Mobile register and journal., 1845-12-23

and plainly, according 10 common sense. Mr J. then Pul the case oi little community, consisting of Il shoemaker, a tailor, aud tanner The gen'ie- man sald they he protected aganst the pauper labor | Europe, because these paUpers could make aud se leather, for example, cheaper than our tan rers could ian it. Very well. Congress extended its arms 10 protect lhem aud how dId 1t do ill IL liid tax Of fifty per cent. imported shoes. W hat did that meant lt meant that the shoemaker must sell his shoes for fifty per cent. more So the same pr1tection extended to the tan"er and 10 the tailor. They were all protected alike. What did such protection amount tol To just nothing at all For whea the tanner went to the shoemaker 10 buy pair of shoes, he had to pay him fly per rent more ior tAem in consequence of the proi clion; and when the shoemaker went tn the tanner for leather, he had to do the same: and both had 10 do when they went 10 ihe tailor for their clothes.
 4 s among themselves, 1he protection was nothlng; it was nnlity. But round about this little com manity Of mechanics there was country filed wtih farmers and, as respected them, the protection was something more than a nullitv. To them it was a serious reality, for they were heeced whenever they wanted shoes, leather, or clothes, while they them selves remained unprotected, and got more for their grain. DId this Government mean to proceed on principle like Ihisl Would it build up one in teresl at the expense of annther3 Was that the ob- feet for winch ihis free Government of ours had been created2 He thaughi not, and the people though too. Take another case. Here were two brothers to whom their father gave ten housand dollars each. One went 10 the North, and became manufacturer; the other to the South, and became planter. He asked where in lhe C0nstituiion was the power of Congress to lax the one brother, and transfer the amount of ne tax To the pocket of his biother? To protect the brother in the North, and tax the brother in ihe South? Would the gentleman from Pennsy ylvania put his finger any clause in the Constitution which authorized proceeding like that? Could he show it's justice! It could not be done Talk nhout prolection! Was this he way " a n D nR- qality among the citizens Ohhs same country equal y entitled to iis protectionl He believed the peo oe were no, prepared or protection of that kind
 Aud what the practical operation oi the sys- iem2 We found lhe manufactures of ,he United States going, wherei Notwithstanding ihs much dreaded pauper labor of Europe. we found articles manufactured in the United States going where that labor was, and competing with il on he spot after paying tNc dHlies imposed by Il t:'riH. They went in like manner into all the domnions Of Europe. competing ith the manufactures of Great Brllain.- Yet gentlemen turned roand and told hun thai our labor usust be protected. Would the people submit <tasIfns? Now was the time 10 settle that question: He believed they would be well satisfied with n rev. etue tariff.
 Mir. Stewart wished 10 ask the gentleman one question. The gentleman said our cotton goods went to Liverpool and London; low much cheaper did he suppose they could be sold if inc protecting duly was taken oGl How, then, is the duly a tax? If send these goods 10 Liverpool, surely they could be any cheaper if tue dHy repeal ed. This only proved that made the article here cheaper than any other part of the world.
 MT Johnson said that was sun the simple rule of three. If they could sell cheaper in gland than English goods after paying duty and charges, could they not aliord 10 do the same here al home in the Upited States! The case is as plain.
 To hear snule orators, both in te country at large and in this House, (and lie had listened as caste and able and eloquent speeches elsewhere as he had ever heard on this H3Or,) one wonld suppose that Government could build up one class of the citizens without pulling down another Il was all iallacous Mr. J. hadi not risen 10 make a speech but on Ihis point he hailed from the ranks of the people, and lie must feel with them. Proteclinu; who paid? Did il not enable the uin protected To sell his goods for that much morel And who paid! When protected, solnbody else mast pay, gentlemen talked nonsense. Hence, the reluctance Uf the gem leinan from PenusS vanla 10 be dragged up To the question. IL had been put and he failed to answer it. It was the agricultural popua:ion of the try who paid slt was all sophisry to say otherwise. Where did the Government get mSnoyl Did II fall from the skies? Had Government discovered the philosonhel's stoned No; gentlemen made of the same materials with tbeir constituents; all they got they drew from the hard earnings of the people ; II belonged to them, and Congress had no fight to Lake It from one 10 give Il to another.
 As to the doctrine ui minimums, Nr. J had thought 1t loo late in the day for any To contend in favor oi such mode of taxation. IL was mere decep- ton to say that article worth five cents should be assumed to be worth twenty cents. and then tax it accordingly. IL late to plead for any such proceeding. The principle was manltestly unlust.
 Mir. J. not for abolishing the tariff But that protection to our "home industry''-wnat a siren song it was in lhe of the people. Did not our "home ndustry' include the labor of the farmer; or was il exclusively the labor of the manufacturer? Ought u0t Government to look to the happiness of those who were lhe bone and sInew of the country? Protection had been exclusive quite long enough He was willing to give ari for revenue, bu, not dollar for protection. The people of this country were patriotic any the face Of the globe; 1; they willing 10 give their last dollar when the of the Government justly called for it; but not for system of partial and unequal Legislation.