« ZurückWeiter »
586 UNITED STATES WEEKLY TELEGRAPH.
manifest by looking at the dates assumed in the calculation. The amount of duties are taken as they occurred in 1829 and 1830. And this is done to show what will be the revenue in 1832! One object is to show that the reduction proposed by the bill will be so great that the revenue will be no more, or overy little more, than will be wanting to defray the current expenses of the Government. Why, except for the purposes of deception, does the Enquirer take the revenues of 1828 and 1829, in preference to the revenue of the last year, and the revenue of the present year as estimated by secretary McLane? Does he distrust the accuracy of the Secretary? Is he afraid that the secretary would make an unreasonable estimate that would operate against the wives of the party? Certainly not. And yet he rejects the estimate of Mr. McLane of $26,500,000, and assumes, he average of that of 1829 and 1830, which amounts to $22,300,000, making a dif. ference of only $4,200,000. - - o: But there is another deception not less gross, in another part of the article. It assumes that there is_a reduction of $10,000,000. Not, howevero by this bill, but conjoined with the reduction last year. Now what has the tariff bill to do with the reduction of the last year? The merits of this bill cannot be affected by any previous reductions, and particularly when those reductions were almost altogether upon
the unprotected articles, of the unequal opera
tions of the repeal of which the south had cumplained. But it is the object of the Enquirer to blazon and exaggerate the concessions of the north. To endeavor to convince the people that the friends of the tariff are holding out the hand of conciliation, and that if the south will only accept the great boon now offered, all dif. ficulties will cease.o. o.o. we find a very-great difference between the irresponsible estimates of the Enquirer and those made by Mr. McDuffie in his place in the Hose. We mean no disparagement to Mr. McDuffie by the comparison. Mr. McDuffie states, and we have heard no one doubt the correctness of his statement, that “he has minutely investigated the effect produced by some alterations from the Secre. tary's bill, and that the reductions will amount
the revenue, as estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury, - - $26,500,000 deduct the reduction estimated by the secretary and Mr. Mc: Duffie -- -
-- ----Leaving the nett revenue from
lions instead of 11 millions, as stated by the En. quirer; and also a surplus in the Treasury of 11 million six hundred thousand dollars, beyond the wants of the Governmento why is it that we find the editor of the Em: quirer thus playing into the hands of the friends of the tariff, by giving countenance to what they faintly assert will be the effect of this bill on the revenue? For months, he has been de. nouncing the tariff and those who advocated it; and now he is calling upon the people to approve, and is himself approving, a tariff, actually more unequal in its operation than the one which he has been denouncing! And why is this somerset? Why this total change in so short a time? A shnrt answer will explain all The bill was passed under the “control” of Mr. Van Buren's friends, and for a short time it is the interest of Mr. Van Buren and the party,
* PRESIDENCY OF THE SENATE “We neglected to notice the recent attempt of the coalition of the Senate to whitewash or Poindexter, by making him President protem. Mr. Calhoun, before he left the senate, freHuently called Mr. P. to the chair, by way of reconoiling the body to his appearance in that Position. We suspect he was promised to onorary promotion when he joined the coal.
to represent the bill as the only hope of the
rer, (compelled by the voice of the pro
Jackson, we shall hear his fiends ago. .
when these arguments and admissions arebrought againstos, that the editor of the Boo
Epitorial REMARKs, &c.
Those onest gentle men, we have no doubt, had another motive beside that of paying the quid pro 7uo. They attempted to degrade Mr. Van Buren, to prevent him from reaching the station, and having reason to believe that they
will fail in that, they seek now to disgrace the
station itself. What contempt must the highly gifted Senator of Virginia feel for a party tha could put such a being as George Poindexter in competition with him for the Presidency of the Senate! . We must do Mr. Hayne and Mr. Moore the justice to say, that we believe they did not give countenance to Mr. Poindexter. And by this circumstance alone was the Senate saved from this tew sacrifice of its dignity, which Messrs. Clay and Calhoun were ready ro make.” Upon this article we have a few words to say. Our readers know that the conductors of the Globe care but little for the facts, they rely up. on the oomment, and practise upon the presunption that their readers are too ignorant to detect the gross inconsistencies and contradic. tions in to which they are forced by their disregard of truth. As in the case before is they charge a coalition between the friends of the Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay to elect Mr. Poindexter president pro tem. of the Senate, and affirm that the friends of Mr. Calhoun did not redeem their pledge!! . It is false “that Mr. Calhoun, before he left the Senate, frequently called Mr. P. to the chair. by the way of reconciling the body to his appearance in that position.” Mr. King of Alabama, Mr. Foot of Connecticut, and other Senators, were indiscriminately called to the chair, and Mr. Foot, perhaps, oftener than any other. It is, we believe, true, that the opposition ultimately voted for Mr. Poindexter. But what ground for a charge of coalition is there in this? Mr. P. had the independence and virtue to discharge his duty faithfully and fearlessly on several important occasions, and has, on that account, received the most bitter denunciation of the Globe and other kindred prints. The opposition, for the same reason that they voted, for Mr. Tazewell last year, having no candidate of their own, chose to rally on Mr. Poindexter, and, no doubt, would have been much gratified if he had been elected. There are, in fact, three parties in the Senate—the Jackson Pan Buren party, the opposition proper, and the in dependent Senators. Gen. Smith was the candidate of the Van Buren party, the opposition rallied upon Mr. Poindexter, and th indepen.
dent Senators voted for Mr. Tazewell, and
voted for hin to the last. . This fict we know to be true, and puts to rest the falsehood of the Globe. . . . But it seems that Mr. Poindexter received 22 votes, when the entire opposition vote is but 20. How did this happen? We know that nei. ther of those who are designated by the Globe as the Calhoun Senators, voted for Mr. PoinJexter, how then did he receive 22 votes? We have heard it explained, by supposing that as the vote was by ballot, two of the partisans of Mr. Van Buren voted for Mr.
Poindexter, with the intention of enabling the Globe, and other purchased presses, to charge that there had been a coalition between the friends of Mr. Calhoun and Mr Clay on this subject. We say again, that we know that neither of those who are denominated in the Globe as Calhoun Senators voted for Mr. Poindexter, and it follows, of course, that he was voted for by two of the partisans of Mr. Van Buren.— We know that he is the last man in the Senate whom they desired to elect Why, then, did they vote for him? Was it not for the express purpose of giving a color to the false charge which they then intended should be made in the Globe. -
But since we are upon the subject, we will
|say that the clection of Mr. Tazewell is a decid
ed declaration on the part of the Senate, that Mr. Van Buren can never be elected to preside over that body by a vote of theirs. It is understood to be a decided and Jeliberate declaration ". on that point, and puts the seal on Mr. Van Buren’s "chances. He cannot be elected by the . people, and he will not be elected by the Senate. " - -
- GEORGIA AND THE TARIFF.
- prom the grougia Journal.
** If the alternative was now before us, of Union with a protective tariff, or a separation without it, we would not hesitate one moment. , If a tariff of bounties be strapped to our backs." and fastened on our posterity as an inseparable. concomitant of a United Government, we would secede to-morrow. For it would present the case described by Mr. Jefferson, in which “the evils of the Union would overweigh those of separation.” The south, we trust, will never give it up. They will not permit aspiring men to barter and set over the rights of labor and the freedom of trade as make-weights in the projects of their own ambition.” *
We would call the attention of the friends of the tariff north of the Potomac, to the extract above. It is from the Georgia Journal, a leadig paper in that State, and is supposed to eon. vey, on the suoject of the tariff, the sentiments of the party at present in the minority. It is no Calhoun nullifying paper, as the Executive organ takes such pleasure in calling the Free Trade and State Rights journals of the south. It is a real Van Buren print, and yet it is compelled by the sentinents of the people to such denunciations of the tariff as those contained above. We know that the editor speaks the sentiments of the people of Georgia upon this point, and it is high time that our fellow citizeńs, who a.e advocates of the tariff, should begin seriously to reflect upon the consequences of the course they have been pursuing. The object of the nullifyers is to prevent a separation of the States, if the friends of the tariff obstinately persist in their oppressive and unconstitutional measures. In despite of all the abuse that has been heaped upon them by the open enemies and pretended friends of State
Rights and Free Trade, they will do all they can, in consistence, with the preservation of
their liberty and the redregsofteir grievances,
--- o UNITED STATES weekly TELEGRAPH.
cation as the only means of curing the *:: for the tariff of 1828. He shows them how
raost the Athany Angus.
MR. WAN BUREN AND THE Tariff of
• ‘Mr. Calhoun and his friend Duff Greenla. bor to convince the people of the south that Mr. van Buren is an ultra and interested tariff partisan. The New York Tariff Advocate and the friends of Mr. Clay in the north, insist that he is opposed to the tariff, and that upon this question he and his friend favor the interests of the south. These contradictory representations of these mutual allies, are intended for different markets, and nothing can exceed the unfairness with which they are made, and the artifice and perversion with which each is circulated in each section. In the north, garbled or manufactured extracts from his speeches, or reported goinions and conjectural designs, or the pretended ex
ressions of his friends are served up as the proof of his hostility to northern interests; and in the south, other garbled extracts from his speeches,
selections from his votes, and the opinions of
assumed friends, are urged to show his hostility
a partisan for or against the tariff.”
|he forfeited his pledge to the south, and by to
ing interest was well known to the most of them. He has, at present, invested more than $20,000 in sheep," and farms devoted, and which he meant to devote, to that business.” If this be not to be interested, we should like for the Argus to tell us how many more thousand dollars Mr. Van Buren would have to “in. vest” in sheep, before he would become “interested.”-- The Argus, however, gets out of all these contradictions, inconsistencies, and matters of fact, in a very easy and summary mode. He tells us with all due gravity and solemnity that Mr. Van Bnren is “neither for nor against the tariff". This we confess does pose us! “Neither for nor against the tariff.” Who will now pretend to deny that Mr. Van Buren is not a To magician,” and not a "little” one either, for it requires no small portion of “magical” art to bring the mind to such a perfect equilibrium. It can only be equaled by Mahomet's coffin, suspended, as we are told, between two magnets. What, we would ask the Argus, are the magnets which keeps Mr. Van Buren's mind in $uch a state of equilibrium? We will answer for him: Votes! votes!!! and according as they are likely to change, so will Mr. Van Buren vi. brate between tariff and anti-tariff. What an honorable situation for a man aspiring to the Vice Presidency of the United States.
“A JUDICIOUS TARIFF.” “The opponents of the present administration have always opposed the President's use of the term of a judicious tariff, and insisted upon
the propriety of that of the American system,
which has been adopted by Mr. Clay. We have been utterly at a loss to comprehend the cause of their attachment to the use of the one * term, or their violent objection to that of the other. American system appears to use a very indefinite term, and one to which it is impossible to attach any precise mething. We know it has been made to mean differen: things at different times and in different places; and it certainly may be made to mean any thing or nothing, according to the wishes or views of those by whom it inay be used. On the contrary, a judicious tariff conveys to the mind a clear and definite idea. It can mean nothing more nor less than such a tariff as is called for by the circumstances of the country; a tariff which will afford a proper degree of pro otection to the manufacturers of the country, without being oppressive or burdensome to the other great and important interests—a tariff which will liave a tendency to remove Il dis. cord and dissention, and harmonise the different sections and o different interests to be ... effected by it. e could not imagine that any otis would desire an injudicious oil, and, therefore, we could not conceive why any on should object to the use of a term so very proper inotself and to which there was no o ason to feel any objection.”—Bolt step. We to. the above as an example both of the degredation to whic, a p ... tsan writer, devoid of principle, can descend to flater * - - - - *r
those in power, and of the flummery an rigmarole which is attempted to be imposed upon whepeople. - We confess we were not a little surprised at what we supposed was the indiscretion of the editor of the Republican in venturing such a trial of how far he could extend so bare-faced an imposition. He must, however, be permitted to know better than we do the calibre of the minds of his readers, aid may therefore well be confident where others would despair. Did he reflect what a compliment he was paying to his readers? When we first read that portion of the article which we have published above, we were not a little amused with it. * → Not observing that it was from one of the “or. gans” we thought it was a grave quiz of one of the Globe's “base and bitter factions” upon a “judicious tariff.” We thought the quiz a very good one, and it never entered into our dull imaginations that it was all in sober carnestness. But when we read a little farther, we began to suspect that, we were mistaken, and we soon found that it was a grave essay of the Baltimore Republican. We cannot agree that the term American System is “indefinite.” It is too well defined. It means robbery of the south by manufactures at the north, and internal improvement at the west. As to the “definiteness” of the term “judicious tariff,” we think it by no means so clear, although we are gravely told that it contains a “clear and definite idea.” As if dis. trustful, however, of this idea not being quite “clear and definite,” he proceeds to render it 80. .Now, let us see what it means. It uneans, it is said, “such a tariff as is called for by the cir. cumstances of the country.” And what is “such a tariff as,” &c. &c. Why, torsooth, we are again told that it is a “taris!' that will afford a proper degree of protection,” &e., and when we again ask what is the tariff which will afford a proper degree of protection to the manufactures, &c., we are met with this very “definite” explanation that it is “a tariff which will harmonise the different sections.”. We go on and ask what “is a tariff which will har. monise the different sections,” and we are met with the lumiñous answer that a ‘‘judicious tarift” will do this. That a “judicious tariff” is a “judicious tariff!!!” And the editor of the Baltimore Republican writes a long article to satisfy his patrons of this hitherto to them unknown fact. Not content, however, with gi.ing them this very valuable information, he proceeds on and tells to on, that “he could not imagine that any one would desire an injudicious tariff!” He must certainly possess a very bright “magination” who could imagine such a tuing, and we really know no one more likely to ‘imagine” such a thing, than he who magined that the words judicious tariff conveyed a distinct and definite idea. We should not, perhaps, have taken notice of this article, had not some parts of it, in conju colon with other circumstances, helped to conjoin suspicions we have long entertained, of
united states weekly rowo
the intention of the Jackson Van Buren party to desert those in the south, whether State Rights men or not, and throw themselves upon the judicious tarff men of Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio, and in fact to try to beat Clay on his own ground, by giving up state Rights, internal improvement, interference of executive in tariff and bank, and in fact every princi. ple upon which the party came into power.o. Those who have been attentive observers of passing events, cannot but have observed-manythings showing a tendency to their course: latterly they are crowding upon us. A Jack. son. Von Buren tariff paper, in Ohio, checks the Globe, and warns it that, in its denuncia. tion of the ultra tariff, he now and then gives a blow to the “judicious tariff,” the 5 per cent. genry. The Baltimore Republican, said to b-the-particular oxposer of the views and opi nions of Secretary McLane, presses upon the friends of the tariff to give up the American system, and join the “judicious tariffitoes.”And the apostates, declares it is “now time to speak out,” and he does speak out and advocate a bill which only wants, as the Globe tells us, the system of minimum to be a complete manufacturers bill. -
life. We will, if possible, lay the printed do cument on the tables of the members, on Mo day morning. We do not believe that amo rity of the House can be induced to adopt to resolution reported by the committee—that it should not be adopted we pledge ourselves to prove. - - We will, in a few days, lay extracts from the evidence before our readers at present we must be content with giving the reports. Mr. DRaxrox, from the Select Committee to which the subject had been referred, made the following report. The select Čommittee appointed by solo tion of the House of Representatives, otoin: quire whether an attempt was made by the late Secretary of war, John H. Eaton, fraudulently to give to Samuel Houston, or any other person or persons concerned with Samuel Housto contract for supplying rations to such Indians as might emigrate to their lands west of Aiko sas and Missouri. And whether said Houston
the-editor-of-the Enquirer, the chief of made a fraudulent attempt to obtain said con:
tract. And that the said committee he further onstructed to inquire whether the Presidento the United states had any knowledge of such attempted fraud, and whether he disappro
oor approved of the same, and that the commit
the FRÄUd. The Globe of yesterday gives the report
opers,” Report: That in pursuance of the duo
the majority of the committee, exhonorating ous papers and documents, and * number of
that committee, and we venture to affirm that the evidence upon which that report was made, never will be printed in the Globe. The report of the majority of the committee does not surprise us; because wo have long since ceased to wonder, no matter how strange and extraordinary party proceedings may be. We again repeat that which was charged against Houstoo, and Eaton, is most fully sustained by the evidence; and we assert that no-one, however prejudiced he may be, can read the evidence without being satisfied that it implies, on the
on the same their deliberate attention, theyo of opinion, that the foregoing written and vo. bal evidencefurnishesnoproof, either that John H. Eaton, late Secretary of war, ever attempt so, fraudulently, to give to Samuel Hoo. or any other person or persons concerned with" Samuel Houston, a contract for supplying to tions to such Indians as migotemigrate to their lands west of the Arkansas and Missouri,” or that Samuel Houston ever “made a fraudulent attempt to obtain said contract.” The commit. tee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the
part of Mr. Eaton, the most onwarrantable fa-following resolutions:
voritism, and the strongest presumption of fraudulent intention. ... o The proof that he estimated that "the issues under the contract would be twelve thousand dollars per day; that the ration could be supplied at eight cents; and that, on the 18th of *iarch, Mr. Eaton, then secretary of War, con: templated. making a contract with Samuel Houston, to supply the emigrant Indians at the rate of eighteen cents per ration, is positive and undisputed, as is also the proof that such intention was known to, and approved by, the President on the next day. That such a cons tract, if made, would have been agross fraud upon the United States, no one can doubt. with these facts fully proved; it remains to be seen how the majority of the committee will * maintain their whitewashing report and resolation. Some of them, we trust, will live to see
Resolved, That John H. Eston, the losso retary of War, and Samuel Houston, do son, entirely acquitted, in the judgment of this House, from all imputation of fraud eitheroom. mitted, or attempted to be committed by them. or either of them, in any matter relating to connected with the premises. Resolved, That aii the evidence which was submitted to the committee, together with the journal of their proceedings, beaunexed to and
of the majority, as expressed in theoregoing
the day when to will repent, aye, sorely repent, that such a blot rests upon their public
cretion o inion of their own, and as