was given. "The moment this event took place, General Jesup, Mr. CLAY's friend, called out that he would instantly leave the ground with his friend, if that occurred again. Mr. CLAY, at once exclaimed, it was entirely an accident, and begged that the gentleman might be allowed to go on. On the word being given, Mr. CLAY fired without effect, Mr. Randolph discharging his pistol in the air. The moment Mr. CLAY Saw that Mr. Randolph had thrown away his fire, with a gush of sensibility, he instantly approached Randolph and said, with an emotion which" (adds General Hamilton), "I can never forget, I trust in God, my dear sir, you are untouched; after what has occurred, I would not have harmed you for a thousand worlds.'"

Of dueling, Mr. CLAY had, previously to this, spoken in the following terms: "I owe it to the community to say, that, whatever heretofore I may have done, or by inevitable circumstances might be forced to do, no man holds in deeper abhorrence, than I do, that pernicious practice. Condemned, as it must be, by the judgment and philosophy, to say nothing of the religion of every thinking man, it is an affair of feeling, about which we can not, although we should, reason. Its true corrective will be found, when all shall unite, as all ought to unite, in its unqualified proscription."

CHAPTER IX.

The Tariff of 1824-Question as to the expediency of a protective tariff→ Difference between theory and practice-Unpopularity of the protective system at the South-Nullification-Mr. CLAY introduces his compromise tariff, and harmony is restored.

A BILL to protect American Industry was adopted by the House of Representatives, in 1820, but was lost in the Senate by a vote of twenty-two to twenty-one. In 1824, the committee on manufactures reported another bill, recommending a high protective tariff. Mr. CLAY had labored assiduously from the first to procure the adoption of such a measure. The reader will remember that his earlier Senatorial efforts were directed to that end. He made a forcible speech upon the subject, in 1820; but it was in 1824, that he laid out all his strength. His argument was extended and elaborate. He brought to the subject much and varied investigation. He equipped himself for an arduous parliamentary conflict, for, among his opponents, primus inter pares, stood Mr. Webster. The bill was successful. It passed both Houses of Congress, received the signature of the President and became a law.

While with one class in the community, the claims of Mr. CLAY, to be considered a patriot, have been based upon the advocacy of no measure, so much as upon that of the protective system, with another, his partiality for that very policy has been the occasion for calling in question his political sagacity and the soundness of his statesmanship. It has been justly said, that no system of doctrines can obtain extensive belief, without containing some element of truth. The converse is, perhaps, likewise true. No system prevails among fallible men, which does not contain some admixture of error. We may apply the axiom. A protective tariff is not the sublimation of wisdom, which some

have regarded it; neither is it that offspring of delusion and folly, which it has seemed in the eyes of others. In theory, we are obliged to confess that such a tariff appears radically unsound. In practice, it assumes altogether another appearance. Such an assertion might seem strange, had it not been seen long ago, and in multiplied instances, that theory and practice do not necessarily nor always coincide.

Theories too often presuppose a state of things which does not exist. A thousand circumstances, prone to be disregarded because of their seeming insignificance, often demand, in practice, from their combined influence, unexpected modifications. The force of many influences, also, can not be calculated, until the experiment has been tried. A theory of political economy, moreover, which may suit one nation, or be fitting at a particular time, will not infallibly suit every other nation and be adapted to all times alike.

Because a protective tariff is not needed now, it is becoming common to suppose that it was always a useless and an absurd institution. Because the theory of protection is liable to serious objections, it is argued that, under all circumstances, it must be unphilosophical and impolitic.

But we say to the objector, that he proceeds too fast. His arguments are truly plausible, but they presuppose a state of things which does not exist,-which never has existed. They proceed too much upon the fallacious ground, that this is a perfect world, and that the nations of it bear toward each other the relation of a united, confiding, unselfish brotherhood. If this supposition were true, then a protective tariff would be to the last degree absurd and mischievous. But unfortunately it is the furthest possible from being true.

Upon the supposition of the theorizer, the argument which is regarded the strongest against protection would be absolutely unanswerable. This argument is, that each nation should devote itself to that branch of industry, in which it can engage with the most facility, and to which its natural advantages most clearly point. If that be agriculture, then let agriculture flourish; if it be commerce, then let commerce reign; if manufactures, then

let workshops abound; but let nothing be forced into a premature existence, for thereby risk will be incurred,-danger of continual frost to the hot-house plants which you have reared; or else at special expense they must be shielded,-expense bringing no return, but ending in inevitable loss.

This reasoning would do if all governments were Utopias ;—if the rule, to love our neighbor as ourselves, was recognized and obeyed in the intercourse of nations; but who does not know, that a thousand of the expenses of government arise from the fact that the opposite of all this is true? Who does not know

that it would, according to theory, be infinitely better for a nation's wealth and prosperity, to disband its armies, to dismantle its forts, to convert into trading vessels its ships of war? But who would advise the experiment? Who does not see that certain tendencies belonging to depraved humanity, brand it as impracticable?

Each nation, in this selfish world, must stand upon the defensive; each must in a measure contain within itself all needed resources; each must be capable, when occasion, which is not unfrequent, requires to occupy an attitude of self-dependence ; each nation must, in short, be a microcosm, where all the pursuits of men, to a greater or less extent, shall be followed, and where, for all their absolute wants, there shall be suitable provision.

A country may, from circumstances of climate and soil, be plainly pointed to agriculture, as the surest source of its wealth; but a country exclusively agricultural is plunged into the deepest embarrassment and distress, when war intercepts the supplies of commerce, and withholds the products of the workshop. Another country, finding but a scanty subsistence from its barren hillsides, may see the finger of Providence pointing to running streams and commodious harbors, as adapted to do that for its prosperity, which an unkindly soil refuses to do; but the instinct of self-defense forbids an exclusive attention to manufactures and trade, lest sudden hostilities should confront the people with starvation.

Thus the theory of legislation is modified by unavoidable and dangerous contingencies. A system of safeguards and checks

upon dishonesty, often complicated and perplexing, but confessedly necessary, governs the daily business dealings of men. Nations are but collections of men of like passions, and for their mutual security must, therefore, submit to a similar control.

But in some instances, and the earlier condition of our country constituted one of such, other arguments plead for a protective system with special power. War produces for an agricultural people the results that we have indicated. The foreign supply is cut off. The demand is, however, imperative, and domestic labor is called upon to supply the deficiency. Manufactories, therefore, spring up upon every hand, and, if hostilities are long continued, draw to themselves a large amount of the labor and capital of the country. No part of the country, as it often happens, is more benefited by this direction of industry, or more imperatively demands it, than the agricultural.

But peace returns and brings back the abundant products of the foreign loom and anvil. Domestic fabrics are driven from the market by perhaps a better article, furnished at a cheaper price. Hence, an interesting question rises at once for solution: Shall the immense capital embarked in manufactures be exposed to inevitable shipwreck, or shall Government extend to it a while the protection which peace has suddenly withdrawn?

Meanwhile, those who had been benefited begin to complain. It is hard, they say, that we, who have nothing whatever to do with the workshop, should be compelled to bear the burden of its support, and be forced to take an inferior article at an exorbitant price. But the complaint, though plausible, is founded upon a forgetfulness of benefits absolutely essential, already received, and upon a forgetfulness that obligations are mutual;— that it would be wrong to devote to destruction, at the moment they cease to receive benefit from it, that capital which, by their own wants and importunity, was directed into its existing channels. The argument is supported, also, by the consideration, that the demanded protection is only a temporary expedient; that it is not absolute and indefinite support which is asked for, but, just for the present, a little "material aid."