of Tennessee, whose names appear in a sort | visionary and impossible. We feel safe in of codicil to the document issued by Messrs. leaving the future to their honesty, which Toombs and Stephens. The gentlemen has been throughout unquestioned. from Tennessee do not intend to oppose In the nomination of William A. Graham General Scott, but they are not inclined to for the Vice-Presidency, we recognize a just support him. Heretofore known as true and tribute to the wisdom and purity of the Adleading Whigs, they have been scared by a ministration; for, setting aside the high political bugbear into a position full of per-qualifications of the nominee for the office, plexity to themselves, of gratulation to the Locofocos, of antagonism to the sentiments of their constituents, and of no profit to the Southern Whig party at large. We sympathize with these gentlemen, as we sympa thize with any honest man who places himself in a false and untenable position. We have no charity for the error itself, but reason teaches us to be considerate to its victims. we see a principle involved in his nomination which we would have the party bear in mind. In the earlier days of this Republic, when presidential power and purity of action were synonymous terms, and when cabinets were framed with a jealous eye to national honor and well-doing, it was the custom to look to the cabinet of one administration for the executive, or the substitute, of the next. Our fathers, with the punctilio of the old Reflect, gentlemen, that the votes of Ten- school, viewed this as by no means an unnessee were instrumental in nominating meaning compliment. As a testimony of General Scott. Remember, moreover, that confidence and high respect, it was held Scott could not have been nominated with- most weighty and profound. Are we not out the help of Tennessee, and Kentucky entitled to claim a similar weight for the or Virginia; and that the votes given testimony which, in the present nominahim from the Southern States were given tion, we have seen so explicitly manifested? with the true and profound conviction And may we not also find in Mr. Grathat he stood above the sectional atmos-ham's nomination a complete refutation of phere with which his enemies charged him with being nourished; and that, by his announcement in his letter read before the Convention, and in his warm acceptance of the resolutions of the Convention, he had removed that distrust which, in your Congressional speeches, you had asserted as prevalent among your constituents. The nomination of General Scott is so far from being a Northern measure, that he could not have been nominated without a good share of Southern votes; and never in the history of the nation have Southern votes in Convention been cast with so much deliberation, care, and forethought The political life of Messrs. Gentry and Williams has been up to this time consistent and distinguished. They stand to-day almost alone among the Whigs of Tennessee in the tenacity with which they adhere to an unhappy prejudice; nor can we believe that this prejudice will much longer continue to afflict their vision. The great Whig party at the North, the Whigs of Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Kentucky, and their own State of Tennessee, are forcing it upon their convictions daily that their eyes are gazing through a false medium, and that the dangers which they apprehend are the charge of sectionalism urged against the Convention, and a convincing proof of the high nationality of the ground assumed by the Whig party? But in the campaign on which we have now entered, the contest, with thinking men, will be a contest of principles. The Democratic party can make very small personal capital on a candidate and representative of the negative renown of Franklin Pierce. The question which has so long distracted our councils, we may regard settled by unanimous consent; or if ever hereafter agitated, it can in no shape be made a party matter. The issues of a past century cannot be trumped up to serve as rallying cries for either party, although by the resolutions of the Democratic Convention, we might understand that a different opinion is entertained by our opponents. This we are perfectly willing to leave open for national decision. It is simply the duty of the contending parties, as we read the indications and the necessities of the times, to place before the people of this nation, in clear and unambiguous terms, what they intend to do, what are their creeds, their policy, and their prospective measures. On these a true and intelligent contest can alone be waged. to demand and insist upon an equality of rights We suppose this resolution is aimed at a protective tariff, and we are confirmed in this supposition by the absence of any other allusions to the subject of a tariff in the entire body of the resolutions. From such a contest the Democratic party seem anxious to hold aloof. With a temerity for which we can find no example, they come before the people without a creed, and without a man. They have miserably parodied the old game of 1844. Then there was a show of reason for the course they adopted. Now their action is but an unbroken infatuation. They have put forward no inflammatory sentiments, such as "Annexation" and the "whole of Oregon," and the deficiency is fearful and profound. They have ousted their well-known men for an image of straw, who represents nothing, and for whom popular impulse is attempted to be roused in vain. The claims they put forward for the votes of the nation sound more like the pretensions of professed mendicancy than the demands of a definite polit-ing, its studied non-committalism, and its ical organization. For what mendicancy can be more shameless or complete than that which asks for alms as a right, and ignores the necessity of acknowledgment by repudiating all the obligations of gratitude or reciprocal service? That these remarks are true and can be readily substantiated, will be seen from a survey of the platform adopted by the Democratic Convention at Baltimore. A more negative body of resolutions were never passed by any political organization in this country. The first resolution in that body could with propriety be adopted by either party, and the same may be said of the fifth, eighth, and ninth. The second, third, and sixth are mere negatives; and the fourth and seventh are cowardly evasions of negatives which the party do not dare to utter. Of the fossiliferous nature of most of these resolutions, we have elsewhere remarked. They are indeed memorable as specimens of what antiquarian research is able to accomplish. But we are unable to see the justice involved in propounding for popular acceptance, a creed which resolves itself upon examination into negation and repudiation of long since dead and buried issues. Nothing in the entire series appears so contemptible and cowardly as the following: "Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of any other, or to cher ish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country; that every citizen and every section of the country has a right No one will refuse to subscribe to the words of this resolution, and there is therefore a peculiar malignity in its composition. It is simply a very cunning and despicable trick, by which the tariff Democracy are to be deceived as they were deceived in 1844, and the anti-tariff Democracy are to propagate their mongrel and destructive half-way theory of free trade. Its ambiguous word power of indefinite and manifold construction, fix us more firmly in the belief of what we have so often avowed, and with increasing definiteness of late years, that the doctrine of protection is every day growing more popular in the United States; and that the Locofoco party, while professing to believe in the utility of free trade, dare not recommend it, dare not embody it in their written creed, and are even ready to disavow it wherever such duplicity will secure votes. We have proved this in the case of the campaign of 1844, in which Pennsylvania was carried for "Polk and the tariff of 1842," and the covert spirit of the resolution just quoted amply substantiates it. It is evident then, that in this campaign, as the friends of protection to home industry, and as adherents to the doctrine that "Revenue, sufficient for the expenses of an eco. nomical administration of the Government, should, in time of peace, be derived from a duty on imports, and not from direct taxation; and in laying ation, whereby suitable encouragment may be af such duties, sound policy requires a just discrimiforded to American industry, equally to all classes and to all parts of the country as adherents to this doctrine, we say, we shall be forced to contend with a duplicity and a meanness almost too great to be comprehended. In Pennsylvania, the Locofoco press and orators will assure the people in the most solemn terms, precisely as they assured their deluded hearers in 1844, that a protective tariff is a measure dear to the heart of Democratic legislators, and one that will not be overlooked in the event of tri umph. This falsehood will be repeated | We warn Whigs and honest Democrats to wherever found necessary, and we must ex- beware of it in time. pect that it will make many dupes. In We come now to another issue of the quarters where the "Democracy" have ro- present campaign still more direct and tanmantic ideas touching free trade, and omin-gible; and one which, while it affects the ous notions about "manufacturing monopo- entire territory of the United States, is full lies," their ears will be tickled and their of peculiar interest to the inhabitants of the apprehensions allayed by a skilful reading Western and Southwestern States, where of that sentence in which the Convention "Democracy" is counting on its largest tell us that "Justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of any other, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country." We warn the Whigs and that portion of the Democratic party who esteem the protective policy as most suitable to the development of our industrial resources, to beware of this cheat in time. We have been tricked and imposed on once; let us not be deluded a second time. The artifice is as cunning as it can be made, but it is a shallow artifice after all, and a few plain facts are only required to expose it. Let all protectionist Democrats be assured that, in event of the election of Franklin Pierce, no rise will be made in present tariff duties-least of all, on the commodity of iron. We care not if every Locofoco newspaper in Pennsylvania shall assert that one fruit of a Democratic victory will be a return to the tariff of 1842; it would make no difference if stump orators should canvass the mineral districts with pledges to such a measure, signed by the nominees themselves; the Locofoco party dare not and will not sustain efficient tariff measures, and any local promises of such support will prove a sham and a delusion, fruitful of cheated and repentant victims. Nor will they dare to advocate in its length and breadth the doctrine of free trade. It is the policy of their leaders to conciliate the free-trade and protectionist wings of the party by promises of a contrary nature made severally to each. Therefore neither doctrine will be adopted, but each will be made available in time and place. The freetrader will be flattered, the protectionist will be tickled, and each will continue to see his favorite measure postponed. It remains to be seen whether this subterfuge will long continue to flourish, and whether, in the present campaign, it will make as many victims as it created in the contest of 1844. triumphs. We refer to the issue between the Whig and Locofoco parties on the subject of Internal Improvements, as embodied in the following resolutions, the first adopted at Baltimore by the Whig party, the latter by our opponents: "Resolved, That the Constitution vests in Conmove obstructions from navigable rivers. It is expegress the power to open and repair harbors, and redient that Congress should exercise such power whenever such improvements are necessary for the common defense, and for the protection and facility of commerce with foreign nations, or among the States-said improvements being, in every instance, national and general in their character." The other resolution reads as follows: "Resolved, That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government the power to commence and carry on a general system of internal improvements." Now, granting that there is doubt about the power of Congress to appropriate money for the improvements of rivers and harbors, allowing, for the sake of the argument, a restriction which we repudiate as narrow and unnational to the last degree, what other motive can a party have for turning doubt into denial other than a confirmed hatred of all beneficent general legislation? Alike in law and equity, where there is doubt as to a measure, its decision is influenced by its utility. By this rule we are willing that that clause of the Constitution relative to internal improvements should be interpreted. Statesmen have differed about its interpretation as a technicality, but with reference to its spirit no doubt can be entertained. If, as we say, Congress is entitled by the Constitution to appropriate money for general internal improvements, and if, as the Locofoco party say, Congress is not so entitled, not affirming that the Constitution forbids such a disposition of the public funds, what arbiter should be allowed to intervene other than a wise regard for national interests, such a regard as can only be manifested by actual and tangible operations? To this arbiter the Whigs are willing to appeal. The improvement of our rivers and harbors is desirable. We may go farther and say that it is absolutely necessary, unless we are satisfied to endure those losses of life and property which are brought about every day by the neglected condition of our water communication. National prudence, practical philanthropy, and common sense tell us that there is no economy displayed in withholding appropriations for the improvement of our national water communications. It is like a scant and sparing distribution of seed the crop is proportionally slender. There is a principle of reciprocity and compensation in all things, and where false economy prevails, there you will find a proportionate prevalence of poverty. The farmer who defrauds his land, and the merchant who neglects his stock, do not commit a greater mistake than the nation that neglects its own internal resources and capabilities, by following the "cheap" system of "Let alone." Yes, say the Locofoco party, our rivers and harbors are really in a very deplorable condition, and no one understands what should be done for them better than we; but it would be interfering with "State sovereignties," if Congress should legislate for their improvement. If the Western States want their lake shores rendered safer for shipping, and their rivers cleared of snags and made safe and navigable, let them do the work for themselves, and pay for it themselves. This philosophy is hard and blunt, and very natural withal to men who are not much given to reflection; but there are two reasons why a long time must elapse before it can be carried into practical realization. The first is, because the States that stand most in need of such improvements are not in a condition to pay for them. The finan ces of the Western States, never wholly free from the suspicion of those who love regular returns of 7 per cents, will not now allow them to devote those sums to the improvement of their internal resources which are necessary to their successful development. And yet, were these resources once developed, the wealth of these States would be suddenly and largely increased. In connection with this may perhaps be named the natural feeling of dislike toward incurring the total expense for benefits which other States will share in common with themselves. Internal improvements would benefit the Eastern as well as the Western States, not to as great an amount proportionally, but very much and very noticeably; and the poorer States are not inclined to enrich their already wealthy neighbors entirely at their own expense. Then, too, in the second place, almost insuperable difficulties arise in the way of making just appraisements between the obligations of different States between which the water communication lies. A river flows between two States, and its clearance of all obstacles to navigation is an object of advantage to each, but not in an equal degree. One State is larger than the other, has more inhabitants, possesses more or less tributary streams, has a greater or less extent of river shore. In the midst of these and similar difficulties, how can exact, or even fair estimates be made? And unless the estimates are agreeable to both parties, how can the work ever be commenced or carried through? When "State sovereignties" shall lose all selfishness, we may expect that these difficulties shall vanish, but not before. Should the General Government, however, assume the superintendence and expense of a judicious system of internal improvements, both these reasons would be at once nullified. The poorer States would indeed be forced to contribute, but they would feel that others were also aiding to establish the general welfare. With the richer States it would assume the aspect simply of a profitable investment, whose returns would never diminish in value or fail in regularity. And there would be the certainty that the work would be done, whereas we have no reason to hope that if we leave it entirely to the action of individual States, it will be achieved in the present century. We ask the most inveterate stickler for State sovereignties, to point us to a single instance of the accomplishment af any measure of internal improvement affecting several States immediately and locally, by separate State action.* We have sometimes heard it asserted by "Democratic" orators that the construction of the Erie Canal affords an instance of general internal improvement carried out by a single State, and made to result to the benefit of all. Granting the correctness of the assumption, it would amount to very little after all; for if a hundred other demands for improvement have been neglected, and but a We take leave here of what we conceive | losophy and the effects of a Protective to be the two vital and practical issues of Tariff; and to display from time to time the the campaign, not, however, without the minor questions of our politics in the clear intention of doing them full justice by as light of Whig doctrine. We cannot expect many expositions as shall be hereafter ne- that all voters shall examine these questions, cessary. We intend to set forth elaborately but that they will be studied by very many and completely the demands of our West- intelligent men of both parties in the ensuing ern lakes and rivers upon the beneficent months, we have full faith. Were we also care of the General Government, by display-assured that a prompt renunciation would ing their present condition, and by suggesting that state of improvement to which in the future they can be made to attain; we intend to explain, as in past time, the phi single one brought to a successful consummation, the "let alone" policy would not prove to have been particularly useful. But the Erie Canal is a work of construction, follow conviction of error, and that the magnitude of the interest would be equalled by the diligence and candor of the research, we should have no fear as to the result of the coming election. Nor in any case do we allow ourselves to doubt of the success of the Whig party in the present campaign. We say this not not of improvement. It differs only in a slight presumptuously, nor as a party comment degree from the laying of a railway, or the build upon political texts, but as the result of a ing of a turnpike; and the General Government profound conviction of the strength of our had nothing to do with it. We do not ask Con-cause and the popularity of our candidate. gress to vote money for our railways, or canals, or In the separate materials of creed and repturnpikes. When we begin to petition for such resentative, we appropriations, it will be time to introduce the are thoroughly furnished. Erie Canal as a counter argument to the demand. The elements of success are with us, and it What we ask is that the General Government only remains to use them wisely, in order shall take cognizance of water communications to the achievement of a complete and sigwhich exist by nature; that it shall increase the nal victory. And while we believe that no navigability of those vast rivets which drain the broad plains of the Western States; and afford shocks can turn the course of this Republic safer harborage on the shores of our great lakes. from its high and noble destiny, we also beIntelligent men need hardly be told of the differ- lieve that in no way could its industrial proence between such measures, and a measure like that of constructing a canal lying entirely within gress be more retarded, and its elements of the borders of a single State. From the continual internal wealth kept more widely apart from misstatement of the issue, however, we have harmonious union, than by the triumph of thought proper to add this note. what we are required to call "Democracy." |