The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-07-26

advocate it, we cannot but regard, as the off
spring OF monstrous deluson, the proposition
to adopt the Missouri compromise line, with
view of effectng an adjustment that, in its
practical results, would be of the slightest pos
sible benefit to the South. Those who counsel
the South to make an issue upon it, counsel
her to commit great folly. We hope she will
do no such thing
The Washington Union of yesterday morn
ing is forced-in its own language, by due
regard for public morals--to devote itself to a
partial review of Mr.. RHETrs Charleston
speech
The portion which it selects for the purpose
of anmadversion is that in which Mr. RHETr
treats of the grievances which South Carolina
sustains from the revenue system ofthe United
States. In this it is stated that he distinctly
and unequvocally advocates a severance of the
Union because the seren representatives and the
two Senators of South Carolina are not empow-
cred levy and collect that portion fthe nation
al revenues which the people of South Carolina
have to contribute" We think this the fair
Interpretation of his remarks, and shall not
differ with the Union in respect to the com
ment that they justify, in respect to the gen
eral purpose and spirit thus indicated But we
cannot help thinking that the reproof comes
with very bad grace from the Union, and that
as between them Mr.. RHETT could not only de-
icnd himself, but retort effectively.
Mr.. RHETT asked:
SIN what respect do the taxes you now pay to
the General Government differ in principle from
those fathers resisted Did your representa-
tives lay them? And if it was in their power or
yours to repeal them, would they remain day on
the statute book? The tariff act of 1876 is but a
modification of the tariff of 1912, passed in Congress
against the vote of every representative from South
Carolina. 1t contains, from beginning to end, dis
examinations in the taxes imposed benefit north
manufactures and productions, and differs,
therefore, in this principle in respect whatever
from the tariff of 1912. 1t is ten per cent. higher in
its exactions than the tariff of Great Britain the
tariff of 1892, coerced by South Carolina. Such a
tariff it was and is the unanimous opinion of your
representatives in Congress, is unconstitutional,
and you arc nearly unanimously of the same opin =
ion. Here, then, taxes laid upon you by the
representatives of other States, not only against
your will, but without any warrant in the Consti-
would have been had they been represented in Par
lament and the British representatives, to further
British interests had passed the taxes imposed
upon them,"
The Union seems to think that it has CON
vlcted Mr. RHETT of gross inconsistency when
it shows that he voted for the tariff of 1916, and
speaks of him as a friend and advocate Of that
taxation which he now urges as justifca-
ton of severance and dissolution.
We feel no vocation to vindicate Mr.. RHETT,
nor, indeed, to interfere in any way in what is
ga very pretty quarrel as it stands" yet one
can hardly stand by and see foul blows with
out protesting. Mr.. RHETT might properly re-
ply that il was mean Justification of his posi-
ton to represent him as giving any favor to the
principle Of protection because he cast his vote
for the tariff of 1876 Upon that score il was
at all events less obnoxious TO the objections
which he and the editor of the Union enter
tain in common, than the tariff of 1912 for
which it was substituted. According to the
creed which both professed then and still pro
iess, that was vote TO relieve South Carolina
from part of the taxation formerly imposed
upon her. Such, indeed, is not our view Of the
case, but it is that To which the Union has
ever held, and it does not lie in its mouth 10
gainsay the answer which Mr. RHETr might
! make 20 it.
What Mr.. RHETT means To say is. that the
| principle of protection is, 10 certain extent
recognised and retained in the tariff Of 1916
and in 50 far as il is retained, il is a continue
ton of the policy of 1912, which was certainly
adopted, despite all the opposition of South
Carolina. Regarding the law in that point OF
view, he says
go far as the law accomplishes its object, and
! the consumption Of northern productions is forced
on the Southern consumer by excluding the for
eign commodity, it is just much money taken
from him and given to the Northern producer II
is naked robbery. It ia red republcanism on a
far more hagitious scale than is demanded in
France. There, all that is required of government
is bread, or employment 10 labor which will give
bread. Poverty and starvation afford some sem.
blance of right for cxtorting support, through
! government, from the property Of others. But
here it is not bread the people Of the North require
to be wrung out Of US by the taxes Of tho General
Government they impose, but wealth, and power
aud dominion"
The gravamen Of his complaint is not the
taxation. but the design and effect which he
attributes TO it, II is taxation for the benefit o
Northern manufacturers. at which he is so in.
dignant as 10 be ready for rebellion.
II the object and the result of the protective
policy be such as Mr.. RuETT declares them q
be- If under the forms of law he and his fellow
| citizens are made the victims Of naked robbery
we may surely pardon them for some excite
ment, and indulge them in some violence Of
language five had been all our lives preach