[ Doc. No. 82. ] 9 as cheap as any nation of the globe can rear them; an4 to offer this exten J sive country protection as an indemnity for losses sustained by the American system, would seem to be adding indignity to injury. Thus it is impossible that this section can escape from the tax imposed by protection; it can take no part of the bounty. It loses on the protection of woollens and cotton, hemp and iron, salt, &c., and gains in not one single item. The lavish expenditures on internal improvement have scarcely reached it. Again: there are the navigating and commercial interests—interests of which everv American may justly feel proud—which have been arrested in their rapid growth by the blighting influence of thetariff. Can any one wonder, then, when contemplating this state of things, that discontent and murmur should arise? that the minority should be indignant at this treatment of a sectional majority? Can any liberal member of such a majority, with these facts before him, say that the majority should unyieldingly persevere in its course? But there is another view of this subject which we think may well be presented to the serious consideration of the majority. Two of the most salutary checks which can be exer’ed on Governments, are the responsibility of tbf representative to his constituent, and his subjection to all the evil as well as good consequences of his acts. Now, in a Government like that of the 0nited States, when its action operates on the conflicting interests of the community, the first of these checks, instead of operating advantageously to the minority, maybe productive of the very evil complained of, and the second may cease to speak. Thus the responsibility of the representative causes him to shield himself under the well known wishes of the constituent. The greater the oppression of the minority, the greater, temporarily at least, the gains of the majority; and consequently, through the infallible medium of self-interest, the greater the temptation to partial and unjust legislation. And thus you have the law passed by the sectional majority, ,upon whom it operates favorably; in fact, the more favorably the more unjust it may be, and without, yea, directly contrary to the voice of those upon whom it acts unfavorably: and where can you find irresponsible power more completely exercised than here, where those who reap all the advantages of the law, enact it against those who suffer all the evil? Let us look to the passage of the tariff in 1828, and see whether some serious objections may not be urged against it upon this ground. “On the final question in the House of Representatives, all the members from the southern States, (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,) voted against the bill, except three members from Virginia, and three others from that State who were absent. All the members from the southwestern States, (Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana,) voted against the bill. All the members from the western States, (Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri,) voted for the bill, except one from Missouri, who voted against it, and one from Ohio, absent from indisposition. Of the delegations of the middle States, (Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York,) fifty-six voted for the bill, and eleven against it. Seven were absent on the final question, and there was one vacancy from death. Of the eleven dissentients, five were from Maryland, and six represented commercial districts in N^w York. The delegations of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, whether absent or present, were unanimously for the bill. Only one of the delegates from Maryland voted for the bill; but it is believed that three who were absent approved of the principle, and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=