinois
hostile to good round taxes on imported
lead? Is the free trade Democracy ofPenn-
sylvania, Maryland, and New Jersy oppos-
ed TO high discriminating rates on foreign
iron? Is the so-called keystone ofthe great
Democratic arch, Pennsylvania, very mimi
cal 10 heavy taxes on imported coal? Or what
free-trader of New England includes in his
theory opposition 10 the bounty on Goldfish?
But is there any body, any eminent lead
er, that represents "the Democracy" on this
point? Are they Jackson men? Are they
Van Buren, men? Are they Woodbury., or
Benton, or Wright, or Dallas men? All
these upheld the "Bloody Bill" of 1928; all
these stood by Gen. Jackson when he was
, determined not to repeal it for South Caro-
lima but to enforce ii with the sword.
All these men have repeatedly changed
their grounds, their votes, their "principles,'
i on this question. What is to hinder them
from dong so again? How, then, can any
man presume to say what the party faith is o.
g will be to that, or indeed on any other ques
ton? How can Mr.. Henley pledge himself
orthe party to pull down the tariff? VIVA
e authority has he to make any such engage
7 ment? Does he speak in the name o
Pennsylvania, or Connecticut, or Massa
chusetts, 0, Louisiana, or Kentucky, or Mis-
souri,?
e Once more: The tariff is to be changed
e when "the Democracy comes into full pow
IS er"-that is. when it has the majority ii
y both branches of Congress. That day ma
be very distant. But, suppose it came-di,
e the Democracy always pull down tariffs whel
commanding both the Senate and the Hous
n of Representatives? Not precisely. Nay
< if we are TO Judge ofthe Democracy accol
ID ding to the latest exhibition of its tenets, W
l. must suppo Sc that even when it shall hav
in two-tbirds in the Senate, as now IN the Hous
it will still fail to carry out its "principles,
lie just as it lately did.
IS But suppose-what is less improbable
that it has a mere majority in the Senate
suppose Messrs. Wright, Buchanan, and Stu
geon are still ofthe body: the loss OF the vol
of any one of them will still leave unrepea
ed the tariff for which they voted. Nor
this all: for (as has plainly appeared in tn
70 late vote on Mr.. McKay's billy the Hous
of Representatives is not going to give til
Senate an opportunity 10 repeal it.
1a Mr.. Henley intimates that the Hous
in could have passed MIR. McKay's bill, an
would have lone so, but that it knew it mu:
fail in the Senate. But the very contrary
well known to be the fact. If such a reaso
prevailed, it would have prevented the intro
Ill duction still more than the passage of til
he bill; for the Senate was quite as we'll know
= at the beginning as at the close of the Sc
= sion to be hostile to any change.
But what ''men of principle" as a gener;
rule do in one case, they would surely do
another like one. Now, the Democrat
r House of Representatives brought forwaI
a various measures, not only with the know
edge that they must fail in the Senate, BIZ
with the positive design that, by their defe
q. there, party capital should be made for the
70 4