New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-07-18
James Ruchu nan.

The PENNSYLVANIA labors throu eh nearly CO.
lunn to clear MI Buchanan Of the charge of con-
spring 10 defraud Pennsylvania on the Tariff CUES.
ton in the canvass Of 1874 and succeeds in proving
beyond cavil the guilt ii would deny. For exam
pie, 1t says Of Mr. BIS speech at Milton, of which
Mr.. Pollock was auditor;
"Be Buchanan) CONNIE need by stating that Mr.. Clay
aud MIR Polk. from their public acts and declarations,
stood upon the same platform In regard to the Tariff
and from these II appeared that the one was az good
Tariff man as the other
Here followed quotations from certain letters of
Mr.. Clay, &c.
"Comparing these declarations of Mr.. Clay and Mr..
Polk Mr Buchanan concluded that they stood upon the
same ground in regard to the Tariff.
Mr.. Buchanan proved that Mr.. PolR had heretofore
sanctioned Discriminating duties by referring 10 MI
plancks BILL which be (Mr. Polk had supported aud IN
deed was a member of the Committee by which II was
reported. II will be recollected that Mr. Cays Com
promise Act substituted for this bill. Under MIR.
Verplaucks BILL Mr. Buchanan stated that the duty on
hammered iron fixed at SIS per ton on rolled iron
at S24 per ton and pig iron at IS per tor-dnnes
nearly AZ high those imposed under the act OF 1872
and Jar hsher than :hose contained IN Mr. Cays CON-
promise Act.
This was the course Of argument adopted ey Mr..
Buchanan only at Milton, but at Towsnds, and other
places where We were present.
Can any more evidence be needed? The life long
career of Henry Clay was perfectly familiar TO MIR
Buchanan; Eo was that of Mr.. Polk. He knew
very well that the former had always been leading
champion the latter deadly opponent OF the prlH-
cipLe Of Protection and all its legitimate conse-
quences. lie knew that the two never came toge-
Their except in voting for the Compromise Act, and
then just az Washington and CORVALLIS together
signed the capi,ulalon OF Yorktown Mr.. Clay re-
uctanty entered into that Compromise 10 save VIVA!
he could of Protection Mr. Polk voted 70. it reluct.
anuy, because it did crush Protection at blow.
All this Mr.. Buchanan knew WELL and knew that
irresistible circumstances would incline Mr. Clay to
sastan Protection and the Tariff as Il Is even were
be personally wsvering while equally resisess cir
cums,ances would compel Mr.. Polk to take the op
posite course. There was 10 probability, hardly 9
possibility, thar either Of them would oppose the
wishes Of the great mass of the party which sup
ported him. Mr.. Buchanan, therefore, as deliber
aely, wilfuliy, wickedly, mised his constituents a
! If he had induced ,nem TO believe Mr.. Calhoun more
! favorable to the Protective Policy than Mr.. Clay
He knew be was Turing them into position Of srea
peril to their vital interests bu; lofty promise o. per
sonsl elevation to himself Now where Is he And
where are they Ought he not TO be ashamed &c
look an honest man in the face
r. The Poushkeeps.e Telegraph is mistaken in
its assertion that we advocate law regulating the
price OF Bread We would Ike 10 see oaves made Of
particular SIZE. or weights that the buyer might know
what sort OF bargain he was Masking Now re pays
quarter OF dollar for bread and gets four !osyss sc'
much is that, Let the Bread be sold oy weight snc
every baker charge VIA, he pleases.
The Telegraph wants know II the 'foorierites
would not lxe hsre the tirnerhour regulated D -"
We have heard that they would We oeiieve
they would be glad OF provision securing 10 every
nan fair opportunity dinner and 70 get II sliei
he had earned Il, We trus, tia; does noi ucrIay Of
fsnd the nice Democratic Instincts Of our eotsPoFsy
e viii the Rochester AMERICAN, when Il
questions the courtesy Of any passage II The Tn
bune be good enough TO say whether that passage
is is rI<s We di.iks disceurtssy. bui In oSi
view the who bears tsis winners against h' neigh
sor 10 extremely discourteous Etile be who frankly
tells the offender 81 bis fault re-: Ess ihs American
di5e-en; rule
EXCISE IN DurcHEss Cc.-The total vote on the
License Question in Dutchess County was 1854
4sil for No License and so7S License Three town,
voted 70 LesnseHyee Park BY ls7 20 80 Rsnsb<ck ,,
a1i TO 2ss ftas e..ns by lao All tie re-. Us
vossd No LiSsnss-PocS hksePsie BY lpo6 &c sos ans
E1asktn By Sos 70 $50.
x OsTARIo County gave 1850 majority for N