trict of Columbia became comparatively infrequent. Why was this? Was it because the public sensibility had become impaired by being so long wrought upon? Or was it because the anti-slavery leaders in the agitation found a more exciting topic in Texas? Or was it because the Whigs, in Congress and out of Congress, having by the election come into power, no longer found agitation desirable? Mr. CLAY was not in favor of antislavery agitation, though some of his party had been.

2. The persistent opposition to the annexation of Texas sprang from opposition to slavery, and the opposition to slavery was, to a greater or less extent, owing to a reluctance to increasing the political power of the Southern section of the country.

3. The resolution of the Massachusetts Legislature, instructing their Senators, and requesting the representatives of that State to vote for such an amendment of the Constitution as will allow only free persons to be represented, or, in other words, to abrogate slave representation, excited deep dissatisfaction in Congress.

Mr. KING, of the Senate, said: "He could not but regret that it had become the duty of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. BATES) to present to the Senate a proposition from the Legislature of his State to dissolve the Union. Was there a man within the hearing of his voice that believed, for one moment, that such an amendment could be made? and if it could be, by any possibility, that the Federal Government would last twenty-four hours after it was made? It is a resolution framed almost identically like that which had been concocted by inhabitants of Massachusetts, in another period in the history of this Government. It is such as was during the last war passed by the Hartford Convention. * * That the General Assembly of Massachusetts should take up one of these resolutions, after so many attempts to explain them away, and get clear of the odium connected with them, and to adopt its very words, showed a feeling of hostility to an institution which, if persisted in, was calculated to sap the very foundations of the Government itself."

CHAPTER XII

JAMES K. POLK'S ADMINISTRATION.

MARCH 4, 1845-MARCH 4, 1849.

MR. POLK was elected President by 170 electoral votes, against 105 cast for Mr. CLAY. The Southern States generally voted for the former. He was in favor of a strict construction of the Constitution in opposition to one that is broad or loose. In his inaugural address, he spoke in the following terms on that point: "It will be my first care to administer the Government in the true spirit of that instrument, and to assume no powers not expressly or clearly implied in its terms. The Government of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers; and it is by a strict adherence to the clearly granted powers, and by abstaining from the exercise of doubtful or unauthorized implied powers, that we have the only sure guarantee against the recurrence of those unfortunate collisions between the Federal and State authorities which have, occasionally, so much disturbed the harmony of our system, and even threatened the perpetuity of our glorious Union." "One great object of the Constitution was to restrain majorities from oppressing minorities, or encroaching on their just rights. Minorities have a right to appeal to the Constitution, as a shield against such oppression.'

THE TARIFF OF 1846.

The compromise tariff of 1833, according to the provisions of the bill, continued in operation until 1841. In that year the Home League was formed, with the same object in view as the

Harrisburg Convention, namely, restoring high duties. The doctrines of the Home League were approved by Mr. CLAY and his political friends. A bill was brought in, which passed in 1842. This bill was denounced by Mr. CALHOUN. In his speech he said: "I shall not dwell on the fact that it openly violates the compromise act, and the pledges given by its author and by Governor DAVIS of Massachusetts, that if the South would adhere to the compromise, while it was operating favorably for the manufacturers, they would stand by it when it came to operate favorably for the South. I dwell not on those double breaches of plighted faith, although they are of a serious character, and likely to exercise a very pernicious influence over our future legislation, by preventing amicable adjustments of questions that may hereafter threaten the peace of the country." Mr. McDUFFIE characterized the tariff law of 1842 as "a foul and faithless violation of the compromise act." Mr. CLAY and the manufacturers defended the measures as necessary to supply the wants of Government, which they regarded as paramount to other considerations.

In his message, Dec., 1845, President РOLK recommended a revision of the Tariff laws. He declared that "the object of imposing duties on imports should be to raise a revenue to pay the necessary expenses of the Government. Congress may, undoubtedly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, discriminate in arranging the rates of duty on different articles; but the discriminations should be within the revenue standard, and be made with the view to raise money for the support of Government." "The new Administration proposed three important measures in relation to the duties: The first to abandon the protective theory in favor of a revenue theory, that is, to reduce the rates of duty, to levy them ad valorem, to make the rates uniform, and to make them payable in cash; the warehouse system to facilitate the carrying trade; and the Independent treasury, by which the cash duties were to be collected in gold and silver only." The Secretary of the Treasury, Robert J. WALKER, made an elaborate report, recommending a revenue tariff in opposition to a protective tariff. A bill was introduced of such a character, and was passed in the House, July 2, 1846, by 114 votes in the affirmative, and 95 in the negative; and in

the Senate by a vote of 28 in the affirmative, and 27 in the negative. The strength of the South, in both Houses, was in the affirmative, and the strength of the North in the negative.

This change in the tariff was advocated by the Southern members upon constitutional grounds, namely, that it was a change from a tariff for protection which is not authorized by the Constitution, unless that protection is incidental, to a tariff for revision which is the legitimate object of a tariff, and is authorized by the Constitution.

It was opposed by Northern men on the ground, that substantive protection had become the policy of the Government; and, also, because the tariff of 1846 could not be reasonably expected to produce as large a revenue as the tariff of 1842. Experience proved that the Northern members were mistaken. The average of the tariff of 1842 was twenty-six millions; the average of the tariff of 1846 was forty-six millions. As an apology for the failure of Northern predictions, it should be said that the unexpected gold discoveries in California averaged at once the exports and the imports, and thus the revenue.

Mr. WEBSTER, in the course of his speech in opposition to the bill, said: "It is not a bill for the people. It is not bill for the masses. It is not a bill to add to the comfort of those in middle life, or the poor. It is not a bill for employment. It is a bill for the relief of the highest and most luxurious classes of the country, and a bill imposing onerous duties on the great industrial masses, and taking away the means of living from labor, everywhere throughout the land.”

Mr. McDUFFIE, in reply said: "The strong language of the Senator from Massachusetts, in characterizing this bill as an aristocratic measure, imposes upon me the duty of saying a few words before the question is taken, to disabuse the public mind of any such impression, if any such impression is made upon it. The honorable Senator has asked, with great confidence, and certainly not in the expectation of being replied to, where is the Democratic feature of this bill? Where is the provision intended to operate in favor of the laboring classes of the country? On the contrary he goes on to enumerate certain articles. of luxury upon which the duties have been reduced, and leaving it to be inferred that these are the great and principal reduc

tions. Now, Mr. President, I will point out to the Senator the Democratic features of this bill. It has reduced the duty upon salt from eight cents to half a cent. It has reduced the duty upon sugar from two and a half cents to one cent per pound. It has reduced the duty on all that class of cotton manufactures, whether white or printed, which is consumed by the laborers, farmers, and mechanics of the United States, God knows how much! But I sincerely believe that in this bill, on all that class of manufactures consumed by the poor and middle ranks, there is a reduction of duties greater than on any other class of articles contained in the bill; and I have expressed the opinion, which I sincerely believe, that the repeal of the cotton minimums-an invention which never was known until it was introduced in the bill of 1816, and, I believe, unknown to the custom house laws of any other country, so far as my knowledge extends-I believe that the striking out of that will alone enable the people of the United States to consume an increase importation approaching to ten millions of dollars at prices little more than two-thirds of that which they have now to pay.

I was obliged to the Senator from Massachusetts for some little evidence in favor of the Democratic character of this bill, in certain resolutions passed in Boston, in the year 1820, drawn up, I believe, by the honorable member himself, and supported and sustained by him soon after the commencement of the spirit which has resulted in the establishment of the protective system. The duties then under the act of 1816 were about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. on the great mass of manufactures made out of cotton, wool, and iron, and all the other duties were corresponding. The proposition was then to enhance the duties in about the degree of enhancement which took place under the tariff of 1824; and it was in opposition to this, that a meeting of the merchants of Boston, in which the honorable Senator from Massachusetts bore a distinguished part, passed certain resolutions some of which I now recollect. One of them I distinctly remember, and it affirmed that the effect of this protecting law upon the manufactures of the country would redound to the benefit of great capitalists, and not to that of the labor of the country. That was a great political proposition.