Democratic banner., 1846-11-09

- -
this conclnsion, that these congressman
were in fact, the petitioners themselves, as
manufacturers, to themselves as congress-
meu, for the express purpose of compelling
the people, by exhorbitant tariffs, TO minis
ter blind-fuldcdto their craving cupidity,
and inordinate avarice. When, in short,
they saw Congress petitioning itself, to ia
riff the people, for itself, they spoke, and
they were heard. No wonder, then, that
the slncid, definite, and unmistakeable sig
MITIGATION attached to American industry
by the democracy, is 'the industry of the
~AoGr pcqpAe,' not of machine labor alone
No wonder, that the definition is jeered at,
yet, the jccrs Notwithstanding, it is hoped
that 'thc vcricsttyro' Fudgc?) will under
stand, that industry in America means the
whole of American industry, physical and
mental. But the C%oRoLLARY IN next
that hndAcss capitalists, who give Mr.. G.
oil cloth, merchants, mechanics, &C., who
have no land are nobody!n So, that is your
c0rOMury is it? THAT the thing is yours, |
doubt not, but that it is a cor0Hury, | deny.
accordingly the proposition chosen byyou
for a SPEEDY and awful destruction, you will
remember. is tirat those four billions are in
the hands Of the wh?h people'. If then,
according to your chosen proposition, these
four billions were in the hands OF the ,chOLe
pcoplr, and that fhe four hundred millions
invested in manufactures were owned, in
addition, by the capitalists, it would be clear
to every other living man but yourself, that
these capitalists whom you style landiess,
were a part of that rhoLe people, in whose
hands the four billions of agricultural cap
ital were; and that they were to a great ex-
tent, the owners ofthe four hundred millions
invested in manufactures beside: and in
stead Of proving them landiess, it proves
them hndcd and monied, both. However,
you had not yet done with them, for, no
sooner had you inferred, that although they
were in existence, they were Mndless, than,
presto, you capcr round, deny their entity,
and conclude that they are nOb0dy: and all
this too in the same 'Corollary'. But will
shew you that they are somrbody; and that
too from your own proposition, and the 'slS-
nifcation' shall be 'lucid, definite, and I'M
mistakeable'. For the wh0ke people are
somebody; and it is equally clear that 'the
capitalists SC. are a part of the wh0Le pep
PIE; Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible
that sthc capitalists &C. are SoDlebody: so
that having proved the opposite Of your
Corollary, yours must fall to the ground
You have no difficulty, just now, in conceir-
ing, how an editorial can be nothing, but
puzzled, to understand how its writer can
he exactly, or quite nobody. Indeed! no
wonder! you, who had just now" pcrpctrat-
ed such a Corollary as yours, could have
no difficulty in concciviEg how ga long lead
ing editorial can be nothing;bu it is a Won
der, how y1u comN be puzzled TO under
stand how an editor can be nobody, after
drawing the inference, that mechanics sc.
were nOb0Iy; and still a part of somebody.
Why could you not slip the editor in, along
with the mechanics &C., and infer in his
particular case, that he was exactly or quite
nobcdy? | cannot see indeed how you
could have made him eracty nobody, with
out being quite so, nor quite nobody, how
lie cOu!u DC 80, WltiiouI OelhS so G|dtttS'
but i'll your desire to give a 'lucid, definite,
and un~mistakeable signification,' you wish
ed the Journal readers to understand, that
one, who was exactly nobody, was quite
nobody, and that he, who was nobody quite,
was nobody exactly. 'Poor oppressed fell
lows, only worth four billions of dollars.'-
Divide these four billions of dollars among
20 millions of people and you will discov-
or that 1900 to each will exhaust your fund
and if you will be at the trouble about
them (which you will not be, as they are not
machines) expend those $500 for a farm,
and stock it for them, and you will discover
that you will have no spare cash to pro-
cure oil cloth for their bedsides much more
for their "IIall" Eyes much more.) For.
if they purchased for their bedside would
it not be more to purchase some for their
'sHall'' and if they could not do so for
their bedside would it not be something
more than they had done to purchase for
their hall? But rather than quarrel you
may have it thathe who buys more there
fore buys less yes much less and you will
not only silence cavil, but support your al
ready well formed fame for-sCorollaries.'
The profits too! He says that we will see
that the annual Oroduct of agriculture is