Mr. Clay On The Tariff

We have repeatedly referred to he expressed views of the leading men of the Whig and Democratie partiesyand shown by their own statements, that there was ' no essential dinereace between them on the Tariff, and consequently the great ver bal controversy on this subject is a contest without an adequate object - abattlewhich will leave the matter just where it was before. The following extract from a speech of Mr. Clay, Jan. 21, 1842, on the Treasury note bilí, in reply to Mr. Woodbury, was' made the theme of a lengthy debate on a recent occasion in Congress: "But whence this new-born zeal (snid Mr. C.) in regard to taxation. It was.he admitted, scandalous that this government should have gone on for years past, and was going on now, by the expenüiture of more than was received. "Taxation he knew, and had before said, was the reme'dy for this. Carry out, then, said het 'the spirit of the compromise act. Look Ho reverme alone for the support of Govlcrnme?U. Do nol raise the queslion of pro Hectton, which (said the Senator from 'Kentucky) I had hoped had leen put ia lrest. There is no necessily of proteC' Hionfor proteclion." Wlien Mr, Clay was in Charleston,a few since, in a speech in the theatre, he gave an exposition of his views on the tariff. and on this compromise act. He declared that he had ever been in favor of the protective policy to a certain extent. He had been active in effecting the compronvse of 1833, and he had never countenanced its violation in the slightest particular, and he had resisted every effort in Congress to viólate it. "It was important to understand the true character of that compromise. It provided for a gradual reductionof duties down to twenty per cent, at a given time, and after that, for the raising of such a revenue, by duties on imports exclusively, as was necessary for an economical administration of the government." "Mr. C. denied that the principie of the compromise required the maximum duty to be fixed at twenty per cent: its true principie was that no more revenue should Ie raised than was necessary for an honest and economical administraron of the government, and unt'hin that limit there might be discrTmination in favor of domesüc mdustry." Now we would ask how this doctrine differs from that laid down by Messrs. Van Buren, Cass, Buchanan, &c. If there be none, then the controversy between VVhigs and Democrats is confessedly on an imaginary point. CC" We have been asked what arethe principies or objects of the Nativfc American party, so called. We are un able to lay our hands on any acknowledged statement of them. An exchange paper says this party goes for excluding all foreigners from office, and for debarring them from votinguntil they shall'have resided in this country twenty years. 03 It is said that Ohancellor Wal. worth, of New York, will notbe confirmed by ihe Senate as Judge of the U. S. Supreme Court. Tlie reasons are twoj he is not a slaveholder, and it is known that he has no great respect or reverence for that august institution. These are reasons enough.