In addition to the expectation of office in England, Mr. B. also had hopes of recovering an interest he held in an estate in Ireland; both of these, however, failed. He ultimately resided in the Island of Guernsey, where he died in 1831, aged sixtythree years. Eleven years after his death, in 1842, when his widow and children were reduced to extreme want, she returned to New York with one of her sons, both of them in very poor health, with the purpose of petitioning Congress for remuneration for the destruction of the property on the island by the Wood county militia in December, 1806. The petition is couched in very feeling and appropriate language, in which she sets forth the outrages done to the house and property on the island. and were privileged to use it, and should use it, as they pleased. It is with pain that your memorialist reverts to events, which, in their consequences, have reduced a once happy family from affluence and comfort, to comparative want and wretchednesswhich blighted the prospects of her children, and made herself, in the decline of life, a wanderer on the face of the earth." This memorial was directed to the care of Henry Clay, then in the Senate of the United States, enveloped in a letter from R. Emmett, a son of the celebrated man of that name. He says, "She is now in this city residing in very humble circumstances, bestowing her cares upon a son, who, by long poverty and sickness, is reduced to utter imbecility both of mind and body, unable to assist her or provide for his own wants." 'In her present destitute situation, the smallest amount of relief would be thankfully received by her. Her condition is one of absolute want, and she has but a short time left to enjoy any better fortune in this world." "Your memorialist does not desire to exaggerate the conduct of the said armed men, or the injuries done by them; but she can truly say that before their visit, the residence of her family had been noted for its elegance and high state of improvement, and Mr. Clay presented the memorial to the that they left it in a state of comparative ruin Senate, with some very feeling and approand waste; and as instances of the mischiev-priate remarks; having been formerly well ous and destructive spirit which appeared to acquainted with the family, and employed govern them, she would mention that while as his attorney when arrested at Lexingthey occupied as a guard room one of the ton, Ky. best apartments in the house, (the building of which had cost nearly forty thousand dollars,) a musket or rifle ball was deliberately fired into the ceiling, by which it was much defaced and injured; and that they wantonly destroyed many pieces of valuable furniture. "She would also state, that being apparently under no subordination, they indulged in continual drunkenness and riot, offering many indignities to your memorialist, and treating her domestics with violence. "Your memorialist further represents, that these outrages were committed upon an unoffending and defenceless family in the absence of their natural protector, your memorialist's husband being then away from his home; and that in answer to such remonstrances as she ventured to make against the consumption, waste, and destruction of his property, she was told by those who assumed to have the command, that they held the property for the United States by order of the President, It was taken up and referred to the Committee on Claims, of which the Hon. William Woodbridge was chairman. His report on the memorial is a very able and feeling document, in which he advocates the claim as just, and one which ought to be allowed, notwithstanding it had now been thirty-six years since the events transpired. He says, not to do so "would be unworthy of any wise or just nation, that is disposed to respect most of all its own honor." The report sets forth all the circumstances attending the "Burr treason," as described in the foregoing biography. The documents which accompany the report are very interesting, especially the statement of Morgan Neville and William Robinson, Jr., two of the young men who were arrested and tried on the island as partisans of Burr, in Dec., 1806, and written for the future use of Mr. Blennerhassett, a few days after these events transpired. It is given as a correct history of the outrages on the island :— "Statement of Messrs. Neville and Robinson. | these transactions, as impression was made on "On the 13th day of December, 1806, the boat in which we were was driven ashore, by ice and winds, on Backus' island, about one mile below Mr. Blennerhassett's house. We landed in the forenoon, and the wind continuing unfavorable, did not afford us an opportunity of putting off until after three o'clock in the evening, at which time we were attacked by about twenty-five men, well armed, who rushed upon us suddenly, and we not being in a situation to resist the fury of a mob, surrendered. A strong guard was placed in the boat to prevent, we presume, those persons of our party who remained in the boat from going off with her, while we were taken to the house of Mr. Blennerhassett." "On our arrival at the house, we found it filled with militia. Another party of them were engaged in making fires (around the house) of rails, dragged from the fences of Mr. Blennerhassett. At this time Mrs. Blennerhassett was from home. "When she returned, (about an hour after,) she remonstrated against this outrage on the property, but without effect. The officers declared that while they were on the island the property absolutely belonged to them. We were informed by themselves that their force consisted of forty men the first night, and the third day it was increased to eighty. The officers were constantly issuing the whisky and meal, which had been laid up for the use of the family; and when any complaint was made by the friends of Mrs. Blennerhassett, they invariably asserted that everything on the farm was their own property. There appeared to us to be no kind of subordination among the men; the large room they occupied on the first floor, presented a continued scene of riot and drunkenness; the furniture appeared ruined by the bayonets, and one of the men fired his gun against the ceiling; the ball made a large hole which completely spoiled the beauty of the room. They insisted that the servants should wait upon them before attending to their mistress; when this was refused, they seized upon the kitchen and drove the negroes into the washhouse. We were detained from Saturday evening until Tuesday morning; during all which time, there were never less than thirty, and frequently from seventy to eighty men, living in this riotous manner, entirely on the provisions of Mrs. Blennerhassett. When we left the island, a cornfield near the house, in which the corn was still remaining, was filled with cattle, the fences having been pulled down to make fires. This we pledge ourselves to be a true statement of us at the time. MORGAN NEVILLE, WM. ROBINSON, JR." Charles Fenton Mercer, Esq., also, in September, 1807, soon after the trial at Richmond, made a full statement of his knowledge of the events on which the accusation against Mr. Blennerhassett was founded, as they transpired between the 20th of September and 6th of December, 1806, having been himself at the island in November, with his opinion of the object of the expedition, in which he fully clears Mr. Blennerhassett of any design against the peace and quiet of the United States. Mr. D. Woodbridge, of Marietta, in a letter to the Chairman of the 2d April, 1842, makes a statement of the loss of gov. property from the attachment of the ernment, and the riotous conduct of the Wood county volunteers on the island. In August, 1842, while the subject was under consideration, news arrived of the death of Mrs. Blennerhassett at New York, and nothing more was done in the matter. She who had lived in wealth and splendor, and imparted charity to hundreds of the poor, was indebted to others for a grave. She died in the most destitute condition; and her last days passed under the soothing care of a charitable society of Irish females in New York, by whom she was buried. The reverses in this accomplished woman's fortune, and in that of her amiable husband, illustrate the uncertainties of human life, and unfold the mysterious doings of Providence with the children of men. More than forty years have passsd away since these events were transacted, and not a vestige now remains of the splendid and happy home of Herman and Margaret Blennerhassett. All has passed away like the vision of a pleasant dream; while the thousands of passengers, who annually travel up and down the Ohio, in steamboats, still eagerly inquire after, and gaze upon," the Island of Blennerhassett " with wonder and delight. THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, AND THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Both the President and his Secretary enter into labored arguments to prove the superiority of what they call revenue tariffs over all other tariffs, and especially over tariffs for protection. Thus the President in his message to Congress in December, 1845, says : "The object of imposing duties on imports should be to raise revenue to pay the necessary expenses of government. Congress may, undoubtedly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, discriminate in arranging the rates of duty on different articles; but the discriminations should be within the revenue standard, and be made with the view to raise money for the support of government." THESE are important documents, if not on account of their own intrinsic merits, at least on account of the positions occupied by their authors. If they have not the merit of able state papers, they have the merit of containing some facts very important to be known and duly appreciated by the people of the United States. They have also the merit of containing the strong points of the argument (if the argument have any strong points) in favor of free trade, and a labored defence of that suicidal tariff act of 1846. These documents give us the practical operation of that act during seven months of the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1847, and in part its practical operation for one whole. What the President means by the year, commencing December 1st, 1846, and phrase, revenue standard, will perhaps apending November 30th, 1847. Why the pear more clearly from the following expractical operation of the act for the lat-quisite piece of reasoning :ter period was not given in full, is what we should like to know, but which neither the President nor the Secretary has seen fit to inform us. From the facts given, however, we shall be able to ascertain pretty accurately the facts withheld. The President, for example, states that the amount of revenue paid into the Treasury during the first year of the tariff of 1846, was about thirty-one and a half millions of dollars. But he does not tell us either the amount of exports or imports during that year, and of course we cannot ascertain the average per centum of duties upon the whole importation of that year; but as the amounts of exports and imports for the fiscal year ending the 30th June, 1847, and also the amount of duties collected on those imports are given, we can ascertain precisely the average per centum of duty upon the whole importation of that year, which will enable us to guess pretty accurately what was the average per centum of duty on the whole importation for the year ending the 30th November. With these data, therefore, we shall be able to test the comparative merits of the tariffs of 1842 and 1846. "It becomes important to understand distinctly what is meant by a revenue standard, the maximum of which should not be exceeded in the rates of duty imposed. It is conceded, and experience proves, that duties may be laid so high as to diminish or prohibit altogether the importation of any given article, and thereby lessen or destroy the revenue which, at lower rates, would be derived from its importation. Such duties exceed the revenue rates, and are not imposed to raise money for the support of government. If Congress levy a duty for revenue of one per cent. on a given article, it will produce a given amount of money to the treasury, and will incidentally and necessarily afford protection or advantage to the amount of one per cent. to the home manufac turer of a similar or like article over the im porter. If the duty be raised to ten per cent., it will produce a greater amount of money, and afford greater protection. If it be still raised to twenty, twenty-five, or thirty per cent., and if, as it is raised, the revenue derived from it is found to be increased, the protection or advantage will also be increased; but if it be raised to thirty-one per cent., and it is found that the thirty per cent., it ceases to be a revenue duty. revenue produced at that rate is less than at The precise point in the ascending scale of duties at which it is ascertained from experience that the revenue is greatest, is the maximum rate of duty which can be laid for the bona | whole. The President's parade of argufide purpose of collecting money for the sup- ment, therefore, is either for the purpose port of government. To raise the duties higher of proving a truism which nobody denies, than that point, and thereby diminish the amount collected, is to levy them for protection merely, or an absurdity which no sensible man and not for revenue. believes. As long, then, as Congress may gradually increase the rate of duty on a given article, and the revenue is increased by such increase of duty, they are within the revenue standard. When they go beyond that point, and as they increase the duties, the revenue is diminished or destroyed, the act ceases to have for its object the raising of money to support government, but is for protection merely. The object of the above reasoning, if we are able to comprehend it, is to prove that a certain low tariff of, say, fifteen or twenty per centum, will produce more revenue than a high tariff of forty or fifty per centum-that the precise rate of duty which will produce the most revenue may be ascertained by actual experiment, and that rate, whatever it shall be found to be, is the revenue standard. Now this is all mere hypothesis and delusion, without a single fact to support it. There is no such revenue standard, nor is it true that a low tariff will produce as much revenue as a higher one, except where the low tariff prevents smuggling; and we are much mistaken if the President's own figures do not prove this. The President and his Secretary appear to have adopted, as the basis of their system of finance, Dean Swift's celebrated paradox, that in political arithmetic two and two do not make four. If the President means to say, that a low tariff of five or ten per centum on coarse cotton fabrics, will produce more revenue from those fabrics than a high tariff of fifty or one hundred per centum would do, then he asserts a fact which nobody ever denied or disputed; for the high tariff would be equivalent to a prohibition of the import of the article, and would therefore produce no revenue at all. If this was what the President meant, it was a mere truism, and required no argument to sustain it. But if his meaning was, that an average tariff of twenty per centum on the whole importation, will produce more revenue than an average tariff of forty per centum on the whole importation, then he asserts a palpable and plain absurdity, equivalent to asserting that the half is greater than the There is a well established principle of political economy, which neither the President, nor the Secretary of the Treasury, nor indeed any of their sect of political economists, seem ever to have learned; which shows, if not the absurdity, at least the futility of their idea of a revenue standard of duties on different articles of import. The exports of a nation always do, and always should, control the imports, without regard to the rate of the duties. No nation should ever import more than the net proceeds of its exports. If this rule is violated, disaster immediately follows, as our own experience abundantly proves. A government, therefore, which encourages its citizens to import more than the net proceeds of their exports, violates a fundamental principle of political economy. The imports of a nation, however, always do, and always must, exceed by seven or eight per centum, the nominal exports. This excess of imports is caused by the profits, or net proceeds, of the exports above the valuation. Every merchant who exports a cargo of goods expects to realize, not only their original cost, but a profit on them. He expects to exchange his goods for others of more value to him, or for money; and these must be imported or there is an end to commerce. When a nation has got its proportion of the precious metals adjusted to its amount of property, there can be no profit on the importation of specie, because it is worth more abroad than at home, and there will be a profit on the importation of goods and exportation of money. Now, unless a high tariff on imports will prevent the export and sale of our surplus products, to those who are willing to give a good price for them, the rate of duty on the proceeds will not prevent them from being imported. So long, then, as our exports amount to a hundred millions of dollars a year, under a tariff that shall average fifty, or even one hundred per centum, our imports will equal or exceed that amount. It is true that a horizontal tariff of one hundred per centum upon all importations, would entirely exclude a large portion of our present imports-all those that are produced, or could be conveniently produced, in the country; but other articles would be substituted in their place, so as to equal the full amount of our exports. The only effect, therefore, of a high duty on a given article, such as coarse cotton fabrics, would be to exclude that article and substitute some other in its place to an equal amount and value. Although an increase of duty, therefore, on cotton goods, may decrease the revenue on that article, yet it does not follow, as the President seems to suppose, that the general revenue will be diminished, although such might be the case. If, for example, the duty on cotton and woollen goods should be increased to such a point as to exclude ten millions of them from our market, and articles paying no duty at all should be substituted in their place, the general amount of revenue would be diminished; but he would be but a shallow politician who could not prevent such a result. The truth of this theory is proved by the history of every commercial nation in the world. Our imports have exceeded our exports every year since the government was established, with the exception, perhaps, of a single year. The same is true of England, and all other nations, without any regard to the rate of their tariffs. If the advocates of low tariffs will show a single exception to this rule, we will give up the argument. There is a class of goods, however, upon which high duties will produce less revenue than low duties, although the high duties may not diminish the amount of imports. These are goods of small bulk and great value, such as jewelry, expensive laces, &c. A high duty on such goods would cause them to be smuggled to a great extent, and thus defeat the revenue. But the idea that an average high duty on the staple articles of consumption will prevent them from being imported through the custom-house, is utterly absurd. If it were otherwise, a tariff of two or three hundred per cent. on the transportation of oysters from Baltimore to Cincinnati would prevent them from being consumed in Cincinnati. If our government were to enact a tariff which should be equivalent to an average duty of fifty per centum upon the whole import of the country, it would afford a revenue of fifty millions of dollars, so long as our exports equalled a hundred millions of dollars; and if our exports should equal one hundred and fifty millions of dollars, the duties on imports would equal seventy-five millions of dollars. The revenue has always been found to rise or fall in amount in proportion as the general average has been raised or lowered. The President's own figures will show this. In his message to Congress in December, 1845, he states the exports of domestic products for the fiscal year ending the 30th June, 1845, to have been of the value of ninety-nine and threetenths millions of dollars. (We omit fractions less than tenths.) The imports for consumption for the same year, were of the value of one hundred and one millions of dollars, and the receipts into the Treasury on the above amount of imports, was twenty-seven and five-tenths millions of dollars, equal, within a small fraction, to twenty-seven per centum upon the whole import of that year. This was under the tariff of 1842. In his message to Congress, (December, 1846,) the President says: "The value of the exports for the fiscal year ending the 30th June, 1846, amounted to one hundred and two and one-tenth millions of dollars. The imports for consumption for the same year, were of the value of one hundred and ten and three-tenths millions of dollars. The duties paid into the Treasury upon the above amount of imports, was twenty-six and seven-tenths millions of dollars," equal to twenty-four and a fraction per centum upon the whole importation for that year. This was also under the tariff of 1842. Although the tariff is the same in different years, yet the average of duties will vary one or two per centum in different years, in consequence of larger proportions of free goods, or goods paying a low duty, being imported one year than another. In his late message the President states the exports of domestic products for the fiscal year ending the 30th of June last, at one hundred and fifty and six-tenths millions of dollars. The imports for do |