opportunity is afforded us for examining the principles of the government, and estimating properly the effects of its past action. Should new parties arise or the old ones be essentially modified, they ought to be made to stand as much as possible upon sound principles. What are likely to be the successful movements of a party character, it is not easy to decide. We were all amused yesterday with the attempts of the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. McLane) in reply to the questions of the gentleman from South Carolina, to explain in what Democracy consisted. His definition was that a Democrat was he who stood by and honestly carried out the objects and determinations of the party organization. This definition he twice gave in reply to questions.

Mr. McLane said this was not his statement, and proposed to explain. Mr. Clingman continued.

I regret that the hands of the clock are moving too rapidly, to permit me to give the gentleman the floor. I may be mistaken about the precise terms he did use. The members of the House generally are quite as likely to recollect what he did say, as he or I. He said further, in continuation, that a Democrat in 1848 was he that voted for Cass and Butler, and in 1844 for Polk and Dallas. Amusing as was the exhibition made by the gentleman on that occasion, I doubt whether any other member of the House would not have found it as difficult to define the distinctions between Whigs and Democrats, as national parties, at this time. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that the old issues, which formerly divided these two parties, have now disappeared, and for want of the old landmarks, the lines of division are scarcely perceptible. (Mr. McLane said, that they still existed in his opinion.)

Then, sir, it is very extraordinary that the gentleman on yesterday was not able to point them out. Though cross-examined by several members, and worried for a quarter of an hour, he was not able to lay hold of any one of these old landmarks. They must have been buried very deeply under ground to escape detection by optics as keen as his. There can be no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the Whig and Democratic parties, once essentially divided as to measures, have now become mere factions. By factions, I mean as contra-distinguished from parties, to designate bodies of men, not separated by well-defined principles, but only by political animosity, or because struggling against each other for office. Such associations are usually the most mischevious. Wanting the disinterestedness and purity, which a struggle for principle is apt to engender, they soon become utterly selfish, and tend to political corruption. I have no objection, therefore, to see new party combinations formed, as the government of the country is likely thereby to be in a better rather than in a worse position. Though I did not co-operate in the late attempt to form the so-called Union party, yet I had no objection to the movement. I saw at once that a party could not stand upon a single mere negative idea, and that before it could progress it would have to adopt positive principles to regulate its general action. If those principles, when promulgated, had, contrary to my anticipations, accorded with my views of what is sound policy, better than the principles of the antagonist party, then I should not have hesitated to co-operate with them. I say now, Mr. Chairman, that if the old Republican party of the days of Jefferson and Madison, that party which was broken to

pieces in 1825, by reason of its having nominally five presidential candidates in the field-if that party could be called together, upon its old principles, I would rather march under its flag than that of any other likely to be found. I know that its name has sometimes been brought into disrepute, because many professing the name have, in practice, apostatized from its principles, while others have incurred ridicule by their misapplication of those principles. True religion has been brought into disrepute by the hypocrisy of its professors, and good coin is sometimes discredited by counterfeits.

The principles of this old party, regardful of the rights of the States, strictly defining the powers of the Federal government, and limiting as much as possible the lines of its action, are those only on which our system can permanently stand. In the part of the Union from which I come, the great body of men of all classes, have originally belonged to or professed the principles of that party. Many even of the old federalists having seen the mischief of a different line of policy would be ready to embrace its principles. As for myself, sir, I shall at all times be ready to sustain whatever measures sound policy, and the permanent interests of the country shall in my judgment require, without regard to the parties or individuals with whom I may for the time be placed. A public man here can find no compensation for his surrender of the right of private judgment, and independence of action on all practical issues of moment. In conclusion, I have to say that I think the present revenue system ought to be reviewed, and modified in some respects. The frauds in the collection of duties complained of should be remedied as far as practicable; but those who are making most clamor are doing it with a view of deceiving the country, as to their real object, which is to foist on it a tariff enormously high. I am ready myself now to vote for a specific duty on bar iron, for example, but I will not vote as the gentleman from Ohio proposed last session, to make it $20 per ton, or even to increase it generally. Everybody knows that the higher the rate of duty the greater the temptation to evade it by fraudulent devices. If there were time, which there is not, at the present session, I should be willing to review the whole system. Some of the duties are too high. Others possibly ought to be increased. The mode of assessing many of them ought ungestionably to be changed. While I would be willing for the sake of revenue to see an imposition on everything that is imported, I say now, that if any one article ought to be made absolutely free of duty, I know none having stonger claims to the exemption than railroad iron.

est.

The navigation laws too need essential modification. Why should not the agriculturist, when he has conveyed his produce to the sea-side, not have the privilege of sending it off in the vessel that will carry it cheapBy extending the reciprocity system lately adopted with Great Britain, (but limited to the forgeign commerce) to the coast-wise trade the enormous rates of freight between our Southern and Northern ports would be greatly reduced. Our farmers and citizens generally, would be gainers thereby. Nor do I think that our shipping interests would materially suffer. The adoption of the reciprocity system in the foreign trade has not injured us at all. Its extension with proper qualifications ought not to be objected to. Our ship owners would doubtless sustain themselves, though their freight would be less than under the

present monopoly. Let the question of Canadian reciprocity and the free navigation of the St. Lawrence be considered, in connection with these things. They are perhaps right in themselves, but I should prefer that the system should be re-examined as a whole at the same time. With reference to the bill now under consideration, I have little to say. The strongest objection to the system of internal improvement is its liability to gross abuse, by reason of its partial tendencies, as well as the dishonest political combinations to which it is apt to give rise. For some of the items in this bill I can readily vote. The Mississippi river is a proper subject for expenditure. So is the opening of the inlet to Albemarle sound, which my colleague [Mr. Outlaw] has so much at heart. The same may doubtless be said as to some of the other appropriations for works on the sea coasts and on the lakes. My vote, therefore, on this bill, will be guided by the precise form it may ultimately assume; but the inclination of my mind is strongly against the system. I doubt whether itwill not always be so managed as to be productive of mischief rather than benefits.

NOTE.

After the compromise measures of the preceding session, there had been some excitement in respect to them. Mr. Seward, and such men as shared his views, attempted to create a feeling against them in the North, but with little success, as it was evident that on the great territorial issue, the Northern States had nothing to complain of. Over the amendment to the Fugitive Slave Law, the abolitionists raised a clamour, and committed some violations of the law, but no considerable opposition could be created to the system of measures as a whole.

Their friends attempted to avail themselves of the general satisfaction in the country on account of a settlement having been made, to form a new party, called an "Union Party." Resolutions were presented in the House endorsing the measures, and condemning agitation against them, &c. A paper was also prepared and signed by many gentlemen, proposing the formation of the new party.

The very foundation on which that party was to rest, and the character of those who would have led it, made it evident that it would be a party of centralization, consolidation, regardless of all constitutional limitations, and a mere organization to promote monopolies, public plunder through tariffs, wasteful expenditures, and the oppression of the agricultural interests of the country. I hoped, however, that the movement might become strong enough to destroy the two existing organizations, so that the party opposed to this movement, which I felt confident could be made the strongest, might adopt the name of the old Jeffersonian Republican party, and by planting itself firmly on its principles govern the country in accordance with the Constitution.

My efforts, in private conversation, to induce the Democrats to adopt the name of "Democratic Republican" party, met with much favor with many Southern members, but those from the North said that the term "Democrat" was so attractive to the foreigners, especially the Germans, that the change would be more likely to weaken, than strengthen the party. Had the change then been made our adversaries would not afterwards, as they did, have been able to avail themselves of the

popular name of "Republican," for their anti-slavery organization, thus verifying Jefferson's prediction.

It seemed then clear to my mind that the old Whig party had already received a wound which would prove mortal. The facts sustaining this view will be more appropriately presented, when we are considering the incidents of the Presidential campaign of the year 1852.

To encourage public men to stand firmly by their convictions, this circumstance may properly be mentioned. In the Presidential contest of 1848, my Congressional District had with my concurrence given General Taylor three fourths of the votes cast, and I had been elected to the first Congress of his administration without opposition. And yet, though I opposed the leading measures of his administration, and though the compromise measures had at first been received with almost universal approval, and though I had in the next canvass, an able and eloquent opponent, nevertheless, I was re-elected by a majority relatively nearly as large as General Taylor's had been. This would scarcely have occurred if I had not always offered myself as an independent candidate, and tends to show that where one announces that he will be governed in his action by the convictions of his judgment, and appeals directly to the people, they will in a proper case sustain him. On the other hand a man selected by a party convention, would be rejected next time by the political managers, or repudiated by the voters who had originally elected him.

SPEECH

ON DUTIES ON RAILROAD IRON AND COMMERCIAL RESTRIC TIONS, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 21, 1852.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I avail myself of this occasion to say something with reference to the subject of the duties on railroad iron. The bill for the relief of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad has just been defeated by a vote of the House. As that measure was under the operation of the previous question originally, and as the motion to lay on the table the question of reconsideration was not debatable, I was precluded from saying any thing in its favor. Though it has been thus rejected, there is still a bill pending for the repeal of the duties on all railroad iron, which, if passed, would be more advantageous even to that road than would have been the bill just defeated. I am the more desirous of offering some observations to the committee, because of the course of the friends of higher duties, as we have witnessed it again and again during the present session. We have seen several attempts to put in the appropriation bills, clauses increasing largely the present taxes, for the sake of protection. These motions have been made, too, after the debate was stopped, and at a time when no discussion could be had in the committee. They are thus endeavoring clandestinely to foist on the country a much higher tariff than the people would know

ingly submit to. This mode of proceeding is by no means creditable to the cause. In former times, having doubtless confidence in the soundness of the system, the friends of high duties introduced their tariff bills in the usual mode of legislation, so as to permit a fair discussion and investigation as to the merits of the measure. Of late the contrary practice has been adopted, and it is fair to presume that gentlemen have despaired of success in a fair contest, and are endeavoring, by some device or sudden stratagem, to get some oppressive act fastened on the country. As we are given to understand that, in despite of the late failures, a new attempt is yet to be made to get in a clause of the kind to some one of the unfinished appropriation bills, I avail myself of this, the only occasion, to expose such a system of tactics.

When at an earlier period of the session the bill for the benefit of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad was under consideration, there was the best prospect for its passage, the majority for it being large on all the preliminary votes. To-day, however, it has been finally defeated. Why this change? Because of an adverse influence which has been brought actively into the field. There is a certain iron interest in the country-a sort of fourth department of the government-which claims the right to control our legislation. Not content with their represen tation on this floor, they send regularly, at each session, bodies of delegates who fill our lobbies, with a view of influencing our action. They are often too successful in misleading such members as have not thoroughly examined the subject, and compared their contradictory and conflicting statements from year to year. When they find that their statement of facts does not answer the purpose, but can be successfully used against them, they are in the habit of shifting it, and coming up with a new one of a contradictory character. It is only, therefore, by comparing these different statements, through a series of years, that we can hope to understand the true state of the case.

Seeing, during the earlier part of the session, that there was a prospect of the country being relieved from an unnecessary tax on railroad iron, they have sent on an unusually strong representation. Having for a great many years, been accustomed to have taxes imposed on the rest of the community for their benefit, they have at length grown so insolent as to insist, not only that these taxes shall be paid perpetually, whether the government needs the money or not, but that they shall be paid in cash, without one moment's delay.

For example, this Raleigh and Gaston Company having purchased in England iron to lay down on their road, are obliged by the existing tariff law, to pay to the government $70,000 or $80,000 as a duty or tax, before they are allowed to bring their iron into the country. Being pressed in their means, they asked that, instead of a payment in cash, they should be permitted to give bonds, with good security, to pay this duty in one, two, three, and four years. They also proposed that the government should retain the money which it is to pay them for carrying the mail on their road. This would be suffi cient, too, to pay off the debt as it falls due.