existence. That governments, with the exception of the British government, do not draw from their subjects all they can pay, but only so much, as will answer their governmental purposes. To demonstrate the palpable fallacy of our splendid orator upon this point, suppose one of the nations included within the statistical table, France for instance, were to tax French subjects double the amount called for in the statistical table, and the French subjects were to pay the whole amount; then, according to our orator's measures, and indications, France would be proved to be double as wealthy as she is now represented to be under the table, and her subjects double as able to pay taxes as they now are, after their pockets had been rifled of double the amount that they were before. According to our orator's rule of measuring, or indicating wealth and prosperity,—the rule of taxation, the poor United States have shared a hard but undeserved fate. Now there has been an experiment made upon the ability of the people of the United States to pay taxes. During the late war, they were greatly augmented-yet they were paid. To do the people of the United States justice, then, the measure of their ability ought to be changed to the amount of their war taxes. The rule of taxa

tion, then, according to the bewildered orator's logic, would prove, that the people of the United States could pay most when they had the least ability to pay; and that even under the pressure of a most destructive war, they would pay, perhaps, double the amount they could pay in time of profound peace.

The resort to the war taxes would have spared something of the impoverishment and degradation, erroneously thrown upon the people of the United States, by our bewildered orator, in his comparison of them with foreign nations. Here again it will be clearly seen, that all just inferences are completely inverted by our orator. According to his inferences, the more that is drawn from the pockets of the individual, the more is he enabled to pay; and the amount drawn is, at the same time, the evidence of his prosperity, or his increased capacity to pay. To pursue this course of inference, it must be concluded, that when the last cent is taken from the individual's pocket, then is the acme of his wealth and prosperity; or, to use the striking metaphor of Mr. Secretary Rush-"That the measure of his prosperity is potentially full." The statistical table, introduced by our orator, if properly taken, will prove that the inhabitants of the several nations comprehended in it, can pay the amount of taxes drawn from them respectively; but it neither proves nor indicates that the same inhabitants could not pay more taxes, if more were demanded of them; and God forbid that all governments should take from the inhabitants respectively, all they can pay. Until this is done, it cannot be told how much the inhabitants of either can pay-The actual taxation, whatever it may be, short of the whole ability to pay, affords no test, nor indication whatever, as to their extreme ability to pay. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely dissatisfied, sir, with this mode of estimating the relative wealth, and prosperity of nations; because of the despicable, degraded position, assigned the United States, in their connexion with this family of nations. Our

is

splendid, sonorous aspirant, places the United States-his own country, and ours,-at the tail of the " tag-rag and bobtail," of nations. For, says our splendid, sublimated orator-"Unfortunate Ireland, disinherited, or rendered in her industry, subservient to England, is exactly in the same state of poverty with Spain, measured by the rule of taxation, and the United States are still poorer than either !!" Poor United States!! The poorest of all!! "Still poorer than either!" Really, sir, I think our aspiring orator ought to have been more sure of the correctness of his own statistics, before he could have consented to doom his own country to a degraded state of poverty and wretchedness, even lower than poor unfortunate, disinherited Ireland, or indolent, bigotted, superstitious Spain; and, consequently, to put her rank, in the family of nations, lower than either. But, sir, I derive great consolation from observing at the same time, that the rule of taxation happens to be no rule at all-for measuring the relative wealth and prosperity of nations; and that the degraded position assigned by the splendid orator for the United States, founded in his own misconceptions of his own statistics; and I am sure, the aspiring orator will himself rejoice at being awakened from his humiliating, delusive dreams, to the reality, that his own country is not the most impoverished and degraded in the world. Here, then, sir, you find that all this grand parade of sonorous statistics, has been introduced as tests of facts, when it turns out to be no test at all. But, sir, this table of statistics is not without its use, admitting it to be true. It does prove, that the people of Great Britain pay more taxes than any other people in the world, and, consequently, are the most oppressed people in the world. I am disposed to think, that the table presents a tolerably correct view of the relative degrees of oppression, of the different governments comprehended in it, allowing for the actual relative wealth of each; and accordingly you will find, sir, the relative effects of these oppressions upon the condition of the people of the different nations respectively, in their relative numbers of paupers. In this respect, Great Britain indeed is superlatively pre-eminent.

Think not, Mr. Speaker, that these statements and remarks, are made from any prejudice, or any invidious feeling whatever, against the British nation, or people; very far from it-I indulge no such feelings, sir, towards any nation or people whatever; and surely, not against the British nation, or people. I esteem the British nation and people, whatever may be the profligacy and oppression of their government, as amongst the most honest, industrious, skilful, independent, high-minded, and gallant in the world. I conceive too, that they have carried the inventions of saving-labor machinery, to a higher pitch than any other people. But the astonishing productions of both their natural, and artificial labor combined, have been found quite incompetent to save them, from the deprecated destruction of governmental oppression. How cautious then, sir, ought we to be, against plunging into a system of policy, which has doomed to vice, misery, wretchedness and pauperism, seventy-nine eightieths of the people of one of the noblest nations upon earth? Sir, there

are three circumstances, accompanying the movements and remarks of our splendid orator, upon this occasion, which I acknowledge, have excited my utmost astonishment.-First; that in pronouncing his prize speech, our aspiring sublimated orator, should have condescended to have put himself in the hands of a prompter, to play the part of a parrot; as I believe our orator has done on this occasion. Secondly; that he should have permitted himself to have been led into such palpable errors, and above all, that he should, without sufficient examination, have indulged himself in ushering forth the same errors to the world, which are, as dishonorable, and degrading to the United States; as they are obvious and palpable in themselves, whilst he was aspiring to the sublime station of their presidency.-"Unfortunate Ireland, disinherited, or rendered, in her industry, subservient to England, is exactly in the same state of poverty with Spain, measured by the rule of taxation-And the United States are still poorer than either."-Poor United States!!! How deplorable is thy condition!!! How much to be deprecated!!! Doomed to take thy station at the tail of the lowest of the "tag-rag and bobtail" of nations!!! A few plain, obvious reflections, on the part of our bewildered orator, arising from facts perpetually before his own eyes, might have caused him, at least to doubt, of the justice of placing the United States below every civilized nation in Europe. The vast proportion of the middling class of society in the United States, and the small proportion of miserable poor, compared with any nation in Europe, particularly with Great Britain, ought to have admonished him against placing the United States, in the most degrading condition in the family of nations. Their exemption from the extremes of wealth and poverty, which characterize all Europe, in a greater or lesser degree, constitutes the great superiority of their condition, if not in relation to wealth, at least in relation to real grandeur, and to every social and political blessing. Accordingly, notwithstanding our bewildered orator's arithmetical demonstrations, from his statistical table, we find the people fleeing, from all those delusive, European blessings, and practically throwing themselves within the arms of the United States, according to our orator, to participate in their poverty, degradation and wretchedness; this, particularly, is the case with the people of Great Britain. These reflections alone, ought to have stayed the cruel hand of the bewildered orator, from striking so deadly a blow against his own country: but let the enchanting prize before him; and the sublimated state of his own mind, plead his excuses, or at least, palliate his errors,

But says our Orator,-page 19.

"But Britain is herself the most striking illustration of the immense power of machinery. Upon what other principle can you account for the enormous wealth which she has accumulated, and which she annually produces? A statistical writer of that country, several years ago, estimated the total amount of the artificial or machine labor of the nation, to be equal to that of one hundred millions of able bodied laborers. Subsequent estimates of her artificial labor, at the present day, carry it to the enormous height of two hundred millions. But the population of the three kingdoms, is twenty one million five hundred thousand. Supposing that to furnish able-bodied labor to the amount of

four inillions, the natural labour will be but two per cent, of the artificial labor. In the production of wealth she operates, therefore, by a power (including the whole population) of two hundred and twenty one millions five hundred thousand; or in other words, by a powereleven times greater than the total of her natural power. If we suppose the machine labor of the United States to be equal to that of ten millions of able-bodied men, the United States will operate, in the creation of wealth, by a power (including all their population) of twenty millions. In the creation of wealth, therefore, the power of Great Britain, compared to that of the United States, is as eleven to one,"

May I be permitted then to ask, Mr. Speaker, what then, Mr. Orator? Are these sounding bewildering statistics, in favor of, or against the tariff? I cannot see any necessary affinity, nor connexion between them; and our sublimated orator has flown off without showing any. The obvious purpose of our orator, for introducing these, as well as other similar statistics, is to show the importance, the splendor, and the grandeur of governments. For, he seems to give the merit of all these mighty effects from the invention of labor-saving machinery, to the government; thus to magnify its blessings, and to enamour the people with its power, its splendor, and its grandeur. You cannot but observe, sir, that the whole tenor and spirit of the doctrine, of the fashionable economists, and particularly of the administration, is to produce the conviction, that the government is every thing, and the people nothing. Whereas, the very reverse of this position is true, to wit:-That the people, in their individual characters, are almost every thing, the government very little. The real energies of society exist in the individuals. Legitimate government has very little original, active energy. Government, rightly understood, is a passive, not an active machine. The great object of its institution is to administer justice amongst individuals, and to protect the nation from external violence; after these duties are performed, and provisions of a general nature are made, which individuals cannot make for themselves, the less government has to do with the concerns of society, the better. But let the enquiry be made, in the present case, as to the merit of the invention of the whole labor saving machinery of Great Britain. Is it the merit of the government; or of individuals? Government, I believe, never invented a spinning jenny; nor spun a spool of cotton. The merit, then, is all to individuals; and none to the government. Perhaps, a more illustrative example, could scarcely be furnished, to demonstrate the relative ability, and importance of the people over the government, than the one here presented by our orator. But, nolwithtsanding all these wonderful productions of individuals, they have been no match for the profligacy of the government. A vast proportion of the people, notwithstanding their almost incredible exertions, are doomed to vice, misery, wretchedness and pauperism: But I ask again, for the arguments, afforded by these statistics, in favor of the tariff. Do they not most eloquently admonish every wise government, to let the people and their occupations alone. Not plunder, and then squander, the whole of the hard earnings of the productive laborer?

Let me now, şir, call your attention to some further statements and remarks, made by our orator, not less extraordinary in some respects,

than those which have just passed in review. In page 15, after giving a statistical account of the exports of the United States, without its having, as far as I am able to judge, any bearing whatever upon the question of the tariff, our bewildered orator remarks: "The distribution of the articles of our exports throughout the United States, cannot fail to fix the attention of the committee. Of the $47,155,408, to which they amounted last year, three articles alone, (cotton, rice and tobacco,) composed together $28,549,177. Now, these articles are chiefly produced to the South. And if we estimate that portion of our population who are actually engaged in their culture, it would probably not exceed two millions. Thus, then, less than one fifth of the whole population of the United States produced upwards of one half, nearly two-thirds of the entire value of the exports of the last year.' May I be again indulged, sir, in asking, what then, Mr. Orator? are these statements and remarks, for, or against the tariff? Why make them? You have skipped off without giving their moral; or even pointing, to their tendencies. Are they intended to intimate a threat from the physical force of 8,000,000, against 2,000,000? and are you bringing here into practical operation, your doctrine of "the great desideratum of political economy?" Suppose the 2,000,000, do produce and export to the amount of $28,519,177, and the 8,000,000 do not produce half as much-What then? Is this to be the signal for the 8,000,000 to plunder the 2,000,000? or do the 8,000,000 claim an equal right in the produce of the 2,000.000, with the 2,000,000 themselves? According to your doctrine of the "great desideratum in political economy," that the whole proceeds of the whole productive labor, belong to the whole 10,000,000; to be distributed by the federal government at its own uncontrolled will and caprice? Is it intended here to carry into practical effect the doctrine, that the whole proceeds of the labor of the American people belong to the whole people; in exclusion of the great American principle, that each part of it belongs to the laborer who produced it, subject only to fair, necessary contributions for legitimate governmental objects? If this be not your object, would it not be well to enquire, to whom does the cotton, tobacco and rice belong? and would it not then become a question, whether you have a right to take any part of it from the owners, and give it to those, who own it not? You have not a right to take it for public use, without just compensation. For private use, you have no right to take it at all. If you have, there is an end to the right of private property. Its constitutional security is gone. It is perfectly immaterial by what art of hocus pocus you may do this: if you can do it at all, the right of private property is gone. But it seems not to form any part of the great desideratum of our orator's political economy, to enquire into right, into justice, into morals, into meum et tuum; but to seize the whole productive labor of society, and to distribute it regardless of right or wrong, by the fallacious standard of his capricious notions, of the mode in which it can be made to produce "the greatest sum of national wealth." This is the essence of ultra despotism. But, sir, it will not be difficult for the most superficial observer to discover the fallacious and deceptive artifices practised by our orator in making this representation. Admitting it to be true, it is far from containing the