The Daily Union publishes a fiery congressional speech by Representative Hicklin of Illinois attacking the protective tariff of 1842 as a fraud perpetrated against American farmers and the poor. Speaking before the House Committee on July 1, 1846, Hicklin dismantles what he calls the "manufacturer's bill"—a complex web of minimum duties and specific tariffs that he argues were deliberately written in impenetrable language to hide their true impact. He demonstrates with precise calculations how a coarse cotton fabric costing 4 cents per yard in England faces the same tax as fine cloth costing 50 cents, meaning the poor man's cotton goods are taxed five times as heavily in proportion to their value. Hicklin quotes extensively from Daniel Webster's earlier speeches to expose what he calls the "deception" of branding protection as "American policy" when, in fact, such systems have been employed by European monarchies for centuries—including the bizarre English requirement that coffins be lined with wool to benefit textile manufacturers.

This speech captures a pivotal moment in 1846 American economic debate—the battle between protectionism and free trade that would intensify over the coming decades. The tariff question split both parties and regions: manufacturers in the North favored protection, while Southern and Western agricultural interests opposed it fiercely. Hicklin's passionate defense of the farmer against manufacturing interests reflects the grinding class tensions of the era. Just months after this speech, Congress would pass the Walker Tariff Act in July 1846, actually *reducing* protective duties—a temporary victory for free-trade advocates. But the fundamental conflict over whether America should shield its industry from foreign competition or embrace open markets would fester, contributing to the sectional divide that would eventually lead to civil war.

• Hicklin reveals a shocking loophole in the tariff: British capitalists can own American manufacturing factories outright, hire British operatives, even import English factory workers—including 'paupers taken from the factories in London'—and still call it 'American labor' deserving protection. He scoffs: 'Out upon all such humbuggery! it is a fraud upon the people.'
• The newspaper's subscription rates reveal a tiered system: 5 copies cost $40 per year, but single copies were $2. The country paper edition published weekly during congressional sessions cost just $2 per year—accessible to rural America while national subscriptions remained a luxury.
• Hicklin documents a specific tariff discrimination: farmers paid 30-150% tax on iron implements, 100% on coarse flannel, and 65-190% on sugar—while wealthy elites paid only 7.5% on gold watches, diamonds, and gems. His explanation for the disparity is brutal: 'The reason assigned for the low tax on jewelry is the facility with which it can be smuggled into the country.'
• England had absurdly required by law that every coffin be lined with wool and each corpse buried in a woolen shroud—not for warmth, Hicklin sarcastically notes, but 'for the purpose of collecting a tax for the benefit of the woollen manufacturer.' The Anglican clergy were required to read penalties aloud during church services, sharing in fines from violators.
• The paper's advertising rates show minimum entry costs: twelve lines or less for three insertions cost just $1, with each additional insertion 15 cents—making newspaper advertising accessible to small shopkeepers and tradespeople.

• Hicklin's 1846 speech invoking Daniel Webster represents a stunning political irony: Webster had *opposed* the 1824 tariff that Henry Clay championed, calling protection 'foreign policy' rather than 'American policy.' By 1846, their positions hadn't entirely reversed, but Webster's nuanced economic arguments about comparative advantage were being wielded against protectionist ideology.
• The tariff of 1842 mentioned throughout Hicklin's speech was actually the work of John Tyler's administration (he'd taken over after William Henry Harrison's death)—passed by a razor-thin margin and so unpopular it helped make the 1844 election a referendum on trade policy. James K. Polk, elected that year on a free-trade platform, would sign the Walker Tariff just weeks after this speech, vindicating Hicklin's position.
• Hicklin's claim that American cotton manufacturing could undercut British production seems prescient but premature—New England mills were indeed using American cotton and Yankee-invented machinery, but wouldn't truly dominate global markets until after the Civil War broke Britain's cotton supply.
• The newspaper itself, The Daily Union, was edited by Thomas Ritchie, a staunch Democratic Party organ. By publishing Hicklin's anti-tariff speech prominently, Ritchie was amplifying the Democratic free-trade message at precisely the moment Polk's administration was moving to dismantle Whig protectionism—propaganda, yes, but from the winning side.
• Hicklin's specific examples of tariff injustice—minimum duties of 20, 30, and 36 cents on cotton, specific duties of $12.50 per pound on silk—were drawn from the actual tariff schedules. These weren't rhetorical flourishes but precise technical arguments: the first time a sitting congressman made tariff policy incomprehensibility itself a scandal.