adhesion to the tariff of 1842. Probably alarmed at the prospect of losing votes at the south through his opposition to the annexation of Texas, and seeing defeat certain unless he could rally to his support the people of the north, Mr. Clay made one concession after another, until he had virtually abandoned the ground he occupied in 1833, and made himself amenable to his own rebuke uttered at that time: “What man,” he had then asked, “who is entitled to deserve the character of an American statesman, would stand up in his place in either house of congress and disturb the treaty of peace and amity?”
Mr. Polk, on the other hand, had courted criticism by his Kane letter, dated June 19, 1844, which was so ambiguously worded as to give ground for the charge that his position was identical with that held by Henry Clay. In his first annual message, however, he explained his views with precision and ability. The principles that would govern his administration were proclaimed with great boldness, and the objectionable features of the tariff of 1842 were investigated and exposed, while congress was urged to substitute ad valorem for specific and minimum duties. “The terms ‘protection to American industry,’ ” he went on to say, “are of popular import, but they should apply under a just system to all the various branches of industry in our country. The farmer, or planter, who toils yearly in
