The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-30

IN opposluon 10 II, ffOhl whlch copy INC iOilow-
ing sound and truly democratic paragraph
| Mr. Smith said "
| "Whence come the outcries about the distress Of
| the country and furnishing laborers' Was 1t from
the agricuturisls of the country Was il the hardy
yeomanry, who depended on their hands, their own
| unaided energies and their indomltable love OF IN
dependence, who disdained 10 crnge and supplicate
for support al the expense Of othersi No; such men
appreciated the American character too well 10 be-
come supplieants 20 power. These outcres come
from widely diffefent--a degenerate--a hotbed
elass-or rather, from spectators and monopollsts,
who, for their own selfish ends, reared up these
hot-beds, and fatleDed and grew rich upon the la
bors which wasted the energies and destroyed the
true American spirit Of their dependents. For the
further aggrandizement of such monopoliss, he was
| called upon TO vote for this bill. And what was It's
propositionfor it could not be denied that IL was
measure for protection. IL is proposition TO tax
the hardy reemen Of this Unisn who trust TO their
| own industry alone for their support, and make
them pay nearly double price for every imported
article which enters into the consumption Of their
families, that the rich monoposts may grow richer
| and their dependents may become more dependent
| and more numerous. Where was such system
to end, but in the encouragement, dlmiDution, and
destruction OF that hardy race, best calculated to up
hold our republIcaninsttutons and the multiplication
of aristocratc distinctions between wealthy monopo-
lists and paupered dependents, which must, sooner
or later, II such system Is promoted by the general
government lead TO the gradual decay and hnal dis
| solution Of liberty. Could he then be expected 10
vote for measure which was calculated TO foster
and protect monopoly and dependence, and to break
down and oppress equality and Independence No
| measure should receive his support the result OF
which would be TO build up an arstocracy Of mo-
nopolsts, under the pretex Of protecting the labor
ers whom they had reduced to the state Of paupers.
II was not these laborers who were TO receive the
benefit Of this protection, but their task-masters.
This would be bat the building up Of power to
sap the very foundations Of the free institutions OF
their country. IL WIS 10 stimulate the contest be-
tween those who live upon their own labor and
those who live upon the labor OF others; with this
dierenee--that the latter were to have the bounty
Of government, and the former were TO stand the
contest on their own resources, under fearful Odds
| Thus was the issue made up for Connecticut; the
wing senator and wing delegation in the House
speaking and voting for the bill, and Mr.. Smith
denouncing and voting against II. OF course, as
whig policy, IL the great and important element
in the succeeding election IN the State OF Connectl-
cut. That election came off, and resulted in revolu-
tionzing the State. The wing delegation in the
House Of Representatives were turned out, and an
entire democratic delegation substituted in their
places for the 18th Congress. Then came on the
efforts Of the democratic party to repeal the tariff
Of 1912. Gen. McKay's bill Of ths first session OF
that Congress was reported, and for a long time
debated in Committee Of the Whols on the state OF
the Union. On its being reported by that commit
tee TO the House, MIR. Elmer, OF New Jersey,
moved 10 lay il upon the table That vote on all
sides agreed to be the Test VOTE and the bill was
laid on the table, the Hon. Thomas H. Seymour, the
democratic member from the Hartford district, Mr..
Niles's district and the Hon. John Stewart, anoth-
err democratic member from that State voting against
The motion, and Of course against The tariff Of ls42.
These are the facts in regard 10 this matter and
think they establish pretty conelusvely that the
tariff Of l842 pds opposed, and ntrr defended, by
some leading and distinguished democrats OF the
State Of Connecticut
Another circumstance leads me to believe-Mr.
Niles to the contrary notwithstandng-ths the
great body Of the democracy Of Connecticut are
opposed to the tariff Of l642. In December last
the President sent his message to Congress. In
that admirable and celebrated state paper, he took
the most explicit and unequivocal ground against
the tariff Of 1912 and for tariff solely The
Secretary Of the Treasury followed with his report
paper second in ability and sound principles to
none other that has erpanated from his department.
on which he took the ground, and sustained Il
by irresistible array Of facts and the most concu-
ave arguments. Thus the position Of the adj
minisraton distinctly and clearly defined before the
country against the tariff Of l642, and the protective
system generally and in favor of tariff for rev
enue. In full view of the position of the admins
raton in relation to this subject, the election IN
Connecticut came off in April last, and resulted in
, the complete triumph Of the democratic party. In
approval of the conduct and measures Of the admin
strationi Certainly in no other light.
have been informed that the WING press, in the
, late election in Connecticut, took the ground thai
the democratic party was opposed to the protective
policy, and its triumph would be the downfall Of
that system. But in relation to this cannot speak
: from my own knowledge.
' A NORTHERN DEMOCRAT.
From the New Haven Daily Register July n.
. THE DEMOCRACY OF CONNECTICUT ON THE
IL .".' TARIFF.
I A writer in the Washington Union, protesting
"to set history right" does mot hesitate to aver
that out of The States Of Connecticut and Vermont, thu
democracy Of that portion Of the Union New Eng
land] have very generally opposed the tariff o
!. lS42."
, | Now we think we can appeal to the old editor o
the Richmond Enquirer to save the democracy o.
Connecticut at least, from the unenvisble exception
in which they thus classed. We do not hesitate
to aver that in northern State has the tariff o
. ls42 been more boldly attacked, its principles
more thoroughly discussed by the democratic party
than in this same State of Connecticut There ].
not solitary press in the State that has binked thu
$ question. We have uned--and the party ha'
unitedly sustained us-in demanding the reduction
and equalization of the tariff OF 1872
There has not assembled democratic conven
ton nor democratic legislature in this State, since
the passage of that act, which has presumed to de
fend it. And for the truth of this, we appeal tt
the record ....
Y The legislature of Is43, the first that assembled
after the enactment of the present tariff, resolved
after preamble declaring the present tariff "unwis'
n in Details Objectionable in its provisions, and o
! doubtful efficiency revenue measure"-that
/ eve regard the tariff act passed by the last Con
gress as unequal and unjust; and that senator's II
Congress are hereby instructed, and our representative
requested to role for such modification 81 said act al
4 shall make it most consistent with the letter ant
spirit of the constitution adapt it TO the wants Of thu
. government, and commend it to the good sense o
the people by the justice of its provisions and thu
e prospect of ito permanence.' .s...
o The democratic address of that year took strops
ground against the principles and details of the act
The State convention Of the same year, called t.
nominate delegates to the Baltimore convention de
= clarcd as among the principles for which we wer
! striving, that of ..... n. "s.
:, "a moderate revenue, with strict economy in il
" administration and tariff Of duties based exclu
e sively upon that revenue thus administered"
n In 1874, the democratic State address followed VI
g the attack, and particularly made for its object tn