Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1845-04-10

her Elisha r. Potter, .oco, and opposed to DORIS re.
lease
Tho Legislature stands as fellows:
House Senate
Law and Order d3 q
Durrile q IS
The "Coiion .1rgumen" mjuror .fMe .a,neration
IF 1fras.
Referring, some days ago. 10 the repeal, ty the Brit.
Ish government OF the duty uron American Cotton we
con'ended that one II the most influential arguments
heretofore urged in favor Of the annexation Of Texas to
the Union. was thereby neuralized-to wit that. if
Texas should not be annexed, Great Britain would, by
treaty with lis government, admit Texas cotton into her
ports Tree OF duty while she would continue hereto
fore, to exact duty upon cotton the growth Of the Uni
ted States. The Richmond Enquirer thinks, however
that our argument twill scarcely hold water" for it IS
asked by tha, paper, docs it follow that as soon as
Texas raises enough 10 supply large proportion of the
British demand, iha, discrimination may not then be
made in favor of Texas cotton 7' In reply to this in
'erroeatoy we say. in the first place, that although the
argument based upon the alleged apprehension of this
discrimination against our great staple eXerted perhaps
greater influence than any other upon the public mind,
yet That, IN our opinion, II was entitled TO the i'm
por'ance ascr'bfd TO llfor the plain HAT the ex
sting treaties between the United States and Great Bn
tain forbade such discrimination; and because should
the British government, in express violation Of existing
treaties with that OF the u States, into commercial
arrangements with Texas hostile In our nlerests
we hold IN our own hands the power 10 redress the
INJURY by ike determinations against b, manuactu-
rers We therefore always secuted this argument as
wholly nnienable-as we now do the suggestion that
THIS discrimination may hereafter be made against the
cotton OF the United States Texas las an in
dependent P"wer) shall raise enough supply large
proportion of the British demand This position we
maintained prior I" the repeal Of the duty American
cotton by the British government, and that measure was
only cited by conrmaory of The correctness of the
opinion we had previously expessed--ihe more so as
the repeal was recommended by the British Ministry
while yet the question of anne xalon pending before
the American Congress, and maneslly caring " he
Their the decision of that body should be in the aflirma
tive or negative
But if we had ever entertained any doubt of the us-
tice OF the position we assumed. declaration of
Sir Robert Peel in the British Parliament in reply to
question addressed 10 him by Mr. Thornley, in relation
To the duty on Sugar, would have entirely removed it
and we beg leave 10 invite the attention of the Enquirer
to this reply. for the purpose of removing, ought
do the apprehensops which it TO feel on this sub
Ject The question was, whether sugar. the produce
OF Louisiana and therefore, the produce of slave labor
will be admitted Onto the ports Of Great Britain al the
same rae Of duty sugar from China Java and
MANILA which is considered the produce of free
labor ~ In reply, Sir Robert Peel adver,s TO
the fact, (upon which we have heretofore relied to
show that there is no probability in the event of the de-
feat of the annexation scheme, that the British govern
men will discriminate in favor Of Texas cotton that
the existing treaty between Great Britain and the Uni.
ted States expressly STIMULATES that the produce of the
latter shall be admitted into the ports of the former ON
The footing Of The most fdrored ndon-and therefore he
adds, 81 have no hesitation in saying that my consruc,
ton OF the treaty is, that sugar from the United States
would under the reciprocity Treaties, be admissible on
the terms and footing sugar from Java Manila
and China" This is a conclusive answer to Re = :,
quirer. and gives the quelus to the cott arrumo,,,
tor II II shall 50 turn out, in ne progress of events that
iesas shall eec the proposition rendered to her by the
government of the L. States and resolve upon maintain
ing an independent position among the nations of the
earth, the same treaty which secures TO the sugar Of the
United States admission into the ports Of Great Britain
upon the same terms as sugar from other countries
would place the cotton Of the United States upon the
same footing with that Of Texas however much Grea,
Britain nigh, be disposed to favor her,
II Tough SHestlon.-ihe South Caroiinidn a pa-
per Of great influence in the State whose name il bears.
puts tight question to The friends of Mr. Polk which
respectfully submit 10 the consideration of our neigh
Dor of the Republican, who so clearly comprehends
Mr.. Folks Tariff opinions, while to most other rer
they enigma hard solve as that of the
ancient Sphynx. The absurdiiy Of Mr.. Folks decla
ration that he in favor of protecting alike all the great
interests of the country. while he is nevertheless in IA
r -,
pos d by the South Caroinian:
"Mr. Polk in his Inaugural avows himself in raxor
protecting al the interests of The country alike, yet he
be afforded by moderately discriminating tariff The
very term Discrimination implies that difference is
TO be made in favor of certain articles and Thai The pr
ducers or manufacturers of these articles viii be nrecsd
Ia greater extent, than those whn produce or m,nr>
fac'ure certain other articles, and unless MIR pill
means that equal dnes shall be imposed upon all arm
cles which are grown manu- acured in The ITnieJ
States, We cannot see how he is to protect all The int,
rests q The country alike, BY a discriminate ,a,iG
f"w does lie propose 10 discriminate so ar IL, rroec, bc
c","n growing interests q the South We should like
10 kuow." ''"'' ""'