صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

this subject have been often given to the public. They are to be found in my public acts, and in the public discussions in which I have participated. I am in favor of a tariff for revenue, such a one as will yield a sufficient amount to the treasury to defray the expenses of the government economically administered. In adjusting the details of a revenue tariff, I have heretofore sanctioned such moderate discriminating duties, as would produce the amount of revenue needed, and at the same time afford reasonable incidental protection to our home industry. I am opposed to a tariff for protection merely, and not for revenue. Acting upon these general principles, it is well known that I gave my support to the policy of Gen. Jackson's administration on this subject. I voted against the tariff act of 1828. I voted for the act of 1832, which contained modifications of some of the objectionable provisions of the act of 1828. As a member of the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, I gave my assent to a bill reported by that Committee in December, 1832, making further modifications of the act of 1828, and making also discriminations in the imposition of the duties which it proposed. The bill did not pass, but was superseded by the bill commonly called the Compromise bill, for which I voted. In my judgment, it is the duty of the government to extend, as far as it may be practicable to do so, by its revenue laws and all other means within its power, fair and just protection to all the great interests of the whole Union, embracing agriculture, manufactures, the mechanic arts, commerce and navigation. I heartily approve the

[ocr errors]

resolutions upon this subject, passed by the Democratic
National Convention, lately assembled at Baltimore.
I am, with great respect,
Dear sir, your ob’t serv’t,
JAMEs K. Polk.

John K. KANE, Esq., Philadelphia.

This letter indicates what were the sentiments of its author on the subject to which it related, as clearly and distinctly as language could express them. He was in favor of a tariff yielding sufficient revenue to support the government economically administered, and which should afford, at the same time, incidental protection to all the various interests of the country. He was willing to encourage manufactures to this extent, but he was not disposed to favor them, to the injury of other interests. A high protective system he could not countenance. He saw how it had operated in England, where a powerful aristocracy were maintained in luxury and idleness, and a corrupt and expensive government supported, out of the hard-earned substance of the yeoman, the laborer, and the operative ; and history taught him, that whenever and wherever it had been adopted, it had brought the poorer classes to abject penury and want, and reduced them to a condition of slavish dependence on the wealthy and more favored classes.

Entertaining such views, he cordially approved of the revenue tariff of 1846. All its main features harmonized with his own convictions; he did not consider it perfect in all its parts, but as a whole it was satisfactory to him;

and the bill received his signature, as it met with his approbation. Whenever and howsoever any of the objectionable features of the “American System,” were brought forward in Congress, they encountered the determined and unyielding opposition of Mr. Polk. He planted himself upon what he conceived to be the impregnable doctrines of the Maysville road veto, and refused to be driven from his position. If he had ever been in doubt in respect to the propriety of constructing works of internal improvement in the states by the general government, his experience as a legislator led him to reflect carefully upon the subject. He saw how the power which had been inferred from the Constitution, had been abused; and when a careful examination of that instrument resulted in discovering no positive warrant for the authority which had been claimed by the friends of the “American System” to belong to the national government, he denied its existence altogether. During his service in Congress, he was the steadfast friend of the surviving officers and soldiers of the revolution. No one did more than he to establish and perfect the pension system, and he was particularly active in his efforts to extend its benefits to the officers and soldiers of the militia. He was among the earliest opponents of the recharter of the United States Bank; and in the month of August, 1829,” in a letter addressed to his constituents, he avowed

* This was several months previous to the appearance of General Jackson's first message.

his convictions to be irreconcilably opposed to the existence of such an institution, and denied both its constitutionality and expedieney. He supported and defended - the administration of General Jackson during the exciting contest with the bank, and approved and justified the removal of the deposits. With General Jackson and Mr. Van Buren, he was at first favorable to the state bank deposit system; but when he saw how total was its failure to answer the expectations of himself, and his friends and coãdjutors, he hailed the project of an independent treasury recommended by Mr. Van Buren, as the great desideratum in the financial system of the government. This measure received his unqualified approbation, and at all times and on all occasions, he expressed himself unreservedly in its favor. He had the proud satisfaction, too, in the first year of his administration, of approving, in an official character, the bill which, at the close of his public career, remained unrepealed on the statute-book, —a bill which had risen, like the Phoenix from his pyre, from the ashes of obloquy and persecution, and was proclaimed the law of the land, in accordance with the expressed will of the Nation.

CHAPTER W.

Dissensions in the Republican Party in Tennessee—Nomination of Judge White for the Presidency—Course of Mr. Polk—Chosen Speaker of the House of Representatives—Rečlected—Character as a Presiding Officer— Vote of Thanks—Farewell Address.

ALTHOUGH the vote of Tennessee, given at the presidential election in 1828, was almost unanimous in favor of General Jackson,” indications of dissatisfaction were manifested by some of the most prominent members of the republican party in that state, at an early period of his administration. It was impossible for him to gratify all the numerous applicants for office, and those who were disappointed, though they took care to conceal their chagrin, cherished many an unfriendly feeling at heart, that only required an occasion for its exhibition. But while his personal fortunes appeared to be at stake, nothing like open opposition was witnessed; he had firmly secured the love and respect of the people of Tennessee, and a whisper against his fair fame aroused their indignation. His name, like that of Hafed, was a “name of fear;” and if murmurs were ever heard, they were directed toward those who were said to be his confidential friends and advisers.

As the time approached, however, for the selection of his successor, the elements of discord and disaffection

* There were only about twenty-two hundred votes cast for the Adams electors in the whole state.

« السابقةمتابعة »