{"character_count": 5537, "word_count": 962, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9603999853134155], "ccnet_perplexity": [914.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 leave this subject, and advocate a National Bank, aud try to keep Texas out of the Union, and force her into all alliance with Great Britain" This kind of Whig talk would be tolerably honest; but honest talk from that party is what We never have heard, and pro- bably never shall.

 Our controversy, then, is not with the larger and more moderate portion of the Whig party. but with its ultra leaders, the interested advocates of the high tariff interests, who would sacrifice 10 few hundred capitalists the interests of nineteen twentieths ol the whole American people. These are the men who keep up this cry oi .protection''-these are the men who place their own private and selfish interests before all others

 Besides the differences of opinion between the ultras of either party, and the masses oi patriotic and reasonable men who make up the great body of both, there are differences of opinion founded upon sectional interests. In the South, for instance, the Wings are Ill favor ofamodofate or low tariff MT. Graham, the receniy-elected Governor of North Car olina, say+d his gready-reduced majority i'll that State by going with the Democrats for a moderate tariff, and for the annexation of Texas Every Whig elected in Louisiana, as We are informed by travellers from the South, was moderate-tariG man, and pledged 10 go for annexation. Al the same time, a very considerable portion of the Democracy oi New Y ork, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, are in favor of a revenue taIiH, revenue with strongly protective features.

 Would it not have been better, in this state of things, to have left the adjustment of the tariff to the representatives of every portion Of the coaatry in Congress? We think so ltisa question of rival and sectional interests. Many Democratic representatives in Congress voted for the present tariff, and many wings voted against Il. But since il has been drag ged into the Presidential contest, and made one of the great issues of the coming election, there is but one way to meet it--the only way 10 meet any question.

 First, let us see how Mir. Clay meets t. If he does 1t fairly, and above board, like a man, we give him credit for il, if not, not

 In the Senate of the United States, OH the 2lst of June, MT. Clay, in his speech on the Treasury Note bill, as reported in the Ma tonal lntelligencer, said :;

 'Carry out, then, the spirit of the compro- mise act Look 10 revenue alone for the supportof Government. Do not raise the question of protection, which l had hoped had been forever put il rest. THERE IS No NECESSITY OF PROTECTION FOR PRorEc- rIoN.o

 In relation to the compromise act, Mir. Clay says:

 ''lIe was for reducing the rates of duties to the REVENUE STANDARD, for which the or- PoNESrs of the system so long contended.a

 .Agriculure," says Mir. Clay in another speech, s'needs no proiection.o

 In 184l, Mir. Clay advocated duty on tea and coffee, which, though . strong measure of unequal taxution, the poor drinking nearly or quite as much as the rich, has in 1t little of protection

 The Savannah Republican, leading Clay paper in Georgia, says:

 We deny that Mir Clays or the Wings ol Georgia, whose candidate he is. seek for the establishment of protective tariff; but MT. Clay adhefes to the principles of the com promise act.n

 In Mr. Clay's letter dated Sept, 13, 1913. to Mir. Bronson, of Georgia, he confirms the above, and says

 "Fhe sum and substance of what l con- ceive to be the true policy of the United States in respect to a tariff, may be briefly stated.- In conformity with the principle announced in the compromise act, think, that whatever revenue is necessary to an economical and honest administration of the General Govern ment ought to be derived from duties imposed on foreign imports. And l believe, that in establishing a tariff of those duties, such a discrimination ought 10 be made as will inci- dentally afford reasonable protection to our ionalinterests.

 .'I think there Is no danger of a high tariff being ever established; that of 1928 was emineuty deserving that denomination. was not in Congress when 1t passed, and did not vote for it; but with it's history, and with the circumstances which gave birth to it, am well acquainted. They ,oere highly dis credilabic to American legislation. and hope, for its honor, will never again be re peated.

 After my return 10 Congress, in 1881, my efforts were directed to the modification ant TtGUCtt0N or tile rates Oi uulN COnldlNeu Ii the act of 1928. The act of 1882 greatly reduced and modified them; and the act 0 1893, commonly called the compromise act still further reduced and modified Mem. The act which passed al the extra session of 184l rctich supported, was'confned to the free articles l had resigned my seat in the Sen- ale when the act of l842 passed. Generally the duties which it imposes are lolcer than in the act of 1892. And without intending to express any opinion upon every item o this last tariff, would say that think the provisions, iu the main, are wise and proper If there be any excesses in it (of which have not the means of iudglng), they ough to be corrected

 My opinion, ttai Here is 10 danger Of ( kigA tari9, is founded on the gratifying fact that our manufactures have now taken deer root In their infancy they needed greater measure of protection; but as they grow anJ adsaace. they acquire strength and stability and consequently will require less protection Even now. some branches of them are able 10 maintain. in distant markets. successful