Southern sentinel. [volume] (Plaquemine, Parish of Iberville [La.]) 1848-1858, 1849-10-31

en- ten sacks fcorn. In his speech in Jackson
reported in the Mirror, he says: Il gave then
ten dollars III money and told each of my famil,
to 90 and get "a sack of corn ard send them a
Their gift to Ireland" Now, fellow citizens
here are three of the many tales he has tol,
about his charity and benovelence for Ireland
and if either two of them can be so reconcile,
as to even appear to mean the same thing, thel
! Iconsent to be branded as the slanderer ofMr
Harmanson. He says he was opposed to thu
relief bill because it was unconstitutional; ant
taking his devotion to the Constitution as hi
basis he rears a most eloquent superstructur
of his personal and individual charities.-H,
refused this reliefwhen every breeze that sweep
the Atlantic bore to our shores the groans O
furnishing millions: when Ireland, the LAND O.
generous sentiments and hospitable hearts, wa:
bowed in famine and implored our aid; when the
Irish mother pressing to her bosomh her starving
babe pointed to our land of plenty, and with
hunger stricken hand beckoned our charities
when the manly form of the warm hearted Irish.
man, was whitening and his generous spirit
crushed within the grasp of want, and when
too. IreIand's sons, shoulder to shoulder with
the sons of our own land, We're battling under
the stars and stripes, and achieving glory fol-
IllllCIlGa > aIlIS. ISS3 "llS bIS LlSttIo lot lC-
lieving a natioa tortured with famine and en-
shrouded in the gloom of despair were at hand
he refuses that plentiful aid; and as an extenua-
ton, a satisfaction for the cruel act, tells you he
sent Il few sacks of corn, and then boasts of
his disinterested charities. This individual
charity, is a poor compensation for the national
assistance which he so unteelingly withheld; and
into what insignifcance. and nothingness, wanes
a. ,,I+.,, o;J ,-b;,I, Io 1o,ets nc hoy;pv ori,,a,,
when compared to the aid he refused. He
SAYS it was unconstitutional to afford the relief
to Ireland; he says too, that internal improve
ments by the General Government are I'M
constitutional; and yet, although every feel
inc of humanity, every generous sentiment of
our nature should have loudly plead for a viola
ton of the Constitution, in behalf of suffering
Ireland, he, in that case clings tenaciously and
scrupulously to it, but when the unconstitution-
al Bill, for improving the ST. Clair Flats, comes
up he forgets or disregards his constitutional
allegiance and scruples, and votes an appropria-
ton of ss4O,O 900 for internal improvement: and
here | will notice the charge which he says have
brought against him for violating the Constitu-
ton by voting for this appropriation for internal
improvements when, says he, every body knows
that am opposed to internal improvements by
the GeLeral Government.
1t is true, that the people of the Sd Congress
sional district know that Mr.. II. is opposed to
Internal Improvement, when that improvement
is to fall within the state of Louisiana, but he
thinks it quite constitutional, right and proper,
for the General Government to carry On inter
nal Improvements within the state of Michigan,
and accordingly, at page 527 of the Congress
SIGNAL Globe of 1916, he is found voting for an
appropriation of $4,000 for the improvement
of the st. Clair Flats. Thus it would seem
that my competitor thinks the same sct admits
of a different degree of constitutionality; and
the degree of unconstitutionality of an act is
greatly modified by the particular state to
which that act is to apply; therefore, while for
General Government to make internal improve
ments in Louisiana would be altogether uncon-
stitutional, for it to do so in Michigan is per-
fectly constitutional. This is showing a par
TALLY for another state over his own, which, to
say the least, is an anomaly in one who under
takes to interpret and c%oustrue the constitution.
Mr.. Harmanson stated in his speech at Ba-
ton Rouge on the 9Th of July, that a resolution
had been offered under the tariff of '46 to adj
nit sugar free of duty, and several of his stri-
kers have reiterated the same thing. This state
ment is unsustained by facts. Such a demon
.stration was never made in Congress, and |
challenge Mr.. III. and his echoes to produce any
authority that would warrant them in making
such a statement. He also said, mat there was
more sugar imported under the tariff of s42,
than under that of AS. This assertion, so far
from being sustained by facts, is plainly and
contradicted by them: the Secretary's
shows the highest annual Importation
under the tariff of AZ to have amounted only
to s~irty-sir millions in round number; while the
annual importation under the tariff of
46 amounts to tmo hundred and torty-eigh
in round numbers. These groundless
statements of his, he thought sufficient to ST.
lence my arguments in favor Of a revenue ia
-R with incidental protection, which ] have ad-
and which Mr.. H. endeavors to dis
,ountenance by making snch understandable as
as that above. A revenue tariff with
Incidental protection of one and a half cents
Der pound, specific duty on sugar, will not only
a benefit to those who are now engaged
n the culture of sugar, but will at the sam
ime offer growing and perpetual inducement
or the cotton planter to 60 into the culture of
for when it is recollected that the aver
crops of sugar in the United States amount
,nly to faoo hundred thousand, in round num-
,ers, and that the quantity VIZ consume amounts
o fire hundred thousand, in round numbers, the
strong and warranted inducements, that would
prompt and invite the cotton planter to trans
orm his cotton field, yielding him a dubious
md uncertain crop, at fluctuating prices, into
Of sugar yielding a fair crop at an insured
rice of four and five cents, must be felt and
acknowledged by all. The right to an inciden-
al protection for sugar is more readily and CO.
sently recommended from the fact that Louisi-
ma being an agricultural state, and the only in
erests for which she may claim protection, are
hose Of IN agricultural nature. Now, MI. II.
avs that we can't get this protection, and that
f we touch the tariff the effort will inevitably
esult in our having no protection whatever, and
he admission Of foreign sugar free Of duty
70 doubt but thatsit would be thus, did Mr.. II.
epresent us in Congress at the time of making