Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1846-08-13
WasnrNsToN, July 80, IS46
To tie Editors Of he National Iatelligencer:


1 GESILEMEs In the letter Of your n. York
/ correspondent, published in the Intellgeneei
Of this morning, we find the following para.
graph:
'.NEw YoRK, July %, 1876
''In former letter gave you my view Of
the new Tariff bill, and the rumored PROPOSE
ton for compromise. Ii remains unehang-
ed A very large majority Of tie Whigs are
opposed, and most decidedly opposed, 70 any
compromise bill which shall surrender the great
and leading principle Of specific duties. Aban-
don that, and you abandon every hope OF
honestly collecting the duties A majority OF
/ the invoices presented at the cusiom-helse
win be fraudulently and yet readily sworn to.
On this point can speak of facts within my
own knowledge while Deputy Collector
! This wouldimply that theproposiiion which
had been contemplated TO be made for amend,
| ing the bill lately passed was proposition Tor
a ''compromise," and proposition which
surrendered the great and leading principle
of specific duties"
We cannot well conceive how your cores
pondent should have been SO exceedingly I'M
informed in regard TO the proposition ofwhich
he speaks, since il had been published 10 the
] New York papers, and might have been read
| By all
| The proposition was no compromise either
by name or character, in any other sense than
as an amendment proposed to any bill. essen
tally altering its character and provisions, in
order TO make them more useful aud more ac-
ceptable, may be called compromise. The
proposed amendment in this case surrendered
no specific duty, not one; it retained all the
principles and all the regulations Of the act Of
1912. Its only object was 10 reduce some OF
the higher rates OF duties imposed by that act,
which, however necessary when the act was
passed are deemednot necessary now. We can,
NOT say whether it be true that a large majority
of the Wings Of the city OF New \ ork are OPP
posed to this amendment or not. Ii they are 1t
must be because, like your correspondent, they
have not made themselves acquainted with IL.
But we have the means knowing, and we do
know, that those interested IN the protection of
domestic manufactures, so far rs there bas
been time for them 10 become acquainted with
the proposed amendment. were decidedly in
its favor, without an exception, to our knowl-
edge.
We have seen and conyersed with many
persons, and have seen some hundreds Of let
iers, and we may say with confidence that the
men OF business Of the country were entirely
satisfied with it, and that they do and will
uetPly ItSiet was iVt "uopou. hS Pio-
visions of that amendment, carried INTO law,
under circumstances likely to make that law
permanent, is exactly such an aei OF legisla-
lion as the great interests of the country now
require. This is our opinion. and we believe
ii to be the general opinion among those who
hold the protection of the domestic interest Of
the country in the highest degree OF regard,
and are most deeply committed TO lis coniiua
ance.
We viii be obliged 70 you 10 give publicity 10
this note, and also to publish the corfespon-
dence which we herewith place in yourhands;
and remain, gentlemen, with much respect,
Your ob't serv'ls,
THO CHAMBERS, of Pennsyvania
ISAAC II. DAVIS, of Philadelphia.