"Define Your Principles!": "Bank, Or No Bank--Tariff Or No T...

A KKPÜBtlcXíT, Two weeks eince, we presented sonie thoughts on the nature of the political warfare now carried on between Whig and Democrats, showing that althwgíi tbe original pomtsof drflêrence in contest had once been distinctly visible, yet they had now become uncertain and indistinct. There was no Jong-, ger a surphis in tl] e Trensmy to be (íislributeá - the Distribution of the proceeds of the Public Lands was not wbrth contending about while the Treasury was in debt, aud tlie aniount to each State was so triflíng- the whole yearly share of Michigan beihg bot $15,000. The Bnnkrnpt law haa become quite impopular, and has departed" this life wlnle a United States Bank is no longer advo cated in the creed of the Whig party, a8 fa. fined by Henry Clay, and, as a parcy meajore by only one Whig paper in the Uniied Statea - so far as we know. These thinge, tben out of the way, the only material ground of difierence between the parties must be in re gard to the tariff; and to show how little chancfl for coiftroversy can bo found here, we subjoin the Whig and Democratie party principies, as put forth from head quarters:JUEM OCKATIC. Taken (rom the Globe. July 18, 184-2. All at ihis moment musí concur in opposition to a National Bank - to a national debt - to a tariff, essentially for pro-, lection - to inrernal improvemente by the national government, - to aboli'ion to distribution- to Federalism in all its shapes. A1Í agree to n reduction of expenditures - to reform in the currency - to ndminislrativo reforms in all departnients, and to the inaintenance of the JeiFersonian interpre tation of' the coustitutiojial powera of govment."Whig. Taken from the Detrojt Advertiser, November 23. 1842. "L'indLles of the Whig Party, a, de hned by Henry Clay. A sound Nationnl Currency, regulated by the will and authoriiy ot the Nat ion: An adequate Revenue, with fair Protection to American Indus (ry: Jtist JRestrainta on tii e Executive Power, embracing a further restriction on the exercÏ6e of the Veto: A faitfihil AJminÍ8tration of the Public Domain, v:th au equitable distribution of the proceeds of 6a les ol it amon all the States: An Iionest and econotnical Adminislration of the Government, leaving Public Officers perfect freedom of Thoiiffht, nnd of the Right of Stiffrnge; but wilh Puitable reslruints against improper interference ín Elections: An Amendment of the Constitution, lim'ning the incumbent of the Presidentia) Office to a single term."It wil! be seen at a glance that neither of these party principies conflict on the tariff question. The Whigs do not pretend to advocate a rnere protective tariff, nor the democrats to oppose any oilier than such a protective tariff. The wliigs claim only "an adequate revenue' tariif, and to use it so as to afford "fair proteclion to American industry." Scarcely a democrat in the country will dit sent from this: lie knows the country must have revonne from either taxation or tariff: he prefers the latter: and while thus raming n adequate revenue," would willingly make it afFord "fair protection to American Industrj." The Globe would agree to this principie: it oppoes only ' a tariff essentially fi.r protection;" a revenue tariff, incidentally giviug fair protection to industry is anotherthingaJtogether, ond is not involved in the hostility pronotuieed ag-ninst a tariff designed excluaively and "esaentialty'' to protect and build up manufactures. Thers is a charming1 omhiguify ond an ingenious noncommhnhVrn by both parties.- The Globe iclls chicfly wïiot i' is opposed to, and expresses in he most general termswhat it goes for. Undcr ihis position, the party ma:y pass, and if in power, will pass, just ueh a tariff, as rnay stiït party circumstances, only it must not palpably bc "essentially for protection." The whigs, tliough more adrojtfy assuming an apparent affirmative position, have, in fact, reserved equal lntitude. The "fair protection1' they would give uieans just nothing at all. No two of uny twenty men would probably ngree as to the extent of protection which would be "fair." Nor are the whigs any better off in their npplication of this protection, even supposing its extent defined. What do they mean by the terms "Ainqricon Industry?" Do they mean the manufacturer - or the farmer, or laborer? the mechanic- the merchnnt - or the professional man' The elave or the free industry? Do they mean alf, or any of these, ond which? Mr. Cky has not told us, and why should he not have told us, had he meant to present to the peopie an honest and unmistakable position? The truth is, that both parties mean jutt the same thing, and which ever party may succeed to power, will enact a tariff to nearly the same extent. It will raise what the party conceives to bè an adequate revenue and no more, and in doing so it will discrimínate in favor of particular kinds of manufactures.- Both partios will select as their favontes, the same manufactures to be thus built up- thos which have the most influence in the nattenand both wil! sacrifice to this favoritism tho weak branches of manufacture. Tn order to be embled to effect this and for other purposes, to be presently noticed, hoth parties hav thé above meaningless nothings, by way of defining their positions: these contain just such a faint ehade of character, as will p" for substance with the ordinary reader, and will induce the respective party msn to euppose that his own well known principies are meant by the6e artful generalitiea. Yet wiH they impose no substantial shackle on Whij or Democratie hands, but will leave thera uflfettered, to be used as circumstances m&y cali for. If the democratie party are free trade men; if they are opposed to protection altogether : f they object to build up one class, at the expense of the other excluded clanses} if tbey are unwilling that the manufacturer shall be forced into wealth, by making the national power eubserve- and the consumer to pyau