Glass 
 
 Book_ 
 
 

 ADDRESS 
 
 TO THE PEOPI^E 
 
 IZ%^ 
 
 OF THE 
 
 €OA''GlimmiO^''^E, mi^T1l£€T 
 
 OF 
 
 CIIAREESTO^^ 
 
 15t TiiK Fox. ■■'IL.LTA-'l DRAYTOJf 
 
 CHARLESTOI^, S. C. 
 
 Pi^fXTF.n AT THE CHARI EjTON PRESS, BT WM. ESTIL1-. 
 
,3 
 
ADDRESS. 
 
 Fellow-Citizens. — In consequence of the near approach of the 
 period when the payment of the public debt was antiopated, it was 
 naturally expected and desired that the late Congress, before itsrad- 
 journnsent, would revise and so modify the Tariff' act of 1828, as to 
 reduce, considerably, the amount of the reveiaie which it provided 
 for, and also the rate of the duties wh.ch were levied under it, upon 
 the importation of protected articles. As early as January, 1832, 
 two resolutic'iis of the House ol Representatives directed the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury "to collect information as to certain nanufac- 
 tures in the United States, and to communicate the same to the 
 House, with such suggestions as he might think useful, with a 
 view to the adjustment of the tariff, and with such a tarifi of duties 
 on imports, as might, in his opinion, be best adapted to the advance- 
 ment of the public interest." In the report made by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury in compliance with these resolutions, lie remarked 
 that the impost system "of the United States has been for m.any 
 years, incidentally, but so intimately coiuiccted with the growth 
 and protection of American capital and laboiu-, as to have raised 
 up a great national interest indispensable to the prosperity of the 
 •country and which cannot be lost sight of, in any new adjustment 
 of the system. In the circumstances which recpiire, at present, a 
 general reduction of the revenue, it is not deemed practicable to 
 pursue, for any length of time, the degree of protection hitherto 
 afforded to those inteiesfs \\ hich have grown up under the past 
 legislation. The state of public feeling throughout an in portant 
 portion of the country, which, with greater or less intensity, calls 
 for a revision of the existing tariff, is not to be disguised. Both 
 patriotism and wisdom dictate that this sentiment should be respected 
 and as far as may be compatible with the common weal, that it 
 be satisfied, not from any unworthy motive, but under that obligation 
 of duty which recpiires that all be regarded wnth an equal eye; that 
 ^11 be borne upon with an equal hand ; and under that no less so- 
 lemn obligation, to preserve by any reasonable concessions, c\it 
 inestimable Union." In the spirit of these sentiments, which ve- 
 (*ovmd so much to the credit of the head and the heart of the Sec- 
 
le'tary, he preparetl a bill for Congress, which, wifh some aUerrition?, 
 ■would J!! my judgment, have been peculiarly adapted to meet th& 
 exigencies of (he times. This bill was referred to the committee 
 t)n Manufactures of the Ho«?e of Re|)re^<'ntatives, who pfofes^^ed 
 to make it (he basis of a bill reported by thent, which, after having 
 received various amendments, became a law on the 1 4th of July 
 1832. 
 
 For the vote which was giAen by i>ae upr n the final passage of 
 tliis bill, all the newspapers thioughout the State, which are attach- 
 ed to (he doctrine of Nullilication, have charged me with having 
 saciihccd the interests of my constituents, nnd with having acted 
 inconsistently with opinions which I had previously expressed. 
 Anxious that my fellow-citi;4ens, whether they l>e my polifical 
 friends or foes, should be in jwssession of the motives of my politieai 
 conduct, in order that they may be enabled to determine whether 
 I merit their confidence, or have justly expos'ed myself to their 
 censure, I will submit to them (he reasojis that governed me upon 
 the subject under consideration. 
 
 The provisions of the tarilfact of 1833, are, by no means, sue)) 
 as I desired them to have been; but when they were under discus- 
 sion, before Congress, the pioblem for the solution of the members 
 of that Body, was not, in ordinary circumstances, what a Taritf 
 act ought to be, nor in what manner it shnidd be drawn, so as to 
 siitisfy (he manufactures of the NorUi, or the agriculturists of the 
 gouth — the exclusive friends of protection, on the one hand, or of 
 free trade on the other; — but whether any middle course could be 
 devised, which would reconcile conflicting {)rejudices and interests 
 — alliiy the fury raging in the bosoms of the two grent Tariff par- 
 tics into ^^ hich the people v/ere divided, and prevent (hat eolHsion 
 between them, which might, not only, disturb the harmony but en- 
 danger the existence of the Union, 
 
 Tlie diificulty of eflectiug this arrangement, wtls, probably, 
 gieater than any whi^h had ever beeti presented to the dehberations 
 of Congress, since the adoption of the Federal Constitution. While 
 a large minority of the people regard a protecti^e tariff to be un- 
 authorize^:! by the Constitution, a majority of them have arrived 
 at a diametrically opposite conclusion. If all those who were hos- 
 tile to qi protective taritlj pronounced it to be miconstitutional, and 
 all those who were in favor of it, pronounced it to be constitutional, 
 it might, naturally, be presumed that these discordant inferences 
 resulted from sectional prejudices or individual interests. But such 
 is not the relative position of the contending parties. The advo- 
 £ates of protection are unanimous, on their side of the question, 
 whereas its adversaries differ among themselves. Many of the 
 most intelligent delegates of (he Free Trade Convention which met 
 m Philadelphia in September last, expressed their conviction ol the 
 legitimate power of Congress to pass protective tarifi'acts, though 
 
fhe}'^ condemn their principle, as fraii2:1it ^y'i^h evil aiul injustice: and 
 die Si) me opinions were avowed by Mr. Gallatin, the author of a nie^ 
 morial from that Convention in which the iiijurious consequences 
 of legislative interfcrejice with the capilal and kibor of individu- 
 nls, are den ion st rated with an ability and clearjicss, which have not 
 been erjnalicd by any produclion which has issued Ihmi the Ameri- 
 can press. The majority of (he pe'.,p!e not only think that protective 
 duties are constituficiial, but I hey are as confident that they are es- 
 sential tothe advancement of tiie general weal; andin support of their 
 views, they rely upon the numerous protective Tarili' acts wliicli 
 have been passed, aiid upon the approbation of them by every Pies- 
 ident of the Uniled States. The minority are a.s thoroughly con- 
 vinced, that a Protective Tariff impairs the prosperty of tlie great 
 mass of file comnnmity, and subjects them to a heavy taxation for 
 the benefit of the, c{:,mparativ(*ly, few. Wlien the people thus 
 differ upon a subject, in which their interests are deeply involved— 
 when tiirse iniercsts are believed to be fostered or depressed, by 
 legislation, according to geographical positions, it must be obvious, 
 that Congress could pass no act so modifying protection as to give 
 complete and general satisfaction. The only course, therefore, which 
 the late Congress coidd adept to calm the public excitement, and 
 to arrest the perilous march of deep and bitter discontent, was to 
 propose a law upon the basis of mutual ropxession and comprom- 
 ise. Upon tliis basis the act of July, 1832, was founded, by which 
 tlie conditiooi; of concessi^ju and compromise were undei stood to 
 be, that the advocates of restriction should consent to a coisidera- 
 ble reduction in the rate of protective duties and in the pmount of 
 revenueto be collected from imports and that some changes should be 
 m; de in those parts of the system where its pressuref was peculiarly 
 obnoxious. The ultra-res: rictioi^iirts, and the partisans of Nullifica- 
 tion did not subsciibc to these terms, the former being averse to 
 any diminution of the protective duties— the latter repudiating 
 every species of compromise which did not include the abandon- 
 ment of the principle of protection.. These ultraists, however, 
 were a minority. The majority acquiesed in the compromise 
 which has been /jientioned: hut wdiere the real or the supposed in- 
 terests of the parties were so variant, it was vain to exj^ect, that 
 any compromise could be so executed as to be exempt from mutual 
 objections. An approximation towards that which each of them 
 desired was as much as could have been, reasonably, calculated 
 upon, in the passage of the first Tariff act which has been intro- 
 duced, during so many years, with the declared intention of redu- 
 cing tlie rates of protection. That appioximation, it seemed to me, 
 was effected by tlie act of 1832, inasmuch as by it the minimums 
 upon woollens were repealed, ond the aggregate of the revenue 
 and (he amount of the protecting duties cousideraj^ly diiniuished., 
 
Being satisfied, that this act was, inconsparatively, better than that 
 of 1828, I according-ly voted for it. Upon what ground,.! can, even 
 plausibly, be charged with impolicy or inconsistency, for thus vo- 
 ting I am unable to discover. It "is true (hat I have, always, ex- 
 pessed myself adverse to the constitutionality and the expediency 
 of a protective tariff; but whatever may be my opinion and th© 
 opinions of the larger ix>rtion of the citizens of the Srrath, I am com- 
 pelled to admit, that the constitutionality of a protective tariti; is 
 not only a debateable question, up ai which wise and honest men 
 may and do disagree, but that the weight of numbers and of 
 great names prepondeiates in favor of those who maintain its con- 
 stitutionality. Under these circumstances, when I reflected, that 
 the act of 1832 diminished the existing duties, repealed the mini- 
 mrmis upon woo' lens, (among the most odious devices of a most 
 odious law,) and lightened, generally, the burthen of taxation, I felt 
 myself not merely justified, but imperiously required to facilita'te he 
 passage, by eve ry means in my power. Had I supported a IMll which 
 miginented the protective duties, which extended the deceptive 
 minimums, and which added to (he public burthens, the impolicy 
 and the inconsistency of my conduct might well have been noticed 
 as meriting the severest animadversion. 
 
 It has also been alleged against me, that I gave my sanction to 
 a law which recoguized "the protective system as the settled policy 
 of the country." Upon what authority Ihis ahegation is made, I 
 am ignorant. It is not sustained by any words which I have uttered, 
 or by any language in the context of the law, or by any inference 
 to be drawn from either. If it is to be inferred from the fact, that 
 the restrictionist|, in the compromise which they declaied them- 
 selves willing to enter into^ did not agree to abandon protection, 
 which they claimed as a right, it is admitted that tliey did not. 
 Nothing is more certain, than that no law would have been passed, 
 had this abandonment been demanded as one of its conditions. The 
 basis upon which the law was professed to be fomided, was that of 
 mutual compromise and concession. Now where one side surren- 
 ders the very ground which is in dispute, there may be victory or 
 defeat, but mutual compromise and concession are terms utterly 
 inapplicable to such a position of the parties. If by the allegation, 
 the meaning is intended to be conveyed, that Messrs. Blair, and 
 Mitchell, and myself, who voted for the act of 1832, in any mods 
 or manner, recognized "the protective system as the settled policy 
 of the country" it would be suflicient to deny the imputation and 
 to ask for the proof. But neither the conduct of those of my col- 
 leagues whom I have named, nor of myself, is susceptible of an 
 ambiguous interpretation. Upon the floor of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, I repeated what I had often stated, both there and 
 elsewhere, thal^in my opinion, a prolectiye Tariff, was unconsti- 
 UUional, unequal and oppressive; I call upon the friends of Free 
 
Trade Hot to acknowledge the constitutionality or the poUcy ol 
 
 a protective Taiifi^ — not. to yield any pvinciple or to sacrliice any 
 interest — but Lo forbear from insisting upon the sudden abandon- 
 ment of a system, which would be attended with the ruin of mil- 
 lions — to endeavour to obtain an amelioration of its provisions, by 
 compromise with their opponents, and to posrpone ail ellbrts for its? 
 repeal, to a future and more auspicious pciiod. General B!air, so 
 fiu- from conceiving tliat his vote was a recognition "of the set- 
 tled pohcy of the protected system," declared, that he "did not 
 vote for the bill as a compromise of the subject, or as a quietus of 
 tlie complaints of the South, but on the prhidph of reductionf and 
 Mr. Mitchell, who spoke .at length against the bill, gave to it his 
 support, for reasons siniMlar to th, se which had been assigned by 
 General Blair. Had my conduct in relation to this bill been the 
 reverse of what it was, had I voted against it, and had this vote 
 been cited, to establish that I had been inconsistent, and treacher- 
 ous to my duty, I should have felt that I was incompetent to de- 
 fend myself against these grave accusations. I might have urged, 
 as a subterfuge, that I would not sufler my name to be enrolled iii 
 favor of any protective Tariff; but would I not have been confound- 
 ed and silenced by the reply, that if the law, y. hich I refused to 
 vote for, had been rejected, a law more grevious, and which con- 
 tained protective duties more onerous, would be in force; and that 
 by declining to exert myself to accomplish the passage of the act of 
 1832, I, virtually contributed to livit upon my fellow-citizens the 
 g; cater oppression of the act of 1828. The compromise which I 
 recommended in the House of Representatives, was intended, and 
 was declared to be intended, to meet the existing crisis, which, in 
 the apprehension of many wise and patriotic men, threatened the 
 destruction of the Union. To avert tbis deep and dire calamity, an 
 immediate remedy was necessary — that remedy could not be admin- 
 istered without the co-operation of the friends and the adversaries of 
 protection: that co-operation, to the extent which has been mention- 
 ed, was obtained. It was unconnected with any compact, express or 
 implied, as to " the settled policy of the counlry" or as to the true con- 
 struction of the powers "to lay and collect taxes," or " to regulate 
 commerce." That the protective principle is contained in the act of 
 1832, is undeniable : it was also contained in the bill which was re- 
 ported by Mr. McDufhe, as the chairman of the Committee of Ways 
 and Means; for in that Bill, duties of 25 per centum ad valorem, for 
 prescribed periods, were to be levied upon the protected articles of 
 Iron, Salt, Sugar, Cotton Bagging, Woollens, &c.: afterwards the 
 duty was to h%, gradually, retiuced to 12 1-2 per centum, ad valo- 
 rem, which, under that bill uhis estimated to be the rate of duty which 
 was necessary for revenue. The constitutionality of the protective 
 system was as plainly admitted, by legislating- for the continuance 
 
of some protected items, during a single yenr, as Ly iegialating lor 
 all of (hem, without any limitation as to time.' Aithoughtlie 
 principle of protection has never been abandoned by any Congress: 
 although it is embraced within tlic provisions of the Act of 1832, 
 I have yet never supposed myself less at liberty novv^, than former- 
 ly, to use all ray exertions to ci-asc it from our Statute-Book ; and 
 I derive no littie conlidence in tlie repeal of proles-rive Tarit]^-,from 
 the fact, that a diminution of the povrer of these v.'ho have, hitiiertO; 
 been regarded to be the veteran and uncompromising supporters of 
 protection, was manifested, by the passage of the Act of July last^ 
 in spite of their unremitting and st-enuous oppo.<ition to it, aided by 
 the co-operation of several of (hose who term tlicmselves the 
 friends of free trade, among A\'iiora v/ere included both of our Sen- 
 ators and six of om- llepresentatives. These Senators tind Repre- 
 sentatives might liavc been able to reconcile (heir conduct with 
 what they conceived to be policy and duty. I coukl not imitate 
 their example, nor shall I be prevailed upon to thiyk that I ought 
 to have done so, until I shall be persuaded (hat (he bur(hen of pro- 
 tective duties is increased, by reducing their rate and amount ; — and 
 that where the choi^-e is submit(ed(o a represen(ative of sulijeciing 
 his constituents to a gvca(er or a lesser evil, he ought to prefer in- 
 flicting upon them (he greater. 
 
 Ameliorations in the existing Tariff have been achieved by (he 
 Act of 1832. "When that change sliall take place in Congress, 
 which will be produced by the election of new members, according 
 to (he Apportionment Bill of the last session, there is every reason 
 to expect that stiili further advances will be made, tov»'ards the fui- 
 |ilment of what is desired by the friends of unrestricted industry. 
 In the interim, wliat has been done, cannot impede, but will rather 
 accelerate the progress of more just and liberal legislation. Were 
 I called upon to state, what I lirmly believe to be (he cause of (he 
 Tariff system which now convulses our State, I should conscien- 
 tiously reply, that it i$ to be a((ributed to the Act of the 27(h of 
 April, 1816, the passage of which was so strenuously advocated 
 by (hrec-fourths of the delegation from Sou(h-Garolina, (hat (hey 
 iirsisted upon " the necessity of affording protection to manufactures, 
 to put them beyond the reach of contingency from foreign competition.'^ 
 The restrictive measures of the government before the late v/ar 
 with Great Britain, and the interruption to our Connnerce during 
 that war, had virtually protected domestic manufactures; but 
 when the Act of April, 1816, was under discussion, the duties 
 which were intended for protection, were generally so light, as al- 
 Tnost to have escaped observation. In April, 1816, the principle of 
 protection was op«nly avowed, and enforced in many instances, by 
 correspondent duties. Then was invented the mischievous and de- 
 lusive contri^-afice of (he minimums, which was first applied to 
 that fabric, (he raw material of which constitutes the great staple 
 
'9 
 
 of the South. It is true, that a provrsion was inserteJ, that the 
 rates of duties upon the mauufactLucs of cotton and v,oo\ should 
 be reduced withhi tiiroe years : but these were the only restrictions 
 in that Act. Its protective character, in otlier respects, was pre- 
 served. Tiie minimum, upon Cottons, by tlie o|>eratiou of which 
 those of the East Indies were driven from our market, was to be 
 retained at 20 cents instead of 25 cents, without the annexation of 
 any limitation as to time. High duties upon other commodities 
 were imposcd^wilhout any reservation ; and among them tlie duty 
 upon salt, which is now 10 cents the bushel, was fixed at 20 cents, 
 and the duty upon brown sugar, which, under the Act of 1832, 
 will be 2 1-2 cents the pound, was fixed at 3 cents the pound. 
 From the era of the passage of the Act of April, 1816, the traiYB- 
 fer of capital was invited and rapidly diverted from its natural 
 channels, into investments in those employnients of labor which 
 were stimulated by legislative protection. These investments have 
 been made upon so extensive a scale, that a withdrawal of them 
 cannot be attempted, otherwise than sloWly and gradually, v/itlt- 
 oul the inevitQ,ble ruin of millions of our fellow citizens, a large 
 proportion of whom were, originally, as hostile to a protective Ta- 
 rifii as are now the inhabitants of our State. The sin or the error 
 of having aided in the passage of the Act of 1816, cannot be im- 
 puted to me. I am neither responsible for that law, nor for the ca- 
 lamities of which it has been the baleful source. I have never 
 given a vote upon any question, in favor of its principles. These 
 principles I have always resisted, and I shall continue to resist 
 them, by all the means in my power, which are consistent with the 
 o])ligations of honesty, a respect for the letter and the spirit of the 
 Federal compact, and the preservation of the integrityt)f the Union. 
 Since the date of my letter to a Committee of the State Rights 
 and Union Party, I have received from the Register of the Tiea- 
 sury, a " statement exhibiting the amount of duties according to 
 the present rates, compared with the duties as modified by the Act 
 of 14th of July, 1832," which I have left with the JEditor of 
 the Southern Patriot. Upon the assmnption, that tlie dutiable ar- 
 ticles will be the same in quantity and price, after the 3d of March 
 next, as they were in the year 1830, this statement shows that un- 
 der the Tariff Act of July, 1832, there will be a reduction of 
 $1,869,056* from the amount of duties on protected articles, and 
 of $5,187,078 from the anlount of revenue to be derived from the 
 customs. 
 
 * Upon the proterfed articles of Morasses and Salt, there ^-as a reduction of the du- 
 ties 1>Y (he Acts of IS30, amountinor to $956,121, which added to $1,860,056, makes the 
 whiAc reduction since the Act of 1828, to be $'2,325,177. 
 
 TIic value imported in 1830, of protected articles, amounted to ^29,120,62^ 
 
 Consistino: of Wool, Woollens, Cottons, Wood and Mamifactures of do. ' 
 Oluss-va'-e. Ir<?.; a,".d Stc-^j-.nd Manufactures of do.; Clotliin? ccady mucV^ 
 
10 
 
 NotwiihstLUuling- t1iei5e deductions from the revcni^e, and i'lom 
 the duties on protected articles, it is asserted in an Address "To 
 the People of South Carolina," from our Senators a)id six of our 
 Representatives, that the burthens imposed upon the Southern 
 States, will be greater by the Act of July, 1832, than they are by 
 the existing Tariff. As this assertion may make an injurious im- 
 pression upon the puWic mind, I will transcribe that part of "the 
 Address" which is intended to establish it, and briefly annex such 
 remarks as may prevent the errors which it is calculated to dissem- 
 inate. According- to certain passages in "the Address," "the bur- 
 thens of the protecting duties aie decidedly increased, estimating 
 the cash duties and diminished credits, and they now actually 
 stand at an average of more than 50 per ceat., while the duties on 
 the unprotected articles, which upon every principle of equality and 
 justice, should sustain the principal part of the burthens of taxa- 
 tion, are, with a few inccnsiderable exceptions, entirely repecded. 
 Upon those manufactures which are received in exchange for the 
 staple productions of the Southeru States, the ag-gregate incrense 
 of the burthens of taxation, beyond what they were under the Ta- 
 riff of 1828, is beiieved to be upwards of $1,000,000, while the re- 
 duction or repeal of the duties on those iniports which are received 
 in exchange for the productions of the Tariff States, amounts to 
 about ,^4,000,000. While, therefore, the aggregate burthens of 
 taxation are diminished $4,000,000 by this Biil, the positive bur- 
 thens of the Southern States are not diminished at all, and their 
 relative burthcjisare very gieatly increased." 
 
 It has already been noticed, that the Tariff Act of 1832, as com. 
 pared with that whch is now in force, reduces the dufes upon pro* 
 fected articles by the amount of $1,8G9,056. If, notwithstanding 
 this reduction, the protecting duties are increased, this increase must 
 be occasioned by " estimating the cash duties and diminished credits.'''' 
 Now, the cash duties are confined to the importations on Woollens, 
 and their amount would be equal to 1-4 per cent, in the rate of 
 duty, upon Woollens not costing more than 35 cents the square 
 yard, upon which the duty is 5 per cent., and on AVooUens costing 
 more than 35 cents the square yard (of which tlie value of be- 
 tween 2 and 3 millions are imported) it is 2 1-2 per cent, increase 
 in the rate of duty, such cloth being subject to aduty of 50 per cent, 
 on the rest of our importations, " the diminished credits" are 
 equal to an increase of a fraction less than 3-4 per cent., the average 
 
 Hats, Carpeting, Sail Duck, Cotton Bagirino', Molasses, Brown Sugar, In- 
 digo, Cordage and Twine, Hemp, Salt,"Coal, Window Glass, Leather, and 
 Manufactures of do., Marble, and Manufactures of do., Oil Cloths, Japan- 
 ned, Plated, Gilt, Pewter, Brass, and Leaden Ware— duty on the above av- 
 hcles under the existing Tariff, 12,831,772 
 
 Do. under the Tariff of July, 1832, 10,962,716 
 
 Reduction on protected ai'tidss, {%ljS69.056 
 
H 
 
 mte of duty on all importations, excepting Woollens, being about 
 25 per cent.* 
 
 It not a little excites my surprise, that a paper of so grave a 
 character as "the Address," which it is presumed, was drawn up 
 with the utmost deliberation, should hazard the assertion, that "the 
 duties on the unprotected articles, are, with a Jeio inconsiderable except 
 tions, entirely repealed,''^ when the duties upon all the articles "declar- 
 ed to be free" by the Act of 1832, which are estimated by the Re- 
 gister of the Treasury in his statement, amounts to no more than 
 ^400,000 ; and the duties upon the residue of the unprotected arti- 
 cles, which are not estimated, but ascertained from official data, 
 amount, according to the same statement to ^2,709,671. The 
 amount of the duties upon unprotected articles, by the Act 
 of 1832, is $4,164,248, as is obvious in the underwritten note.f 
 "The Address" has not furnished us with any data to sup- 
 port the positions, that upon the " manufactures received in ex- 
 change for staple productions of the Southern States — the ag- 
 gregate taxation is believed to be increased upwards of $ 1 ,000,000," 
 beyond the Tariff of 1828, "while the reduction" or repeal of 
 
 * On a close calculation, omitting the 10 and 20 per cent, addition to tlie value on 
 Sfoods paying ad valorem duties, the following is the difference arising from the altera- 
 tion of the pound sterling, and the cash duties with shortened credits. 
 
 The reduction on protected articles will be $1,869,056 
 
 Deduct interest on cash duties on Woollens, amount of wliich being 
 1,953,159, for 10 months, at 6 per cent per annum, $97,653 
 
 Do. on duties on other protected articles, amount being ^9,- 
 009,557 for 5 1-2 months, at 6 per cent, per annum, 247,763 
 
 $345,421 
 Difference originating from cliange in the pound sterlingi affect- 
 ing imports from Great Britain, paying ad valorem duty, amount 
 of these imports being $14,514,657, aiid the difference $1,075,160, 
 at the average rate of duty on protected articles 37 3-8 per cent, is 404,528 
 
 749,949 
 
 Nett reduction on protected articles, $ 1 , 1 1 9, 1 07 
 
 Adding the 10 and 20 per cent, would increase the above to about $1,550,000 
 
 t The aggregate amount of duties under the new Bill, is estimated at $1 5,1 26,959 
 Deduct duties on protected articles, 10,962,716 
 
 Leaves a duty on unprotected articles of $4,164,243 
 
 Add interest for 5 1-2 months shortened credits, at the rate of 6 per cent, 
 per annum, $114,516 
 
 Difference from change in the pound sterling on imports from 
 Great Britain, paying ad valorem duties, amount of the imports 
 being $7,400,852, and the difference $548,210, at the average rate 
 of duty on unprotected articles, 14 3-8 per cent. 78,805 
 
 193,321 
 
 Total amount of duties on unprotected articles, $4,357,564 
 
 The increase in the aggregate amount of the duties without the 10 and 20 per cent. 
 
 and adding the difference from the new valuation of the pound sterling with cash duties 
 
 and shortened credits, is $943,270, equal to about 1 5-S per cent. 
 
die duties on tliose imports which are received in exchange for the 
 piodacti.n!? oi' the Taritl' States, »mounis to about ^4,000,000." 
 How thiw gross inoquaiit)^ in the distribution of burthens and ben- 
 efits is prochiced, by the Act of 1S32, I am unable to imagine. Up- 
 on some wooiiens, the duties wiii be rather higher than they are 
 now, but the aggregate of the duties upon wooiiens, will be very 
 considerably le^s. The duties upon cottons will be reduced m al- 
 most, every instance, and increased in none. Upon silks, the duties 
 WiH be largely reduced. The tluties upon iron, hemp, cotton bag- 
 ging, sugars and wines, are all diminished in greater or smolier ra- 
 tios. The staple productions of the Soulli l^eing received in ex- 
 change for every one of the commodities which I have enumerated, 
 if 'he duties upon them be reduced, it necessarily follows, so far as re- 
 lates to these conunodities (and they constitute the great articles 
 of importation) that the burthen of Southern taxation wall be 
 dhnkiished. Neither can I discover what " reduction or," repeal 
 ot (he duties on these imports which are received in exchange 
 fo)' the productions of the Tariff States, amounts to about ^4,- 
 000,000." I have specified the important articles upon which 
 the duties will be reiluced, after March 1833, and it is known 
 to every merchant, that for the more valuable proportion of 
 them, the productions of the South are received in exchange, 
 in a greater degree, than are those of the North, whilst the Cotton 
 and Rice of the Southern States are a' most, exclusively, exchang- 
 ed for the Wmes of Spain and Portugal, and for the Silks arid 
 Wines oi France, and their Rice and Lumber for the Sugars of the 
 West Indies. The North will be benifitted by the reduction of the 
 duties upon indigo and upon raw wool not costing more (ban 8 cents, 
 the pound, and by the repeal of the duties upon madder, wood, co 
 chineal, and some other materials used in dyeing and as ingre- 
 dients in the process of manufacturing; but the community partici- 
 pates in those advantages, as the effect must, necessarily, be to low- 
 er the price of manufactures. With respect to the repeal of the dTi- 
 ties upon teas and colfee,and the reduction of the duly upon India 
 Silks, I will svibmit the following communication which I have re- 
 ceived from one of the most enlightened and experienced mer- 
 chants in this city ; " Nothing is more certain than that the South- 
 erii States will be more than, proportiouately, benefitted by any in- 
 creased consumption of teas and East India silks, that will take 
 place in consequence of the reduction of the duties upon them; be- 
 cause the course of trade is now so changed, that compared with 
 former times, little or no specie is exported. The India merchant 
 now, either furnishes himself with bills drawn by the United States 
 Bank on London, at twelve months dates (which pay in India at 
 a premium) or he purchases merchants' brils, at ordinary sights en 
 L^'idon and lodges his funds there, ordering his ship to touch at 
 Gibrulfer, where he can draw for his London funds, at 10 to 15 per 
 
18 
 
 cent achancp, and he has dollars at pnr, or at most from 1 io 2 per 
 cent, preniiani, these dollars beiii<>' j)rocurod, entiiely, irdw Spam, 
 in payment of our rice, cotton tobacco, &c. carried into that coun- 
 try by her own subjects, clandestinely. If the Bank furnishes iiie 
 India Bills, it covers them, by merchants' drafts on Erigiand. 
 Thus, whether the India carsro be piocuied by Bank bills or specie, 
 they are all raised by bills on Enalusid, which bills are almost alto- 
 gether fouiid by Southern rice and cotton. Thns it plainly and in- 
 coiitrovertibly appears, that the South furnishes the principal part 
 of the funds for India cargoes, and, consequently, must be g'reatly 
 benefitted by tlie increased coiisumi>fi->n of those articles; and who- 
 will deny, that in ti\e increased consumption of coffee, by bein^• tree 
 of duty, that the South is benefitted, in a doulile ratio, when they 
 are toid that the Island of Cuba alone lakes about ot),000 casks of 
 rice, Avith lumber and other articles of its produce. No State in 
 the Union furnishes more, if as much of West India caigoes, as 
 South Carolina." The w^ant of the semblance of a foundation for 
 the assertion in "the Address," that the positive burthens of the 
 Sotithern States are not diminished, and their relative burtheiis ve- 
 ry g-reatly increased," is plainly demonstrated by tlie facts I have 
 stated. As to those items exempted from tlie payment of duties 
 by the act of 1832, to which I have not, particularly, adverted, I 
 W'-'i only remark, that the South and the North are relieved by 
 those exemptions, exactly in ratio proportionate to their consn.mption. 
 It is alleged in all the newspapers in this State, which adopt the 
 reasoning of "the Address," that no spirit of compromise or concilia- 
 tion entered into the comjiosition of the late Tariff Act, and that 
 its sole object was to confer additional bounties upon the Tariff 
 States, and to increase the burthen upon the Plajiting States. My 
 opinion of that Act I have already expressed; and it is not my in- 
 tention now to ascribe to it merits which I have hitherto denied 
 to it; but I cannot refrain from admitting, that the act of July, 
 1832, does contain some provisions which proceeded from a spirit of 
 compromise and conciliation on the part of the advocates of pro- 
 tection. It is notorious that loud and reiterated complaints w^ere 
 made in the Southern States, and particularly in South Carolina, 
 on account of the high duties upon coarse woollens and blankets, 
 and upon cotton bagging, and that the duties upon them were di- 
 minished, to gratify and conciliate the South. After March, 1833, 
 upon coarse woollens, of a value not exceeding 35 cents the squaie 
 yard, and upon bin nkets, of a value not exceeding 75 cents each, 
 the duty will be almost nominal, being 5 per cent, ad valorem; aisd 
 upon cotton bagging, the duty will be reduced from 5 to 3 1-2 cents 
 the square yard. I have read in numerous pnhlications in the news- 
 papers in this city, that the woollens and the blankets which are 
 imported by the planters for the^- negroes, cannot be purchased at 
 the prices limited by the Act, so as to be included within the reduc- 
 
14 
 
 ed duty of five per cent. My reply to this statement, I should 
 presume, woud be periect'iY satisfactory. I am informed by the 
 most compel a lit and res,)ect;ibie authority, that such woollens and 
 bianisels us the plaiUers are in the habit of importing for their 
 neg^roes, can now be pui chased abroad at the prices specified in (he 
 Act, and tiiaL no doubt is entertained that this will be the case, 
 after thai act shall be in force. Should tliis, however, be an error, 
 as the reduction of the duties upon these articles was made, and 
 was expressed to be made, by the advocates of the protective sys- 
 tem, exclus.veleiy, for the accomodation of the South; and as they 
 lepeat.ediy and positively declared, that the artick^s couid be pro- 
 cured at the prices mentioned, I cannot hesitate, to believe, if the 
 fact be otherwise, that upon satisfactorily estabhshmg it, such a 
 iaw would be passed at the next session of Congress as would rec- 
 tify tlie mistake. However desirous the restrictionists may be 
 and unquestionably are, to preserve what they consider to be 
 their interests, it would be doing them iniustice to suspect them 
 (jf s^) gross a dereliction of principle, as a deliberate design to de- 
 fraud, or of the commission of so egregious an act of folly, as to 
 calculate upon being able to deceive, when the means of detection 
 won id be so soon and so easily afforded. 
 
 Tlie minimums upon woollens, which created peculiar discon- 
 tent, for the strongest and most obvious reasons, have also been 
 aboiished for the gratification of the South. In several of our 
 newspapers, it has been iusisted, that the benefit of this abolition 
 has been more than counterbalanced, by the imposition of a duty, 
 under the act of 1832, of 50 per cent, ad valorem upon all wool- 
 len cloths costing more than 35 cents the s(pmre yard. Let me, 
 b;ietly, demoustrate the uusoundness of this objection. By the 
 existing Tarifl", woollen cloths not costing more than 33 1-3 cents 
 the square yard, pay a duty of 14 cents the square yard, which is, 
 actually 54-45 per cent ad valorem. Woollens costing 33 1-3 cents 
 the square yard, and not more than 50 cents, are estimated at 50 
 cents the square yard, and pay a duty of 45 per cent, ad valorem, 
 which is, actually, 48 per cent. — Woollens costing 50 cents, and 
 nof more than ^1, the square yard, are estimated at ^1, and pay 
 a duty of 45 per cent., which is actually, 50-59 per cent, ad valo- 
 rem. Woollens costing ^1, and not more than ^2.50 the square 
 yard, jvre estimated at $2.50, and pay a duty of 45 per cent, ad 
 valorem, which is, actually, a duty of 54-82 per cent, ad valorem. 
 Woollens costing $2.50 and not more than $4, the square yard, 
 are estimated at $4, and pay a duty of 45 per cent ad valorem, 
 which is, actually, 61-59 per cent, ad valorem. All woollen cloths 
 costing over $4 the square yard pay a duty of 50 p^r cent, ad valo- 
 rem, which with the aditional 10 per cent, imder the Tariff of 1828, 
 is 55 per cent, ad valorem. The foregoing duties which I have 
 stated as actually, paid, are taken from an official document of the 
 
15 
 
 Treasury Department. It is thus seen that the existing duties, 
 in every item, exceed those of the Act of 1832, excepting upon 
 woollen cloths costing between 33 1-3 cents, and 50 cents, the 
 square yard, and between 50 cents and $\, the scpiare yard, when 
 they are less, in a very small degree, but upon such as cost more 
 than $1, the square yard, they are, considerably, higher. This 
 difference in the rate of the duties is by no means, the principal 
 benefit derived from the late Act; for by the substitution of ad val- 
 orem for minimum duties, the manufacturers are deprived of what 
 amounts almost to a monopoly, in the home market as to all woollen 
 cloths, the prices of which are between the minimum red?<ct4on». 
 This fact was,opeidy,and repeatedly avowed in tlic House of Repre- 
 sentatives, during the pendency of the Bill, in the last session of 
 Congress, and it w^as owing to the abolition of the minimums uprn 
 woollens, that the leachng advocates of "the American System," 
 were so hostile to the passage of the law.* 
 
 I have thus Fellow-Citizens, submitted to you my reasons for 
 the vote which I gave upon the passage of the late Tarilf act, and 
 my views of that act, both in its immediate effects, and as com- 
 pared with the existing TarilT. I feel confident that my vote will 
 be approved of by all of you, who prefer conciliation and comprom- 
 ise to a rupture with the membeis of our confederacy. When a S3"s- 
 tem has long been eslablished, which extensively controls thq 
 national capital and labor, however unw isely it may have been 
 introduced, it cannot suddenly be abolished, without spreading 
 desolation txiid ruin among millions, and communicating a perilous 
 shock to our tranquillity and security. — However we may deprecate 
 a protective tariff, in its piinciples and in its details — however, in- 
 dignantly, we may arraign (lie motives in whicji it originated and 
 the consequences resulting from it, the majority of the people, are, 
 nevertheless convinced that it is warranted by the CV nstitution, and 
 recommended by the soundest policy. Fiom the prevalence of 
 these senFiments amomg the majority and the legislative encour- 
 agement of them by high and stimulating protective duties, im- 
 mense capitals have been invested in numerous and complicated 
 
 *Mr Evprott, of Vcnnont, said, \\ hat in stibstance was reppafeil by several other 
 members who advocated protection, " lie considered tiiat system (the rninimunis) as 
 aftbrding the nrnst efficient protection, witli the least builheii »in the consumer. 'Fhc 
 operation of that system had been misrepresented. lie had been surprised to hear 
 j?entlemen affirm that it levied duties of 100, of l.'iO, and even 2'i.') per cent. A yard 
 of cloth costing $1, pays 45 cents, and a yard costing one dollar and one cent, it is true, 
 if imported, would pay 1 12 1-2 cents, which would be at the rate of Hi per cent, so a 
 yard costing 50 cents would pay 22 1-2 cents, and a yard costing 51 cents, if imported, 
 45 cents, being at the rate of 90 per cent. But what was the fact? .iVo cloths chargea- 
 ble ifith these high duties icere imported. The importations where confined to Cloths va- 
 lued at or a little under the minimums. The effect then, was prohibition of the importa- 
 tion of most of the Cloths between the minimums. Of thost txcludvd, the clvths of the 
 intermediate values : the ^imerican Manufacturer tpill hare the vhole market." J-lx- 
 tract from Mr. Everetfs speech on the Tariff bill, delivered ISth .lune, 1832, as publish- 
 ed in the Kationa! latuUigencer. 
 
16 
 
 liranclies of human industry, which, it must be obvious, ouoht 
 not to be interfered with, excepting- with the utmost caution, dc< 
 liberation and forbearance. Thus impressed wi'h the importance, 
 the intricacy and the delicacy of tliis subject, when the considera- 
 tion of the Tarifl' was brought up, during- the last session of Con- 
 gress, my anticipations of its improvement were limited to such 
 alterations, as would lighten some of its biuthens. obliterate some of 
 its most obnoxious enactments, and manifest a temper and dispo- 
 sition indicativ^e of still fartjier amelionitions. When the fomula- 
 tions of the system should be thus underminded, the cheering pros- 
 ])ect would be presented, tjiat Congress would gradually act upon 
 the principles which ouglit nev^er to be lost sight of — that domes- 
 tic indusUy should only be incidentally protected, by duties up.'v)u 
 foreign importations, AUhough the Tariff act of 1832 is, in mv 
 opinion imperfect, ahhough it still retains no small portion of its 
 ancient defects, although it still requires great and radical improve- 
 )nents, yet it does appear to me that it makes such approaches to 
 what it ought to be, as to rejider it worthy of acceptance, at ihis 
 time, to every patriotic and reflecting Statesman, who seeks to 
 to obtain the recognition of the principles of Free Trade, by tem- 
 perate and practicable means. 
 
 To what extent the duties and the revenue will be reduced by 
 the late Tariff Act, I have ah-eady shown. Surely a diminution 
 in the protecting duties of ,^1,809,056, and in the aggregate of 
 the revenue from the customs of $5,187,078, is a relief, in the gross 
 and inthedctail. Surelv adininution in taxation, whicli reduces 
 their nett receipts, from $17,238,645 to $12,101,567, is a general 
 benefit. These ameliorations, combined with some concessions to 
 the South, and the repeal of the mininrums upon woollens, ought 
 to be hailed with some satisfaction, as the harbingers of better times, 
 and as leading to a more auspicious consummation ; and more es- 
 pecially, ought we to be inspired with coniidence, when it is recol- 
 lected that these reform-itions were effected, although tliey were 
 opposed to thvO utmost, bif the firmest zealots hi the cause of protection, 
 and although the bill which contained them, was voted against by 
 six of our own delegation, in the H Mise of Representatives. If 
 thus much was achieved against obstacles so formidable, the hope 
 is proportionately flatferinif, that those who are willing to sacrifice 
 the oride of opinion and the lust of power, to a spirit of amity and 
 compromise, and to lay their resentments, and passions, and preju- 
 dices, upon the altar of their common country, will accomplish 
 greater objects, by their judicious and persevering appeals, address- 
 ed to the reason, good sense, and real interests of the comnnmity. 
 By honest exertions thus directed, it may well be anticipated, that 
 the delusions wh^ch have been created by a selfish theory, will be 
 disoelled — that the revenue, at no distant period, W'H be limited to 
 the proper expenses of the government — that the Tariff will be soreg-. 
 
17 
 
 ii!ated,as equally to clifTuse its burthens and its blessings, 
 amonn- a free, a prosperous, and a united i>eople. When 
 a career has been opened, which may cai-ry us to the goal 
 at, which we would arrive, shall we stop short in the progress 
 to which we are invited 1 — shall we, supinely, slumber on 
 our posts, wlien the victory may be won by discretion and perse- 
 verance 1 Shall we, instead of availing ourselves of that " tide 
 in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood leads on to prosper- 
 ous fortune," abandon whatever is dear to us as patriots, whatso- 
 ever renown we have derived from our ancestors, whatsoever of glo- 
 ry we have acquired abroad, and whatsoever of liberty and happi- 
 ness we have enjoyed at home, and rashly barter away tjiese ines- 
 timable treasures, to plunge into the vortex of Nullification'? Shall 
 we yiel : urselves to be entangled m the mazes of a political ab- 
 straction, which is either so subtle or so paradoxical as to mock the 
 understanding, or so false and so pernicious as to lead us into error 
 and danger 1 Shall we, with our senses awakened, and our facul- 
 ties roused, and our vigor imimpaired, march tamely under the 
 banners of those, wlio, while they profess to put down usurpation, 
 themselves usurp a power paramount to the Constitution and the 
 laws — who, while they proclaim, that they will emancipate us from 
 federal oppression, by a peaceful, efficient and legitimate remedy, 
 would reduce us, either to the alternative of submitting to the gov- 
 ernment, which we resisted, or of seceding from the Federal Union! 
 The first alternative would be degrading humiliation. Should we 
 adopt the other, the United States, from the imperious dictates of 
 self-defence, would prescribe to us such terms, as woulfi psevent 
 them from being injured by our seperate commercial laws and 
 regulations; and to deliver ourselves from their invasion of our Sov- 
 ereignty," should we resort to an ally, the price of his aid, would be 
 the sacrifice of our independence. 
 
 I will dwell no longer upon such gloomy scenes. That the Su- 
 preme Ruler and Director of human affair-s, may in his mercy, 
 so incline our hearts and guide om- counsels, that the fierce and stor- 
 my passions which threatens us with!civil dissention — which distract 
 our social intercourse, which embitter the harmony of our domestic 
 circles, shall be banished from our bosoms, and only be remember- 
 ed as solemn and endu ing warnings for the future, is the fervent 
 grayer of your faithful and obedieut fellow citizen. 
 
 WM, DRAYTON. 
 
LbO'20 , 
 
p 
 

 m!lT°'''°^'^^ 
 
 °0" 896 349