the general government, General Washington addressed a letter to the port wardens of the city of New York, telling them that, of course, the support of the light-houses, &c., would devolve upon Congress; but as Congress had then no money, and no provision had been made, he requested them not to extinguish the lights, to hold up their lanterns, and pledged himself that he would see them refunded out of the national treasury. And he did so. But now it is supposed to be a great heresy to call upon the national treasury for one cent to clear a harbor, to remove a sand-bar, or to facilitate the commerce of the country in any respect.

These local ideas mislead. Some years ago, while I had the honor of a seat in Congress, I voted for a large expenditure for a harbor at Mobile. A constituent of mine wrote to me to know how, as a Massachusetts man, I could make up my mind to vote so large a sum for a local improvement so far away as a harbor at Mobile, on the Gulf of Mexico. I told him I would not answer him on the general principle, but I would give him a very satisfactory matter-of-fact answer: two or three of his neighbors had suffered shipwreck on that very bar at Mobile, in their own vessels, from Massachusetts.

Gentlemen, I will occupy your attention no longer with the other novelties of these times. I hope that they are sufficiently exploded with the generality of American citizens, at least the idea that the laws of Congress can be set aside by individual States. If allowed to prevail, we are no longer one people,-only, at any rate, so long as all the States of the present Union choose to remain so. If one State goes off, we are two people; if nine go off, we are ten. It is sufficient to say, that if that idea is allowed to prevail, the Constitution becomes a mere rope of sand; it will grow feebler and feebler every day, and will become, ere long, the object of all men's derision and of all men's contempt.

And now, fellow-citizens, having stated to you what I conscientiously believe to be, and what is proved to be, the real system, the true policy, and the measures by which the government has been administered since most of us were born, I put it to you to-day, whether it is your pleasure to reverse all this course of administration, to entertain the doctrines now presented by our opponents, who deny the power of Congress over pro

tection, over the currency, and over internal improvements, and, when they assert any thing, assert only the power of nullification.

I desire, however, to consider their principles with all candor and fairness. And our opponents tell us, in the first place, that they are not all nullifiers. I am glad of it. But who are the leaders? Who speak for them? Whose standard do they follow? Whose words do they echo? Whose sympathy and support do they seek? That's the question. A party speaks through its organs, its leaders. What folly it is to say, "That's not my opinion." Suppose it is not: your influence goes to maintain it, and it is idle to profess that the party goes farther than you wish to go, if all the time you contribute your power to sustain them. You must not give them the power, if you do not mean to have it exercised.

And so it is said, that all are not against protection. Who are not against it? Or if any are not against it, do they not follow the lead of those who are? Justice requires us to say, that there are those of that party in favor of protection in this and other Northern States. But those whom we feel obliged to oppose have chosen a leader; they have presented to us a candidate for our support. How is he on the subject of protection? In other words, what is Mr. Polk's opinion of the subject? Mr. Polk says he is in favor of a judicious tariff. But what sort of a tariff is a judicious tariff in his opinion? His brethren of Carolina say it is a horizontal tariff, one which makes no discriminations, but rejects all protection. That is the judgment of Mr. Polk's Carolinian friends on a judicious tariff; and I am strongly of the opinion that it is his judgment also.

Again, he says he is in favor of "incidental protection." What is incidental protection? Does it mean accidental, casual? I suppose, if a duty of ten per cent. was imposed upon all articles without any discrimination whatever, it would accidentally give some such incidental protection. If that is the meaning of incidental protection, I eschew the word altogether. No, no. The true principle is this. You lay a duty to raise a necessary amount of revenue; in laying it you discriminate, not accidentally, but studiously, cautiously, designedly, discreetly; and in raising a dollar of revenue, you consider upon what article you can collect that dollar so as best to advance the industry of the

nation. That's the question, and that's all of it. If you look only to the revenue in laying the duty, and say you are in favor of the protection which that duty will incidentally allow, you may as well say you are in favor of a rain, or a fog, or a thunderstorm. You are in favor of an accident. It is something which you cannot control. It will take place against your volition, or without it; whether you are in favor of it or not. This, certainly, is not a statesmanlike view of the subject.

The great principle is this. One of you has to contribute five dollars a year to maintain the government; and you pay it in the form of duties on what you consume. Now, if you happen to be a consumer mainly, it is of very little consequence to you on what particular articles this duty is imposed. But it makes the greatest difference in the world to your neighbor, whether it is laid on such articles as he produces, or whether it is so laid as to keep him down and subservient to the labor of other countries. I say again, there must be an intended, designed, discreet discrimination, for real, efficient, substantial protection; and the man who is not for that, is for nothing but incidents, and accidents, and casualties.

We hear much of reciprocity, and I take the rule upon this subject to be well laid down by a distinguished gentleman from another section of the United States," whom you will probably have the pleasure of hearing when I shall have relieved your patience, that reciprocity is a matter to be secured with foreign nations when it is evidently a true reciprocity. But I have yet to learn, from some new dictionary, that a system of reciprocity is a system with advantages only on one side. I am for reciprocity treaties. No, I will not say treaties, but arrangements; for the whole power over the subject lies with Congress, and not with the treaty-making power. But I am for a real reciprocity; not such as was provided by the treaty arrangement lately negotiated, and which the Senate, greatly to their honor, in my judgment, rejected. I am not for giving away substantial rights, and, without ascribing blame to any party, I must say, not that we were overreached, but that the arrangement of this kind, commonly called Mr. McLane's arangement of 1831, has turned out greatly to our disadvantage,

general policy of the country, whether we shall follow in the tracks of our fathers, or reverse all their opinions and all their measures, and take a new course for ourselves. And I put it to you to-day, and I am willing to leave the decision to this great State and to you, how the people of New York mean to bear themselves, how this great State means to conduct herself, in the decision of this question. Whosoever looks upon the map, and sees her stretching over so great an extent of the Union, or looks at the census and sees her large population, or looks at the commercial returns, must contemplate New York as holding a great, I had almost said a fearful, responsibility for the future conduct of this government. I do not doubt that her intelligent people will acquit themselves on this occasion as they think their own interests and the interests of the Union require. If I were to doubt that, I should doubt the continuance of the prosperity of our country; I should doubt that the interests of the United States would go forward, but I should expect to see them steadily decline, till they finally sunk in ruin.

Gentlemen, I will detain you no longer. To as many of you as are inhabitants of Albany, I desire to give my thanks for the kindness of this invitation, and for your hospitality. Of late years my intercourse with the good city of Albany has not been frequent. Of the great and good men of the State whom I have had the good fortune to know, some are not now among the living. Mr. De Witt Clinton, a man never to be mentioned by any American without entire respect; the late General Van Rensselaer, whose many virtues and amiable qualities seemed to enable him to overcome the difficulty of a "camel's going through the eye of a needle"; Governor Tompkins, and Mr. Van Vechten, are gone to their final homes. Among those with whom, in early life or early manhood, I had the pleasure to form acquaintance here, two are still living, at an advanced age, having enlightened a whole profession, and reflected great honor by their public life on the State and country, Chancellor Kent and Chief Justice Spencer. They are not here to-day; but they are with us, I doubt not, in sympathy and feeling, full of the same patriotic purpose. I pray God they may long live to see and enjoy the prosperity and glory of our common country.

And now, Gentlemen, with my best good wishes for you all, allow me most respectfully to take my leave.

nation. That's the question, and that's all of it. If you look only to the revenue in laying the duty, and say you are in favor of the protection which that duty will incidentally allow, you may as well say you are in favor of a rain, or a fog, or a thunderstorm. You are in favor of an accident. It is something which you cannot control. It will take place against your volition, or without it; whether you are in favor of it or not. This, certainly, is not a statesmanlike view of the subject.

The great principle is this. One of you has to contribute five dollars a year to maintain the government; and you pay it in the form of duties on what you consume. Now, if you happen to be a consumer mainly, it is of very little consequence to you on what particular articles this duty is imposed. But it makes the greatest difference in the world to your neighbor, whether it is laid on such articles as he produces, or whether it is so laid as to keep him down and subservient to the labor of other countries. I say again, there must be an intended, designed, discreet discrimination, for real, efficient, substantial protection; and the man who is not for that, is for nothing but incidents, and accidents, and casualties.

We hear much of reciprocity, and I take the rule upon this subject to be well laid down by a distinguished gentleman from another section of the United States,* whom you will probably have the pleasure of hearing when I shall have relieved your patience, that reciprocity is a matter to be secured with foreign nations when it is evidently a true reciprocity. But I have yet to learn, from some new dictionary, that a system of reciprocity is a system with advantages only on one side. I am for reciprocity treaties. No, I will not say treaties, but arrangements; for the whole power over the subject lies with Congress, and not with the treaty-making power. But I am for a real reciprocity; not such as was provided by the treaty arrangement lately negotiated, and which the Senate, greatly to their honor, in my judgment, rejected. I am not for giving away substantial rights, and, without ascribing blame to any party, I must say, not that we were overreached, but that the arrangement of this kind, commonly called Mr. McLane's arangement of 1831, has turned out greatly to our disadvantage,