"This transformation of the condition of the country from gloom and distress to brightness and prosperity, has been mainly the work of American legislation, fostering American industry, instead of allowing it to be controlled by foreign legislation, cherishing foreign industry. The foes of the American system, in 1824, with great boldness and confidence, predicted, first, the ruin of the public revenue, and the creation of a necessity to resort to direct taxation. The gentleman from South Carolina, (General Hayne,) I believe, thought that the tariff of 1824 would operate a reduction of revenue to the large amount of eight millions of dollars; secondly, the destruction of our navigation; thirdly, the desolation of commercial cities; and, fourthly, the augmentation of the price of articles of consumption, and further decline in that of the articles of our exports. Every prediction which they made has failed--utterly failed. . . . . It is now proposed to abolish the system to which we owe so much of the public prosperity. . . . . Why, sir, there is scarcely an interest--scarcely a vocation in society--which is not embraced by the beneficence of this system. . . . . The error of the opposite argument, is in assuming one thing, which, being denied, the whole fails; that is, it assumes that the _whole_ labor of the United States would be profitably employed without manufactures. Now, the truth is, that the system _excites_ and _creates_ labor, and this labor creates wealth, and this new wealth communicates additional ability to consume; which acts on all the objects contributing to human comfort and enjoyment. . . . . I could extend and dwell on the long list of articles--the hemp, iron, lead, coal, and other items--for which a demand is created in the home market by the operation of the American system; but I should exhaust the patience of the Senate. _Where, where_ should we find a market for all these articles, if it did not exist at home? What would be the condition of the largest portion of our people, and of the territory, if this home market were annihilated? How could they be supplied with objects of prime necessity? What would not be the certain and inevitable decline in the price of all these articles, but for the home market?" But we must not burden our pages with further extracts. What has been quoted affords the principal arguments of the opposing parties, on the points in which we are interested, down to 1832. The adjustment, in 1833, of the subject until 1842, and its subsequent agitation, are too familiar, or of too easy access to the general reader, to require a notice from us here. CHAPTER XI.