Mr.Clay was always a protectionist, and, unlike Mr.Van Buren, he forced his party to go with him.

But as a whole, the record of tariff legislation, from the very origin of the government, is the record of enlightened selfishness; and enlightened selfishness is the basis of much that is wisest in legislation.
It is natural that both sides to the tariff controversy should endeavor to derive support for their principles from the experience of the country.

Nor can it be denied that each side can furnish many arguments which apparently sustain its own views and theories.
The difficulty in reaching a satisfactory and impartial conclusion arises from the inability or unwillingness of the disputants to agree upon a common basis of fact.

If the premises could be candidly stated, there would be not trouble in finding a true conclusion.
In the absence of an agreement as to the points established, it is the part of fairness to give a succinct statement of the grounds maintained by the two parties to the prolonged controversy,--grounds which have not essentially changed in a century of legislation and popular contention.
It is maintained by free-traders that under the moderate tariff prevailing from the origin of the government to the war of 1812 the country was prosperous, and manufactures were developing as rapidly as was desirable or healthful.

Protectionists on the other hand aver that the duty levied in 1789 was the first of uniform application throughout all the States, and that, regardless of its percentage, its influence and effect were demonstrably protective; that it was the first barrier erected against the absolute commercial supremacy of England, and that it effectually did its work in establishing the foundation of the American system.