New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1844-08-17
RepIy 10 the ADORE.

Our respected opponent and subscriber Che need
not 'patronize' us if he don't consider our paper
fair equivalent for his nine cents week. has
stated his case very strongly and courteously,
barring his talk about Federal party and SO on,
which we care nothing about. We look to
things, and care little for names. Now let him
listen to statement of pl ain facts on our side
l. Hssa fact, that Gen. Jackson, who went
into the Presidency an unequivocal advocate OF
Protection, became warped by his Free Trade as
sociatons while in that office, so that he was al
enemy of that policy from about the date of his
Bank Veto Hence Nh Polk stated truly, in a
carefully considered address to the People of Ten
nessee in 1899, that Gen. Jackson's influence had
long been been exertcd to break down the Pro
tective policy, in which he would have com
pletely succeeded but for the course of Mr.. Clay
in bringing about the Comp romlse of 1888.
2. His a fact that MIR. Polk has repeatedly de-
clared the question of Protection or No Protec
ton to be one of the main issues between the two
parties-his party being opposed to Protection and
MIR. Clay and the Wings in .tapor Of it.
3. 1t ia a fact that the question Of Protection
OF No Protection was distinctly presented III
Congress on tho reference Of the Presidents
Message at the opening Of the first regular SEES
sion Of the Wing Congress of 4l-'2-that the
question was fully debated on its abstract merits
tho advocates OF Protection on the one side, tn,
opponents of Protection, with few hesitating
Protectonists (who were willing to vote for Pro.
faNY hnf IN mt plve,
distinctly to the prnciple) on the other; and,
when the the vote was inslly taken, it Stood
For Protection, lO1: Ninety Wings, Fourteen
Locos against Protection, Serenity One Locos.
T,eenfy. Four Southern Wings; and of thcst
twenty. -four a considerable proportion voted for
Protective Tariff directly afterward, and have
ever since been eminent champions of Protection
All the Loco. Focos but eleven from Pennsylva.
MIA and three scattering voted deliberately against
any Tariff for Protection.
4. 1t Is fact that in due time thereafter bill
creating an adequate stable, well-adjusted Pro-
tective and Revenue Tariff was reported anc
passed both Houses of Congress, by the following
votes: Houss-Yeas, Il6-all Wings but Par.
menter of Mass; Nays, lla; Ninety seren Locos,
Thirteen Southern Wings aud t,oo Virginia Ty.
Ter men. SxNArE-Yeas 25, all Wings; Nays,
90, T,centy Locos, and three Southern Wings
S. 1t is a faet that, after this truly Protective
Tariff bill had been crushed BY John Tyler's
Veto, q diversity of opinion arose as to the pro-
priety Of passing another adjusted to suit John
TYLER & Co.; but il was finally done, by close
squeeze. Against this seeming surrender 10 Exc
cutivc dictation many stern Wings and uncom.
promising advocates of Protection protested, and
on this ground only they voted against the mutt
lated BILL Tais bill passed the House BY IO5
Yeas to 1903 Nays: Yeas, Eighty.tpo Wings,
Tpenty Locos, (nonc from any State but New
York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts; , three
Tyler men; Nays, Thirty.fre Wings. S'rty.fre
Locos, too Tyler men. In Senate-Yeas, 20:
Tsrsnty Wings Four Locos; Nays, 90 Eight
Wings. Fourteen Locos, and Mr., Rives. Ofthe
Loco Focos who voted for this bill nearly every one
openly denounced its Proteeiipe features, and de-
clared that they voted for it because the Govern,
ment must have Rerenue, and they must take
this bill or nothing while most of the Wing. who
voted against the bill did So not because Of their
opposition to any thing in it, for of all its P'osec-
tive features they heartily approved, but because
had been stricken out which they be-
lieved essential to its efficacy and stability as
msssprs Of Protection,