{"character_count": 5407, "word_count": 920, "ccnet_language_score": [0.896399974822998], "ccnet_perplexity": [1058.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 from 20 to 60 per cent, since the present tariff was laid, establishes this fact heyond all controversy; and the great mass =of our industrious population-the laborine men. mechanics and farmers, who constitute more thah Rtneteea-taeentietts of the producing population of the countryzzzare obliged to pay this additional price of Me "dutiable ar hcles," to enrich less than one-tpcenfieth who iabucate them. This is the legitimate fruit sot our present whig PRomBlToRy Iari8- such was the effect designed by the specu- iatng capitalists who procured its enactment. Ihls IS the way the whigs protect our .shome industry" They tag that industry, to enrich the mGn4factriRg corporations. Henry Clay Is Ill favor, and the advocate, of tariff like the one with which the country is now inflicted. His efforts in Congress have been directed to favor this anti-republican monopo- ly' But conscious of the growing napopa- taFty ot the measure, and anxious that.none ot this popular dislavor shall attach 3o lis character, ln his present position, before the American people, he has been engaged during the past year in writing epistolary essays to hls friends and supporters at the Soutd, con demnmg Pfobibjtory Tmif, and expressing e'e''s nearly bordering upon he ultra doc trlne of ''FREE TRADE.'

 l take the following extracts from the latest of those productions, to prove the TRUTH of what say.

 In letter to Messrs. Branham and Bledsoe, of Eatonville, Ga., dated July 18th, 1843,n .Hr. Glay uses this language: s.I NEVER WAS IN FAVOR OF DUTIES BEING so HIGH AS TO AMOUNT TO < PROHIBITION OF ARTICLES ON WHICH THEY WERE LAID. IHAvE THOUGHT IT BEST FOR ALL INTERESTS THAT THERE SHOULD BE COMPETITION" Again. he says, "A tariff for that purpose (revenue) ought to be so adjusted as to afford reasonable en- couragement to our domestic manufactures. To lmpart to 1t that character, it should be MODERATE. ] was not in Congress in 1928. and therefore, DID Nor VOTE FOR THE IA RIFF OF THAT YEAR. The duties, i'll many instances, imposed by that Tariff were Ex- TRAYAGANTLY HIGH.8

 In letter to Mir. Merriweather of Georgia. dated October 2nd, 1843, JMr Clay held the following language: q did not oote for Me Udr0 of 1928, for arhich, hoaceuer, Mir. VAN BUREN, Col. Benton, Col. Johnson, .M. Wright, and others of ow opponents DID VOTE. find it iS remarkable, hat from that period MY ExERTIoNs IN CoNGREss HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO THE REDUCTION AND MODERATION OF TARIFFS Thus, in 1881, lsupported that Tariff which GREATLY MoDI- FEED AND REDUcRD the Tariff of 1928, it- somuch, Mat U acas supposed by reasonable men, Hat tt acould, or ought 10 SATISFY THE NULLFIERs OF SOUTH CAROLINA. The next year, 1892, BROUGHT FORWARD THE CON- PROMISE. dTI NEVER WAS IN FAVOR OF WHAT l REGARDED AS 4 HIGH TARIFF No MORE REVENUE SHOULD BE LEVIED THAN IS NECESSARY TO AN ECONOMICAL ADMINS TRATIoN of the Goeeramea.n a1@I SHOULD HAVE PREFERRED THAT THE COMPROMISE IN ALL ITS PARTS uniform duties of 20 per cent COULD HAVE BEEN ADHERED TO-"

 Again, .Nr. Clay says of the present tariff: ..There may be ExeEssEs or DEFECTS in 1t, of which have not the means to judge; and if there be, THEY OUGHT TO BE CORRECTED. by supplemental legislation. You are right in your statement, that DID NOT VOTE FOR THE TARIFFS of 1916 and 1924"

 Again in letter to P. s. Bronson, dated .'October 18th, 1843," .Mr. Clay remarks "In conformity acith the principle aaaoaaced ia the compromise act, think that aclateUey reUenUe IS necessary 10 dn economical and honest administration of, tbe General GoUern- ment, ought to be derived from duties imposed on foreign imports. And l believe that, 1T establishing tariff of those duties, such 2 discrimination ought to be made, as ariU IN INDENTALLY afford reasonable protection td our national interests"

 ssAfler my return to Congress in 1881, my efforts were directed to the modification and REDUCTION of the rates of duty contained in the act of 1928. The act of 1892 greatlg sredNeed and modified them; and the act o 1883, commonly called the ''Compromise Act,o still further reduced and modified them The Act which passed at the Extra Sessior of l84l, which l supported, was eoNFINEI TO FREE ARTICLES. Ihad resigned lcy seq in tte Senate lchen the Gct of 1S42 paSSed.' 'slf there be any ExGEssEs or DEFECTS II 1t, (of which 1 have not here the means O judging) THEY OUGHT TO BE CORRECTED"

 The following IS an extract of letter written by .Mr. Clay, at New Orleans, to ; committee of his whig friends in Virginia dated January 23d, 1844. .'The rRouIBI- 1IoN of the fabrics of foreign countries would transfer the MONOPOLY TO THE HOME MANUFACTURERS IN THE UNITED STATES TIE TRUE INTERESTS OF THE CONSUMERS ARE BEST PROMOTED BY COMPETITION BE- TWEEN THE FOREIGN AND NATIONAL SUP PLY. The inevitable tendency of that COM PETITION Is to REDUCE PRICES, as all expe- rience has demonstrated"

 will add an extract or two more iron .Nr. Clay recently expressed opinions upor the tariff, see his speech at the Extra Session 1S41) where he says,-"CARRY OUT THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPROMISE AcT. Lool to REVENUE ALONE tor de support cf Go pernment. Do NOT RAISE THE QUESTION oi PRoTEc TIoN, WHICH HAD HOPED HAD BEEN PUT TO REST. g8~THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR PRoTEcTIoN.~9D

 Mr. Clay in a letter addressed last summe to the publishers of the 'sFennessee .Agri culturist," held out this pledge to 'sFret

 