The Evansville journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1834-184?, 1844-07-18

and hostility TO the Compromise. Within
six weeks after the passage of the act, the
Executive of the United States began TO vi
olate its true spirit and its Legitimate con-
structien, for the purpose of breaking down
our American policy. On the Doth Of April,
1888, the secretary of Treasury under Presi-
dent Jackson issued his famous Treasury
Circular to all the officers of the customs in
the United States. That circular contained
an Executive decree ADVOCATING all the spe-
cltic duties and thewbole system ofminimums
IN the existing tariff laws. Under a pretext
as foreign from the views of all men with
whom | acted in the passage of that law, as
any thing most remote, this arbitrary edict
declared, without one one syllable in the act
to support it, that it was our intention, in
passing it, 10 repeal these specific duties
and minimums. 1t is scarcely possible that
any human being could have been SO igno-
rant as net to know that a specific duty
could, at any time, be as we'll ascertained
as an d valorem duty, and that these duties
were convertible. BY the Compromise, we
simply provided that all existing duties
whether specific or advalorem) should be
reduced according 10 a fixed ratio. This
out rage on the law, which, because the
Executive, whose province it was to collect
the duties, had perpetrated it, was utterly
without remedy, proved of great injury to
all those manufactures which depended for
protection upon the minimuns and specific
duties.
The injury inflicted on the manufacturing
interest did not admit of legal redress, for
the friends OF protection could not by any
possibility bring the question before any ju-
dlcial tribunal, while the executive officers
refused to sue for or collect the duties 10
pursuance oftheir instructions. Nothing re-
manned for US TO do but to submit in silence,
until the returning sense of justice to the
country should induce the people to drive
the enemies of Domestic Industry from the
high places of the Republic.
And here let me pause, for the purpose
of entreating every friend of Home Labour.
who has ever thought of voting for James K.
Polk, as president ofthese United States, to
take warning by the example which | have
now set before them. If there be such a man,
lethim not lay the fattering JUNCTION TO his soul
that he can save bis ~favorite policy while the
Executive of the United States, with the
officers of the Customs appointed by him, is
hostile to that policy. They have the col
lection of the duties for the protection ;and he
whowould commit The lamb TO the custody Of
the wolf, will Justly suffer for his own folly.
Before | have done with this subject, |
oughtto mention, in this connexion, what !
think is another strong evidence OF the hos
tility of James X. Polk and his political as
s~ociates to the protective policy, and other
true principles of the Compromise Act
Although they continued in power from the
passage of that law until the year lS4l, they
never attempted in a single instance, to pro
vide either by protective legislation orby any
Executive regulation, for any mode of assess
ing duties on Home Valuation; nor GIu T1ey
attempt to pass a law raising the duties
respectively, after the Both of June, 1912,
TO the real wants of the government ;althougt
they knew, as we'll through the whole ses
sion of Congress of lS40-I, as we know
now, one or both of these measures ought Il
be respectively adopted TO save the govern
ment from the danger of bankruptcy. The
principle of the Home Valuation was a sim
qua non, at the time of the passage of tht
act, with many of those who, like mysel
voted for it for the purpose avowed by me a
the time, of saving the Protective policy
We conside red that a vote for the duties fix
? ed by the act, to be assessed on this princi
pie, was essentially TO all intents and pur
poses a vote for Protection; and we deter
mined, therefore, to Mr.. Calhoun an
his peculiar friends in the Senate TO recon
the r ole in the most unequivocal form, o
the journal in favor ofthat principle. An
d here | cannot help complaining of the cor
I duct OF Mr.. Calhoun, after the passage {
this law, unexpectedly after the period whe
most Of US friendly to the protective policy
h who had voted with him for It's passage, ha
left the Senate of the United States. Ho1
we'll his conduct comported with that fee
ing which became a man who had receive
. at our hands IA shelter from the storm whic
q threatened to annihilate him. ! leave f
e him and Others who are in the same categ'
ry 10 determine. TO explain his conduct
must refer TO a few facts.
While the motion was pending to amer
b the bill by directing the assessment of til
IS duties on the home value, a debate sprun
d up, in the course of which Mr.. Calhoun Il
d peatedly argued that the amendment was III
constitutional, and declared that it was in
e possible for him 10 vote for it. A numb,
I'd OF Tariff Senators, friendly to the compr,
mise Act, with whom | was acting in CO
o. cert, including, among others, Samuel Bel
at of New Hampshire, A. Naudain, of Del
IT. ware, Samuel Foote, of Connecticut, al
IN John Holmes, oil Maine, had resolved 10 cor
IN pei all the nli-protectionists in the Sena
by TO vote for that amendment, in every stag
al of its passage, or to defeat the bill by layir