Imágenes de páginas

ate-you covenanted in the House by your amendment to the distribution law, that if ever the tariff was raised above the rates of the compromise, distribution should cease. You did raise the tariff above the compromise--you know you did

you admit you did. Well, how can you now ask for distribution ? You solemnly covenanted that you would not—your party signed the deed in both Houses-Heaven and earth were the witnesses! Shall posterity have to weep over the violated faith, the plighted honor of your party. O, I trust not. I appeal to the sturdy, honest old whigs that are here to-daywhigs whose word is their bond, to rise up and command Mr. Foster to stop and not perpetrate a deed of such foul dishonor. It will be foul indeed. Its rankness will smell to Heaven for ages to come, if this horrible thing shall be done. What is a great party worth—what can it be worth in any country when it cannot be restrained by its most solemn and imposing covenants? Made with no foreign enemy-made with no rival party--but made with themselves !

Next in the order of our usual discussion, said Mr. BROWN, I invite you to the subject of the Tariff. The democratic party insists that it is too high in its rates, unjust in its discriminations and ought to be greatly reduced and re-adjusted. The whig party are opposed to its reduction and alteration, and Mr. Foster, as its organ standard bearer, in Tennessee, is peculiarly zealous and determined in its support. He tells you to stand by it to the last, for it is the rock of your political salvation—the goose that lays for you the golden eggs.

The rock of this people's salvation-rather say the rock on which you are to split in this election. The slippery rock on which you stand, whilst the fiery billows of public indignation are rolling below you. You may hear those billows every day murmuring in the distance, indicating, with unerring certainty, the return of the people to the ancient revenue creed of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Hugh Lawson White. The goose that lays the golden egg !” I would not presume to say he were a goose to say so; far be such discourtesy from me, but I feel greatly tempted to say he must be a goose who can believe it. “ The goose that lays the golden eggs !" No, they are the eggs of the Cockatrice, hatching a brood of serpents that will sting this people to death. “Hold on to the tariff.” Sirs, in the better days of that gentleman such was not his counsel. In the better days of the party which he now represents, such was not its counsel. He and they would have scorned such eulogies at any time prior to 1843–4, when it became evident that Mr. Clay was to be their candidate for the Presidency. I know that Mr. Foster's friends who nominated him, addressing the public in his behalf, have denied this change of opinion, declared that it was a slander, and defied their opponents to the proof. I take up that glove of defiance, and here offer the proof to an impartial world. Who are the present whig party in Tennessee? It was the White party of 1836. The Harrison party of 1840, and the Clay party of 1844. Well, what were the opinions of the White party, of 1836, in relation to the Țariff ?

1st. I rely on the fact, that Judge White, the head and founder of the party, lived and died an enemy, unflinching and unwavering, to a protective tariff. This is proved by many of his speeches and other writings.

2nd. That Mr. Bell, the most conspicuous member of that party at the formation, was opposed to it; and I now, here, have present the best speech he ever made in Congress-delivered in 1832.

3rd. I rely on the speech of Mr. Bailey Peyton, another very conspicuous member of the party; also present for inspection, delivered in 1824.

4th. I rely on the resolutions of the Legislature of 1835, and the journals are now present.

5th. I rely on the whig address of 1836, after they voted for Judge White, in which they expressly declare “that he was opposed to a tariff for protection.”

6th. I rely on the whig address of the Legislature of 1842, in which they clearly indicate their devotion to the doctrine of free trade. It is here present for inspection.

7th. I rely on the fact, that every whig member of Tennessee (except one) voted against the Tariff of 1842--now sought to be reduced.

8th. I rely on the address of my competitor, of 1839, to the Legislature to which he was then resigning his seat in the Sen

ate here present for his inspection. But I know he does not desire to inspect it. It is ever present before his eyes, and like Lady Macbeth, he might well exclaim “out! out, thou damned spot.”

Let us now examine this celebrated document of Mr. Foster. I do not read it to convict him of change. Oh! no, for he has long since confessed the fact. “I have changed,” said he at Purdy, “and glory in it. I have changed my views of General Jackson's policy.” But why did not your committee say so too ? How dare they to write, print and circulate that it was false to alledge that they had changed! I read it, therefore, not as against Mr. Ephraim H. Foster-but against him as “the great embodiment” of the whig party in Tennessee. The great embodiment, of whom it is slander to say he has changed! Mr. Foster says in that address, “ the general government, as I have elsewhere observed, collects its immense revenue by what politicians call a indirect tax; and the mysteries of a system which steals in silent impunity from our unconscious purses, may easily deceive a well informed community,” &c. Now look at the contrast right here! He calls it a stealing system in 1839, and now in 1845 he calls on you “ to hold on to it.” What, hold on to stealing! On another page he said, “this mysterious system steals from you more than a million of dollars per annum.” Now, in 1845, when it must be double that sum, he


“ It is the rock of your salvation.” What! can it be the salvation of the people to pay two million of taxes instead of one! On another page he used the following language, "yearly, then, do we pay into the Treasury at Washington this enormous sum of money; and though few perhaps know the fact, or stop to calculate the cost, it is a constant drain on our resources, and abstracts, from our sweat and our toil, by increasing the price of our salt and our iron, our sugar and our spices and almost every article we use or consume.

Now, mark you, these were the sentiments of Mr. Foster in 1839 and in 1840, when he first appeared as a teacher amongst you. Then he taught you that a high tariff was a drain on your resources, just as Jackson, White, Bell and Peyton had taught you before. Then he told you that a high tariff made you pay too much for your iron, salt and sugar and almost every article we use or consume. Now he comes to tell us high taxes make low goods, and that the more money the general government steals from us the more we have left to live upon and educate our children. His present doctrine is,

"A little thieving is a dangerous art,
But thieving largely is a noble part;
'Tis vile to rob a hen-roost of a hen,

But stealing largely makes us gentlemen.” Mr. Foster further adds on same page, " who is he that reflects and does not see the oppressive inequality of such a state of things. When pay-day comes we are told in fraternal accents, we are one household, but when the bounties of the family chest are to be distributed the Lion's share falls to an elder Brother, the crumbs and the bones are ours." This, was in 1839 and 1840, when he first came among you; now in 1845, he comes to tell you that crumbs and bones are good enough for you, and that your elder Brother (New England) is entitled to the Lion's share! I know what my competitor will reply to all this. He will declare, as at Purdy and other places, “whereas I was blind, lo! now I see.” Aye, my competitor blind !-blind when he was more than forty-five years of age--blind when a Senator in the American Congress. Well, what assurance have we that he is not blind now ; and the good book assures us that when “the blind lead the blind, both are like to fall into the ditch.” Sirs, let me tell my competitor that he has not yet to fall into the ditchhe has been there already, and had better try and scramble out as fast as he can and wash off all the dirt and Clay sticking about him. But let me say, I have no humor for humor on such a subject as this. I want to call your attention to the articles of necessity mention by Mr. Foster. The first one salt. What did the whig tariff tax it?-72 per cent. What did the domocrats try to reduce it to?-20 per cent., being a reduction of 52 per cent. Would Mr. Foster help us to do it? He would not. Would he now help us ? He will tell you he would not. What is the next article ? Iron. The democrats tried to reduce that which the whigs had previously laid very high-some 4 per cent.—some 16—some 46-some 19, &c., according to qualities and descriptions. Would Mr. Foster or his party assist us? No, neither he nor they would do so. His next article is sugar. The whigs taxed that 66 per cent.-we tried to reduce that 14 per cent., and Mr. Foster and his party would not assist us even in doing that much. Mr. Foster merely adds “almost every article we use or consume”none of which, now recollected, would he then or now consent to reduce ! And yet we are told the whig party now stand where they have always stood! I know well what Mr. Foster will say to this also. He will say General Jackson changed from the time he wrote his Coleman letter. I do not think my competitor (said Mr. Brown) ever understood that letter; but granting, for argument sake, that General Jackson did undergo some change from 1824 to 1832, did he not change with him and stand by him on the same platform with Judge White, Mr. Bell, and all the rest of the Whig party? I have proven that he did; and so it follows if General Jackson changed once, (which I do not admit) Mr. Foster and his party have changed twice to his once. Will he put up with this poor consolation? He may say others have changed. We are not talking about others—I have nothing to do with others in this contest; I have only to do with the embodiment of the whig party in Tennessee ; and if he and they have changed, my proof is full and this issue is settled. I care not what he says about Martin Luther, the Pope of Rome granting absolution to the Irishman for a stack of hay which he intended to steal but had not yet stolen. I care nothing for all such things. I hold this contested issue to be settled by the proofs, and that neither the whig party nor their standard bearer can sustain that claim to consistency in politics which they have challenged the democracy to refute.

Mr. Foster talks much about the home market. Mr. Bell long since overturned all he says on that subject. Does he not see likewise that in trying to build up a home market in the north, by a high tariff which cripples the south and forces them to raise their own provisions, that he strikes down and destroys a home market five times as good to us as the northern one can be ? He talks of shutting up the fac

« AnteriorContinuar »