against all protection. He means that the sole and exclusive object to be regarded by the legislator, in imposing duties on imports, is to obtain money for the revenue. That is to be the only thing aimed at. He says, truly, that if a duty be laid on an imported article, an incidental benefit may accrue to the producer of a like article at home. But then this is incidental; it is altogether adventitious, an accident, a collateral or consequential result. It is not a matter to be taken into the view of the law-makers. It is to form no part of their purpose in framing or passing the law. That purpose is to be confined altogether to the inquiry after that "maximum rate of duty which can be laid for the bonâ fide purpose of collecting money for the support of the government.”

This is his doctrine, as plain as words can make it. It is to lay such duties as may be most beneficial to revenue, and nothing but revenue; and if, in raising a revenue duty, it shall happen that domestic manufactures are protected, why that's all very well. But the protection of domestic manufactures is not to be any object of concern, nor to furnish any motive, to those who make the law. I think I have not misrepresented Mr. Polk. I think his meaning is sufficiently plain, and is precisely as I state it. Indeed, I have given you his own words. He would not, himself, deny the meaning of his words, as I have stated it. He is for laying taxes for revenue, and for revenue alone, just as if there were no iron manufactures, or other manufactures, in the United States. This is the doctrine of Mr. Polk.

Now, was this General Jackson's doctrine? Was it ever his doctrine? Let us see. I read you an extract from General Jackson's first message. He says:

"The general rule to be applied in graduating the duties upon articles of foreign growth or manufacture is that which will place our own in fair competition with those of other countries; and the inducements to advance even a step beyond this point are controlling, in regard to those articles which are of primary necessity in time of war."

What is this doctrine? Does it not say in so many words, that, in imposing duties upon articles of foreign manufactures, it is the business of the framers of the law to lay such duties, and to lay them in such a way, as shall give our own producers a fair competition against the foreign producer? And does not

General Jackson go further, and say, and you, Pennsylvanians, from here to Pittsburg, and all you workers in iron and owners of iron mines, may consider it, does he not go further, and say, that, in regard to articles of primary importance, in time of war, we are under controlling reasons for going a step farther, and putting down foreign competition? Now, I submit to you, Gentlemen, instead of putting down foreign competition, is not the tariff of 1846 calculated to put down our own competition?

But I will read to you, Gentlemen, an extract from General Jackson's second message, which, in my opinion, advances the true doctrine, the true American constitutional rule and principle, fully, clearly, admirably.

"The power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the several States; the right to adjust those duties, with the view to the encouragement of domestic branches of industry, is so completely identical with that power, that it is difficult to suppose the existence of the one without the other.

"The States have delegated their whole authority over imports to the general government, without limitation or restriction, saving the very inconsiderable reservation relating to their inspection laws. This authority having thus entirely passed from the States, the right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them, and consequently, if it be not possessed by the general government, it must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anomaly of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry, and to counteract the most selfish and destructive policy which might be adopted by foreign nations.

"This, surely, cannot be the case; this indispensable power thus surrendered by the States, must be within the scope of the authority on the subject expressly delegated to Congress.

"In this conclusion I am confirmed, as well by the opinions of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, who have each repeatedly recommended the exercise of this right under the Constitution, as by the uniform practice of Congress, the continued acquiescence of the States, and the general understanding of the people."

It appears to me, Gentlemen, that these extracts from General Jackson's messages read very differently from the extracts from President Polk's message at the opening of the last session of Congress, which I have quoted. I think that his notion of a revenue standard-if President Polk means any thing by it be

yond this, that it is the sole business of this government to obtain as much money as it needs, and to obtain it in the best way it can, if he means to say that there is any other object belonging to the revenue standard which is not incidental, which may or may not happen-is all visionary, vague, ideal, and, when touched by the principles announced by General Jackson, explodes like gun-cotton. You perceive, Gentlemen, that in his message to Congress General Jackson addressed himself directly to the object. He says, in raising revenues, consider that your duty is so to arrange duties on imports as to give to the manufacturer of the country a fair competition, and, in certain articles, to suppress foreign competition. There is an object, a purpose, a motive, in protection and for protection, and it is not left to the cabalistic word "incidental."

I have said that I believe that the people of this country see the difference between the principles of General Jackson and the principles of this administration on the great subject of protection, and I have endeavored to present that difference plainly, and in the very words of each. I think they see the difference, also, upon other important subjects.

Take, for instance, the war with Mexico. I am accustomed, Gentlemen, to mix so far as I am able, and as my circumstances will allow, with men of all classes and conditions in life; men of various political opinions. Your own avocations and concerns in life will have led you to do the same; and I now ask you, if you ever found a sensible and reasonable man who said to you that he believed that, if General Jackson or Mr. Van Buren had been at the head of the government, we should have had this Mexican war. I have found none such. Why, we all know, Gentlemen, that the President,-I have not to settle questions of greater or less worth, or the peculiar claims between members of a party to which I do not belong, but we all know the fact that Mr. Polk came into office against Mr. Van Buren; that he came in on the Texas interest and for a Texas purpose; and we all know that Texas and Texas purposes have brought on this war. Therefore I say, I know no man of intelligence and sound judgment who believes that, if the Baltimore Convention had nominated, and the people elected, Mr. Van Buren to the Presidency, we should now have on hand a Mexican war.

The purpose of these remarks has been to show you, Gentle

"This proposition assumes the fact, that the title of Great Britain to a portion of the territory is valid, and thus takes for granted the very question in dispute. Under this proposition, the very terms of the submission would contain an express acknowledgment of the right of Great Britain to a portion of the territory, and would necessarily preclude the United States from claiming the whole, before the arbitration, and this too in the face of the President's assertion of the 30th of August, 1845, made in the most solemn manner, of the title of the United States to the whole territory. This alone would be deemed sufficient reason for declining the proposition."

To remove this difficulty, Mr. Packenham, on the 16th of January, 1846, addressed Mr. Buchanan, to inquire "whether, supposing the British government to entertain no objection to such a course, it would suit the views of the United States government to refer to arbitration, not (as has already been proposed), the question of an equitable partition of the territory, but the question of title in either of the two powers to the whole territory; subject, of course, to the condition, that, if neither should be found, in the opinion of the arbitrator, to possess a complete title to the whole territory, there should, in that case, be assigned to each that portion which would, in the opinion of the arbitrating power, be called for by a just appreciation of the respective claims of each."

Mr. Packenham proposed a reference to some friendly sovereign or state, or "to a mixed commission with an umpire appointed by common consent; or, to a board composed of the most distinguished civilians and jurists of the time, appointed in such a manner as shall bring all pending questions to the decision of the most enlightened, impartial, and independent minds."

This proposition, also, Mr. Buchanan, in a note of the 4th of February, declines; and for thus refusing it, he says one reason was alone conclusive on the mind of the President, and that was, "that he does not believe the territorial rights of this nation to be a proper subject of arbitration."

Now, Sir, how is this? What sort of new doctrine is here advanced? I take it, that every question of boundary is a question of territory, and that from the origin of our government, from General Washington's time, under all successive administrations, down to the present time, we have been in the habit of

yond this, that it is the sole business of this government to obtain as much money as it needs, and to obtain it in the best way it can, if he means to say that there is any other object belonging to the revenue standard which is not incidental, which may or may not happen-is all visionary, vague, ideal, and, when touched by the principles announced by General Jackson, explodes like gun-cotton. You perceive, Gentlemen, that in his message to Congress General Jackson addressed himself directly to the object. He says, in raising revenues, consider that your duty is so to arrange duties on imports as to give to the manufacturer of the country a fair competition, and, in certain articles, to suppress foreign competition. There is an object, a purpose, a motive, in protection and for protection, and it is not left to the cabalistic word "incidental."

I have said that I believe that the people of this country see the difference between the principles of General Jackson and the principles of this administration on the great subject of protec tion, and I have endeavored to present that difference plainly, and in the very words of each. I think they see the difference, also, upon other important subjects.

Take, for instance, the war with Mexico. I am accustomed, Gentlemen, to mix so far as I am able, and as my circumstances will allow, with men of all classes and conditions in life; men of various political opinions. Your own avocations and concerns in life will have led you to do the same; and I now ask you, if you ever found a sensible and reasonable man who said to you that he believed that, if General Jackson or Mr. Van Buren had been at the head of the government, we should have had this Mexican war. I have found none such. Why, we all know, Gentlemen, that the President,- I have not to settle questions of greater or less worth, or the peculiar claims between members of a party to which I do not belong, but we all know the fact that Mr. Polk came into office against Mr. Van Buren; that he came in on the Texas interest and for a Texas purpose; and we all know that Texas and Texas purposes have brought on this war. Therefore I say, I know no man of intelligence and sound judgment who believes that, if the Baltimore Convention had nominated, and the people elected, Mr. Van Buren to the Presidency, we should now have on hand a Mexican war.

The purpose of these remarks has been to show you, Gentle