The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-01-07
Correspondence Of the Nadi.onisn-
Pn,lAprLpmA, January 6, lsis.

PhiLApELpHAi January 0, loio
Tops Editor Of the Jdaaisonian
Smi As this communication is the result of pain
r,lhsr than pleasure, wish you to consider yourse
IA no way compromised by the sentiments which Il
nav be found to express,
An article ia a late number Of the Charleston Ner
,,ry, complains most bitterly of the discordan
rounds upon which, as the editor seems TO think
The election Of James X. Polk was advocated In
South Carolina and Pennsylvania. There, he says
the President elect held up as an anii-proieoiion
man while here, he seems to think, he was support
I'd as an ULTRA protection man. Nov, as have writ.
tan more ia this connection, speaking of quantity
Than perhaps any other three in Pennsy anis
desire above all things TO DO the means Of correct
iog whatever errors Of opinion friends may en-
,,r,ain. am generally given to dgurative illustra-
,oos and see reason why should depart from
the rule on this occasion, and especially IL will
save both time and space. invite our friend then,
10 the following;
Suppose the staple product Of Pennsylvania to be
sorE-yes, cork, for | am IN good earnest. Suppose
,bs chief product Of South Carolina to be leather
This is understood A candidate for the Presidency
"A.
contemplation Of the fact that, large mporations of
lasting are being made, the people Of South Carolina
iooire Of the said nominee whether not he is in
the habit Of wearing leather shoes He responds yes.
The people OF Pennsylvania in view Of the fact Of
hi, wearing leather shoes, inquire whether not he
il equally favorable TO cork heels lie also answers
in the affirmative. Whereupon, South Carolina ad-
AZ. h.s. ha ia in Il ~
shoes and without the least regard TO any other
Qualification in this behalf Pennsylvania is equal
IL favorable to his success, because he favors
the use Of cork and advocates his election in especial
reference to this particular Now, would respect
fully ask the question, where is the Inconsistency in
this proceeding Let US apply the figure.
Mr. Polk was duly nominated as the candidate Of
the Democratic party. South Carolina asked him if
be was in favor of tariff for protection. He replied
no and that gallant little State accordingly gave him
her electoral vote. Mean hile, Pennsylvania asked
him, in view of the fact of his only being in favor of
necessary revenue tariff, if he in favor OF pro-
lection from determinations. He replied in the affir-
native and as that concerned her peculiar interests
she gave him her vote, and be elected President
Now, | would again ask the question, where is the
incompalbiltty of this proceeding7
For my own part, it seems to me, nothing but the
querulousness of prejudice, will prevent friend
from taking" when he shall have dspassionately
reconsisered the grounds upon which he penned the
article referred to. Ii understood here, that Mr.
Polk was opposed to any thing but necessary reve-
nue. tariff. Ii was so understood in South Carolina
and while we all voted for him on that account as
regular Democrats, large additional phalanx here
sustained him for the further that he was in
favor Of incidental protection, rather, of making
the most Of necessary assessment upon foreign i'm
posts How is itpossble, then, that any regular De-
mOcrat, in any section of the Union, complain at
the result7 We had hoped for better things from
South Carolina. However, the question is from
which very honest differences Of opinion may spring,
even among members of the same political famil -
We should not have been so much surprised at a
similar ebui'i0n from the /" old North State" She
went for tariff that is, she went for tar without
the iG; and as that was standing by her own pecu-
liar interests think, in all justice, she deser
much credit as we have accorded to ourselves.