"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

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 at letter to the Chairman of the 2d April, 1842, makes a statement of the loss of ernment, and the riotous conduct of the from the attachment of the property govWood 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

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 year, commencing December 1st, 1846, and ending November 30th, 1847. Why the practical operation of the act for the latter period was not given in full, is what we should like to know, but which neither the President nor the Secretary has seen fit From the facts given, however, we shall be able to ascertain pretty accurately the facts withheld.

to inform us.

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 Prits of the tariffs of 1842 and 1846.

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."

What the President means by the phrase, revenue standard, will perhaps appear more clearly from the following exquisite piece of reasoning :

"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 importa

tion. 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 manufacturer of a similar or like article over the importer. 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

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, 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

I 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-tenthmillions of dollars. The imports for do

mestic consumption, including specie for the same year, were one hundred and sixty and seven-tenths millions of dollars in value. Excluding specie, the imports amounted to one hundred and thirty-eight and fivetenths millions of dollars, the duties upon which were twenty-three and seven-tenths millions of dollars, equal to fourteen and a fraction per centum upon the whole importation, including specie. Excluding specie, which paid no duty, the per centum of duty was seventeen and a fraction. During five months of this fiscal year, the tariff of 1842 was in operation, and in that time seven and eight-tenths millions of dollars were collected, leaving but fifteen and nine-tenths millions to be collected under the tariff of 1846. The actual average tariff of 1846 is, therefore, a good deal less than seventeen per centum; but as our cause does not require us to stand for trifles, we will allow that the average duty under the tariff of 1846 was seventeen per centum. This makes the tariff of 1846 about nine or ten per cent. lower than the tariff of 1842, and the du ties paid into the treasury from twelve to fifteen millions of dollars less than they would have been under the tariff of 1842. In 1845 twenty-seven millions of revenue were collected on one hundred and two millions of imports. In 1846 twentysix millions of revenue were collected on one hundred and ten millions of imports, and in 1847 but twenty-four millions of revenue (we give the benefit of the fraction) were collected on one hundred and thirty-eight and five-tenths millions of imports, exclusive of twenty-two millions of specie. This enormous amount of exports and consequent imports, was caused by the bountiful harvest in this country and the dearth in Europe, and not in any degree by our tariff; and yet the President and his Secretary have the hardihood, not to say audacity, to argue before the American people the superiority of the tariff of 1846 over the tariff of 1842 as a revenue measure. These high functionaries have not only attempted to maintain the superiority of that miserable delusion, which they have christened a revenue tariff, but they have garbled and perverted the records of the Treasury Department to make them speak favorably of their bantling. Thus the President tells us that

"The net revenue from customs in the year ending on the 1st of December, 1846, being the last year under the operation of the tariff act of 1842, was $22,971,403 10; and the net revenue from customs during the year ending Dec. 1st, 1847, being the first year under the operation of the tariff act of 1846, was about $31,500,000; being an increase of revenue for the first year, under the tariff act of 1846, of more than $8,500,000 over that of the last year of the tariff of 1812."

But facts are stubborn things, and figures will not lie, even to accommodate the President. The above paragraph could have been put into the President's message for no other purpose but to deceive. The object was to make the people believe that the tariff of '46 was more productive of revenue than the tariff of '42, else why not give the exports and imports for the same period of time? Had these been given it would have appeared that twenty-two and nine-tenths millions of revenue were collected on less than one hundred millions of imports, while only thirty-one and fivetenths millions of revenue were collected on nearly or quite two hundred millions of imports, and nearly the same amount of exports. This is too paltry, if not for the man, at least for the officer who wrote it.

During the first year of the operation of the tariff of 1846, the treasury has lost from twelve to fifteen millions of dollars, which would have been raised under the tariff of 1842. But the President and the free trade sect of politicians will, no doubt, tell us, that whatever the treasury may have lost by a low rate of duty, the people have gained; that if the people have more taxes to pay in consequence of the low rate of duties, they have more to pay with; all of which is as false as their theory.

Among political economists of the old school, with Adam Smith at their head, it was held as a maxim, that whatever taxes were collected upon an article of consumption, whether it was by an excise or an impost, must be ultimately paid by the consumer; so that if twenty-five per cent. of duties were collected on an article imported for consumption, the consumer would have to pay twenty-five per cent. more for it than if no duty had been collected on it. This was a plausible but superficial theory, and it was received and