Page images
PDF
EPUB

For, your Whig refers all rights and liberties back to their original source in the individual, and holds that society is established for the protection of those rights and liberties. Whereas, your ultra Democrat believes, or affects to believe, that each person gives up or resigns his free mind, on entering into the social compact, to the decision of caucusses and majorities. The one side holds, that this very decision by majorities is not established by any merely natural law, but by a constitutional regulation; while the other side contends, that the majority, assembling when and where they please, can assume power over individuals-to govern the few by the many-to keep each one in fear of a multitude, and to make right and wrong by acclamation. That way tends ultra Democracy.

Hence, too, arises the extreme doctrine of instructions: for, while your Whig distinguishes in his national legislator a twofold relation, one to the people he represents, and one to the nation as a whole; holding also, that he is a lawful legislator, not only for those who voted for him, but for those, also, who voted against him, and in brief, for every man, woman, and child in his district; and that, notwithstanding this, he is also a law-maker for the nation at large, and bound to protect and foster it-your ultra Democrat, deriving all the power of the legislator from the voices that chose him, and not from the Constitution, requires that he shall not dare expand his thought, so as to become a protector of the nation, but shape every opinion by the narrow interest of his Constituents. They make no distinction between the honor of the man who has tacitly pledged himself, by his election, to certain principles, and the duty of the national legislator who is bound by the superior law of conscience and the Constitution, to promote the honor and prosperity of his nation.

From the beginning, the one party has been characterized by a constant endeavor to identify the interests of the people with those of the government; while the other has as clearly opposed every national measure, which should call the creative and protective functions of the government into action.

More remarkable still does this differ

ence between the two parties appear, in popular judgments on the conduct of the Executive; for, while your ultra Democrat approves of every step of his Executive, no matter how unconstitutional, while he is supported and encouraged by the opinion of his party, your Whig looks to the Constitution, and expects the Executive to keep within the letter and within the spirit of that instrument. This difference, it is evident, proceeds directly from the different ideas of liberty entertained by the two parties; one regarding the government as unchangeable except by a solemn decision of the nation in convention, the other treating it as inferior in authority to the public opinion of a day. From these last, therefore, it meets with little favor and less respect; and they are rather gratified than otherwise, by the encroachments of a popular President. They do not make that distinction between the private honor of the President, which binds him, by the pledge of election, to the opinions and measures of his party, and that superior relation which he holds to the nation, without distinction of party, as its executive head, under the laws.

The doctrine of the one party, that the whole people, as sole and sovereign source of power, established the Constitution for a guarantee of individual freedom, and a source of all authority, is the doctrine of liberty; it places each citizen in a free relation to his neighbor, and affords a rule for public opinion to judge by, in weighing men and measures. Ultra Democratic doctrine, on the contrary, indulges men in a perpetual revolution, cutting off the past from the present, and the present from the future; making its own decrees utterly forceless and contemptible, by deriving their authority from acclamation, instead of placing it where it belongs, under the Constitution of the whole people.

an

and

It is the desire of the Whig party to establish an accurate though not illiberal Construction of the laws; that every public act shall be done under the spirit of the Constitution. Their maxim is, that the laws cannot be too much improved, and cannot be too well observed: they would have no man or body of men, majorities or minorities, exert a shadow of real power over their neighbors; and they refer all power and authority

whatsoever back to its original source, the will of the nation as a whole, expressed in the Cnstitution. This is the real sovereignty of the people.

These principles, drawn out into various conclusions, create a body of opinion and policy-the right or rather the duty of internal improvement, which obliges the government to facilitate internal and external commerce, by sufficient roads, harbors, and means of intercommunication; the support of credit by such an employment of the public funds as shall equalize and regulate exchanges-a measure suggested by the pure spirit of nationality, and defended on the ground that it is the duty of the nation to regulate and facilitate all transactions not of a merely local character; the protection of every species of industry by such a discrimination in duties as shall sustain a competition of domestic with foreign products; the maintenance of a high rate of wages for every species of labor, that the free laborer may feel the superior advantages of free government, and not find himself depressed by the unrestrained competition of the capital and labor of foreigners. In a word, legislating for no part as a part, but for all parts as members of the whole, the party of the Union and the Constitution judge every measure by its bearings upon the common good, viewing all propositions in the spirit of a liberal legislation, as far as possible removed from that of a tyrannous and usurping many. It seems unnecessary to urge, that such opinions and policy would flow from none but the most elevated views of humanity, such as reject all sectional and private arguments.

Are there any weak enough to think, that a party to which the Union owes its existence and safety, and from which have constantly flowed all measures for the benefit of the whole, can cease, or lose its unity for an instant? No! a consciousness of a common purpose, and a steady adherence to the form and spirit of a government which took its birth from the bosom of the nation, renders their dissolution impossible. They began with the Union; they go along with it, and gather strength with it, contending successfully, though not without reverses, against the most formidable enemy that can threaten a State, namely, a false social philosophy, set up to hide the true sources and purposes of

government, and confounding the sovereign will of a great nation, expressed in its laws and forms of power, with a sudden decision of a jealous crowd, whose ears tingle with the lies and flatteries of wily politicians.

Since the adoption of the Constitution, no crisis has occurred so important, or which has developed so clearly the real principles of the opposition, as the war with Mexico. Begun with deliberation and carried on with ardor by the leaders of the party in power, it was checked and denounced by their opposers, because it seemed to be a departure from that just and equitable line in which we had been moving. The collected arguments against the war establish the surprising fact, that we enjoy a form of government whose fundamental maxims differ in no particular from those of the law of nations, or, as it has been styled, the law of conscienceand that to sin against our law is to sin against humanity; that it is impossible to step beyond its limits, without trespassing upon some natural right, either of men or nations; and that we shall seek in vain for better principles than those imbodied in our fundamental laws.

It is not now to be settled by a controversy between Pacificus and Helvedius, whether "the powers of declaring war and making treaties are, in their nature, executive powers." Those powers are well understood and established in their proper place: had the deliberative reason of the nation been in a badly ascertained opinion of a majority, or in an Executive able to construct at pleasure the opinion of such a false majority, this government could not boast itself a popular government, nor claim to be settled upon any undisputable maxims. The Executive stands, in a true theory of the Republic, as the agent of the naked will, and Congress as the instigating heart and guiding reason, of the nation; a division invented to escape from despotism, and of a nature so profound and real, the disposition to neglect or disregard it, betrays at once an ignorance of the necessities, or a contempt for the character of the government. A tainted school of Federalism formerly wished to confound these powers: time and circumstance have established the absolute necessity of making the separation as distinct and clear in practice as in theory. If the naked will of

the Executive moves one step of itself, in national enterprises, either with or without the aid of public opinion, it violates the right of Congress, to whom the people have committed the consulting and predetermining power. Should the Executive employ the army in making harbors or canals, without consent of Congress, the cry of usurpation would have come from those very men, who now contend that the President did right when he sent an army into Mexico, in time of peace: had he sent the same troops to Lake Ontario, to build a harbor there for the aid of commerce, would any have been found so bold as to excuse him? And is the will of the Executive freer in the perilous enterprises of war, than in the harmless works of peace? It will never satisfy or save this people, to commit such questions to a few learned lawyers, to try if they can find a precedent for this or that usurpation in the books: Whig principles, party principles, familiar to the people, must determine them; we must resolve that our State shall not split upon that rock; we will have no usurpers, at least; we will have a President who knows how to keep within bounds. To decide and to act, are things different in nature; and usurpation is merely assuming to decide and act together, where it is only given to us to act. Our Executive must not plan enterprises for the nation; the people have conferred that power upon Congress-upon their deliberative assemblies; the Executive cannot, without usurpation, do more than execute, or refuse to execute, what is proposed by the council of the whole.

Are we wrong, therefore, in saying of the FUTURE POLICY OF THE WHIGS, that this point, of Executive usurpation, is one of the most important issues? What next to this, and perhaps of equal importance, have they to keep in view?

Next to suppression of present evils, is the adoption of plans for future good. The party in opposition have raised up every obstacle before the mad ambition of the war party, to compel them, if possible, to bring hostilities to a close. So far, only, they were successful, as to rouse the better spirit of the nation against the spirit of aggression and conquest. The mere drain and exhaustion of life and treasure, have done as much to end the war as all other The evil of a public debt, was one

causes.

[ocr errors]

which might be cast upon posterity, or which, at worst, was not difficult to bear; the loss of valuable lives in battle, was not an argument of much weight with a people notoriously careless of their lives; the supply of the treasury by foreign funds, prevents any serious drain upon the moveable capital of the cities; the gains of the great harvest and the famine are not yet exhausted or forgotten; it is hard to show the people that disasters lie in wait for them; their ears are occupied with philanthropical discourses and all the pathos of successful war; they dare not believe that their rulers are doing wrong: it is a thought too painful and troublesome to be entertained by a prosperous people. We must be made miserable before we can begin to be wise.

The policy of the party in power appears first in the getting up and management of the war; second, but not less marked, in the management and collection of the revenue. To defend the first, they advance certain doctrines of "right of conquest,' "progress of the species," "Anglo-Saxon destinies," and the like, veiling their designs with these philanthropical pretences. A philanthropical hypothesis seems to be the ace card in the modern game of politics, and the player has one ready in his sleeve, to whip out upon occasion. If you argue with a becoming spirit against killing and robbing, your ears are deafened with a ranting discourse on your destinies, as if there were any comfort to be derived from that. Destiny! my friend-do you say it is my destiny to be a thief? Perhaps it may be with you to lead; but the path is one in which it fits not my disposition to follow you.

If you contend, with a becoming directness and warmth, for the protection of free labor, and of the interests of the country, you are interrupted, and talked down, by a genius with long hair, who politely assures you that you mean well, but err through simplicity: the philanthropists to whom all human affairs have been intrusted by a special decree of Providence, have resolved that all nations ought to be treated as one nation, and no regard be had to petty differences of race, climate, manners, morals, industry, or liberty. The occupations of life are to be divided up amongst them; England is to make all the wearing apparel, machinery, and movea

ble conveniences, while America attends only to commerce and agriculture. France will make our shoes, Italy our religion and our summer hats, Germany supply our thoughts, and Africa furnish out our sympathies. Thus will this jolly round ball of earth be no longer several ant-hills, but rather one vast formicary. This is all the purpose we have been able to discover in a free trade argument, that occupations should be restricted to particular nations. What benefit is to come from the arrangement it requires the mind of a mystic to perceive.

66

as a just and necessary policy, and the ministry were praised for it, but it threw down and forever annihilated the doctrine, that revenue alone is to be regarded, in the adjustment of duties;" it proved that if tariffs are used at all, it is necessary to discriminate, lest in raising revenue, we depress and injure the people.

The English ministry were bound by a maxim of free trade, as their economists teach it to our democracy, to have kept on the duties, and to have realized all the revenue possible from the rise of the prices of bread stuffs, and the consequent increase of ad valorem duties.

Though this single instance is an effectual demolition of the maxim of which our free trade speculators make such an

But if the fancied advantages of free trade are hypothetical and hard to be appreciated, the arguments against its contrary are no less so: While England is raising a hundred, and this nation twenty-efficient use, it may not be a waste of time five millions of dollars through tariffs laid on by free trade theorists, we are entertained by our long-haired philosopher with the following thesis: "That a tariff is unjust, because it taxes one class to enrich another." These two hypotheses, first, that each nation should produce some one commodity, or set of commodities, proper to itself; and the other, that a protective tariff is unjust "because it taxes one man to enrich another," include the whole free trade argument;-they are at once, theory, arguments and premises.

If it were true, that a tariff affording protection, enriches one man to the loss of another, then would those free trade legislators who proceed to raise half the revenue of England, and the whole of that of America by tariffs, be proved guilty of inflicting a great wrong upon their respective countries; but as matters now stand with them, they are charged, not with the error of imposing tariffs, but with having imposed them in such a manner and in such a form as to do with them the greatest possible amount of injury. Thus, while they cry out against discriminating duties, and argue for the ad valorem, they discriminate in favor of particular articles, such as tea and coffee, and bread stuffs, in the very teeth of that favorite maxim of free trade, that "if a tariff is laid it must be for revenue." In times of scarcity, an ad valorem duty upon articles of food, yields a better revenue, the duty rising with the price, but no sooner was there a scarcity of food in England, the duty was lowered to a rate merely nominal. The policy was advocated

to add another for the sake of clinching the nail. Revenue, then, is the sole thing to be thought of when we are laying duties: admit it, and your ad valorem-your duty measured by the price becomes absurd. Suppose a certain class of imported articles -coarse woollen cloths, for example-are in common use by all the people, and are counted among the necessaries of life, as they would be were there no manufactures of them in the country. Through excessive importation the price has fallen and the duty with it; the market is supplied and all the people are using the goods. The state wants revenue: by doubling, or trebling, or quadrupling the duty on these cloths, it will raise additional revenue; the people must have the cloths, and will pay double for them; the additional duty must, therefore, be laid, for "revenue alone is the thing to be considered in laying duties." Thus it appears from both instances, not only that your ad valorem principle is an absurdity, for to raise a proper revenue you must neglect it, but that the "largest revenue principle" is inhumane, and takes advantage of the hunger and nakedness of the poor. So it appears that these two maxims stand in a ridiculous opposition to each other, and are equally contemptible, the "ad valorem" for its having no meaning at all, and the "largest revenue" principle, for its being both weak and wicked.

Once more, let us admit the maxim, that revenue alone is to be regarded in laying duties, why then are they not laid upon exports as well as upon imports? Free

trade economists tell us that the consumers of imported articles pay the duties, and not the producers, or the wholesale purchasers. If this be true, what more necessary or proper than duties upon exports also, and so double your revenue? If you laid export duties upon Ohio corn, not the farmer, nor the corn dealer, would pay them say you-but the consumers in other parts of the world. Is it then your excessive tenderness for consumers in other parts of the world, that keeps you so silent on the policy of export duties? "O no! we know very well that it is not possible for us to regulate the price of corn in the European markets, and if the price were raised artificially by imposts here, the producers would suffer." What of that? what of that, my sage economist? your duty is to raise the revenue by the most efficient and convenient means, and you are not to go about protecting-odious word!-these Ohio farmers, by laying all your duties on imports, and allowing them to go scot free, paying not a dollar of revenue! It is an outrage on humanity, when you know that Ohio farmers wear homespun and pay no revenue, to discriminate for them, and lay your duties upon This is taking money out of his pocket who wears English broadcloth, to put it into the Ohio farmer's, who is content with homespun-a discrimination quite intolerable and oppressive: the Democracy should look to it."

other men.

But no, we have not seen the picture in all lights yet, for now it grins a fool, and now stares a knave; in a third view it will perhaps show a mixture of both.

"In laying duties," say our economists, "we are to discriminate, not for protection, but for revenue." Instance that an ad valorem duty is laid upon foreign manufactured cloths, and all articles of wear, be they light summer fabrics or heavy and costly broadcloths; nothing of the kind shall escape, for now we are broaching a new war and must raise a great revenue. Discriminate, however, we must, for our object is revenue and nothing else. Here, on our list, is the article of foreign silk fabrics: a vast quantity is yearly imported; they are evidently a necessary of life, and will bear an enormous duty; for the people are attached to their use, and will pay double rather than give them up; and if we find them dis

[ocr errors]

posed to give up the silks, and substitute linen and cotton because the duty is high, then up with duties on linen and cotton, and so force the people to buy. All goes on well for a year or so, and we are raising a large revenue, with duties carried to the top of endurance, when suddenly, to our amazement and sorrow, the goods cease to be bought, and the revenue falls off. Certain traitorous capitalists, conspiring against the revenue, and thus rendering aid and comfort to the enemy, have erected mills, and manufactured articles of silk, cotton and linen to undersell the imported. The country is all at once supplied with silk manufactures of admirable quality-but the revenue! the revenue! what are we to do? The process is easy lower your duties suddenly, ruin all the manufactures, and when they are well out of the way, and their mills converted to other uses, raise the duties again as soon as you please, and I will insure you as large a revenue as ever. You may repeat this process as often as you choose, and realize a great deal of revenue by it. The whole art is to find out the commodities which are most necessary to the people, and lay on heavy duties; your principle is to discriminate for revenue, and not for protection. When you saw that high duties on certain articles, which your discrimination marked for revenue, operated to protect them, you were astonished to find that there was no discrimination for revenue which was not also one for protection. If you taxed one import heavily, you were obliged to tax all others which could be substituted for it, else it was of no avail. Your ad valorem principle made high prices advantageous, and, as the goods rose, your profits rose in proportion, notwithstanding the falling off of buyers; till, on a sudden, the whole vanishes, and while you were thinking to discriminate for revenue only, you protected manufactures, and so far, were guilty of the sin of protecting the industry of your countrymen. You knew of no better way to mend this error than by ruining those whom your protection had enriched, and then starting anew with your ad valorem and discriminating duties.

Unfortunate economists! compelled, as it were, by the very laws of nature, to violate your own maxims!-for, if you taxed the farmer's grain, then that wrathful and intelligent person would eject you

« PreviousContinue »