UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA SPEECH EE. SIMMOIS, or EHODE ISLAND, IN REPLY TO 3fessrs. Bejitoji, Woodbury, and McDvffie, upon the Resolutions to post' pone the BUI introduced by Mr. McDuffie TO REDUCE THE DUTIES ON IMPORTS: Delivered in the U. S. Senate, March 27, 1S44. Mr. Simmons rose and said that the Senate had already, upon this matter, passed through a debate so full and so able, that he felt himself asking a great indulgence in aitenipting- to eiiggesi any further argument. The im- mediaie form of the qnesiion — the resohiiion reported by the Committee of Finance to postpone indefinitely thebill presented by the Senator from Soutlbi Carolina (Mr. SIcDuffie) as a revenue measure, and therefore beyond the ■competency of this body to originate — presents a serious difficulty. It cer- tainly implies, as the only legitimate matter of discussion, the question of our independent and primaiy )urisdiciion over the subject. But since others iiave not confined themselves to the resolutions, and have, upon the motion to postpone, based an argument of the merits of a bill, before we have yet settled whether or not we have the const iiuiional power to pass it, I propose to examine these intended changes in the existing Tariff, and the reasons offered in behalf of this reduction of duties. Before I proceed, however, I would call the attention of the honorable Senator from South Carolina (Mr. McDufi.'ie) to an expression of his, used in the midst of a tribute at once just and generous to an eminent statesman, not long since a member of this assembly. He said that there was, on the part of the friends of that Senator, (Mr. Clay, of Kentucky,) " in the pas- sage of the Tariff of 1S42, a foul and failiiless desertion of the provisions of the Coinpromise Aat." Now, as the Senator would not have used these expressions had he borne personal part in what took place on the occasion in question, I will succinct- ly recite for his information the fuels. In the earlier part of the ses.sion of 1842, the Senator from Kentucky, re- ferred to, introduced a series of resolutions, in one of which it was declared "that in the adjustment of the Tariff' (so as to raise a revenue of twenty- six millions) " the principles of the Compromise Act generally should be adhered to, and especially a maximmn rale of duty should be established, from which there ought to be as little departure as possible." During the Ndebate upon the subject thus broached, a distinguished citizen of South Ca- rolina, then a Senator here, (Mr. Cai.houn,) declared one of the main pro- - *' visiwisof the Compromise Act — that of laying duties on a home valuation^ instead of the foreign one — to be both unconstitutienal and impracticable. Yet this provision, at the enactment of that law, was announced to the Senator from Souih Carolina in question, by the Senator from Kentucky re- ferred to, and bj others, as an indispensable condition of the law, without ■which it would noi pass. Thus understood, that Senator acquiesced, and, voted for it. [Mr. McDuFFiE said ihat this was impossible, and tlierefore he could re- tract nothing.] Mr. S. resiwned. I content myself now by reasserting the fact, and refer to- every Senator who was then present for its correctness, and will again notice it when I consider the speech of the honorable Senator from South Carolina. I proceed to examine the arguments more recently made. The honorable Senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton) has, for the two last ' days, by the manner in which he treated this subject, invested it willi a new interest. Though expressing doubis as to the appropriateness of ihe time for a right adjustment of this question, yet he promised cordially to co-operate with his friends in their exertions to destroy the present law. If unsuccessful, lie would not (he said) be discouraged, but carry the question to the people. Stating the grounds which he meant to occupy, the honorable Senator said that, since the estnblishmeut of our Government, two systems of policy iiave been pursued.^ — the one beginning in 1791 and ending in 1 816; the otlier dating from this last period, and continuing till the present day. Of , these two periuda, ho eays ibe Tariff laws have been essentially different — that they were " framed with different views, and constitute opposite Sys- tems." He was (he said) for returHing to the old system, with but this/iwi- iation — that no duly should exceed some 30 or 33 per cent. He says : " Inr- j-etuming to this ground, or ratiier in remaining upon it, (for it has always ,l)eeti my doctrine,) I find myself standing upon the ground of the fiisl twenty-five years action of this Government, and by the side of the highesk Free Trade authorities which have since arisen." These two systems have, throughout the Senator's argument, been con- traated and characterized as the high duly and low duly systems. In examining the several positions taken by him against the Tariff Act of 1842, I need scarcely advert to their inconsistency with his own votes here. These, from his first taking his seat here (I believe) in 1821, down to his opposition to the law of 1842, have been uniformly given in favor of alt ihe high Tariffs he now so vehemently denounces. With his venerated .I'riend, General Jackson, he voted for the Tariff of 1824 ; with his present .leader, Mr. Van Bureii,he gave his voice for that of 1S2S — the Tariff which. ^gures among his " Free Trade authorities," under epithets of such pecu- liar detestation. He also supported that of 1832. He opposed the Com- jpromise Act of reduction and leconciliation, and that, too, when there was an .overflow in the Treasury. Though one might imagine that a man's " old oTounds," the " doctrines on which he has always stood," were to be found in his unvarying votes, yet the honorable Senator cleared up all this in hist second day's speech yesterday, by saying that he had gained something of svisdot^ by experience ; that, when he voted for the acts in question, he was ^deceived — " humbugged and bamboozled," (terms which my respect for him wotild not have allowed me to use,) were, I believe, his expiessions. In favor of what the honorable Senator now denounces as this system of .laigh duties, I find that my predecessors, the Kepreseniatives of the Stale I iiave the honor to represent, generally voted with him : — v/isely and patri- otically, it seems to me. But, whether or not it was wise to establish this system of protection, the question now is whether or not it is exihet right or wise to abandon and destroy it — together with the important branches of imsiness which have grown up under it. It is by exhibiting the exports of the couniiy from 1792 to 1808, which show a steady and rapid increase from 19 millions to 108, and by presenting tables of the flourishing state of the revenue from customs during the same period, iiud by contrasting these with other tables exhibiting the disastrous tesiilta of the high duty system, since 1816, to all interests except the manufacturing, tliat the Senaior from Missouri lias endeavored to sustain his proposition of the advaniayfes of low duties to revenue, and every thing else but manufactures. Certainly, I he Senator referred to the fact that, during his first period, the general war in Europe and our own neutrality made us for a time the car- riers of the world, and gave iq our trade, in particular, a very large business of iniporiing, for re exportation, great annual amounts of foreign goods and ;prodnciioiis, thus adding much to both our imports and exports, not without a solid gain to our revenue and great encouragement to our agriculture and ■commerce. But the Senator says he has found, upon comparison, that the amount of goods re exported is about the same for the earlier, as for the later period of nvenly-five years — that is, about $525,000,000 for each. He ihiniis, therefore, that it is of no consequence whether these are included in (he exports, or cast out of the account. In an aulhoriiy repeatedly quoted by the Senator, (the book of Mr. Tench Coxe,) I find the year 1808 spoken of as one of which the statistics marked « high degree of prosperity ; but he goes on to remind the Government that, while ihe exports had risen to an amount of §108,000,000, (the sum ex- hibited in the Senator's tables for that year,) but j?4S,000,000 of the amount were of our own productions; the rest (.$60,000,000) was formed of re-ex- ported foreign goods — exceeding the domestic by 25 per cent. Now, the Senaior has forgot to consider thai, during his first period, the reexportations of foreign merchandise often exceeded the amount of our expoits of domeslic produce, which would vitiate all his conclusions; that <.he proportion of our general exports formed by foreign goods re-exported, has loiaily changed, though the mere amount may be the same ; lliat a large part of that apparent prosperity of which he speaks, was thus a mere carry- ing-trade, only enjoyed from the disturbed state of the world abroad. Let him make these allowances; let him further recollect the larger, but tempo- rary market for breadstuffs, which the European wars of that time added to our commerce ; let him further reflect on the vast home commerce of the 8lates which has sprung up almost entirety during his second period, and he will certainly see how illusory is the course of reasoning which he has founded on his tables. I will substitute tables of our exports, which I have caused to be prepared. They exhibit, I think, clearly and fairly, the facts to which the Senator's argument should have applied. Table showing the vnlue of Exports frmn the United Stales. Year. Domestic. Foreign. Total. 1791 $19,fi6(),000 §539,156 $20,005,156 179-2 18,. 500,000 512,041 19,012,041 1793 19,000,000 1,753,098 20,753,098 1794 24,000,000 2,109,57-2 26, 109,. 572 1795 26,. 500, 000 6,526,233 33; 026, 233 1796 39,. 500, 000 8,489,472 47,989,472 1797 40,7fi4,097 26,300,000 67,064,097 1738 29,850,026 27,000,000 56,850,206 1799 28,5-27,097 33,000,000 61,527,097 1800 33, 14-2, 52-2 45,523,000 78,665,522 1801 31,840,903 39,130,877 70,971,780 1803 47,473,2114 46,642,721 94,115,925 1803 36,708,189 35,774,971 72,483,160 N04 42,205,961 13,594,072 55,809,033 ]8(js 41,467,477 36,231,597 77,699,074 1806 , 42,387,00-2 53,179,019 95,566,021 1807 41,253,7-27 60,283,236 101,536,963 1808 48,699,593 59,643,558 108,342,15" Table sliowing tht valtK of Exports from the United Statu. Year. Domestic. Foreign. Total. 1817 $68,313,500 $19,358,069 $87, 671,. 569 1818 73,854,437 19,426,696 93,281,133 1819 50,976,836 19,165,683 70,142,521 1820 51,683,640 18,008,029 69,691,669 1821 43,671,894 21,302,483 64,974,382 1822 49,874,185 22,286,202 72,160,387 1823 47,155,408 27,543,622 74,699,03U 1824 50,649,500 25,337,157 75,986,657 1825 66,944,745 32,590,643 99,535,388 1826 63,055,710 24,539,612 77,595,322 1827 58,921,691 23,403,136 82,324,827 1828 50,669,669 21.. '195, 017 72,264,686 1829 55,700,193 16,658,478 72,358,671 183U 59,462,029 - 14,387,479 73,849,508 1831 61,277,057 20,033,526 81,310,5;<3 1832 63,137,470 24,039,473 87,176,943 1833 70,317,698 19,822,735 90,140,433 1834 81,034,103 23,312,811 104,336,973 1835 101,189,082 20,504,495 121,693,577 1836 106,916,680 21,746,360 128,663,040 1837 95,564,414 21,854,962 117,419,376 183S 96,033,821 12,452,795 108,486,616 1839 103,533,891 17,494,525 121,028,416 1840 113,762,617 17,809,333 131,571,950 1641 106,382,722 15,469,081 121,851,803 1842 92,969,996 11,721,538 104,691,534 LeaTino- aside, then, as but little better than imaginary, those general deductions of every otlier sort which the Senator would found on his ta- bles, I will confine myself to the only point capable of being made posi- tive — the rate of duties, on our imports, during the two periods selected by the Senator. For this purpose, I have procured the following tables, show- ing the amount of foreign goods consumed, and the revenue collected in each period : - $1,966,342,238 605.651,700 Imports of foreign produce from 1791 to 1816 inclusive Export; of foreign produce, &c., from 1791 to 1816 inclusive Value of imports consumed from 1791 to 1816 inclusive ... 1,360,690,538 Total amount net revenue from imports from 1791 to 1816 inclusive . 264,947,256 Proportionate per centage of the whole amount received for duties oa the whole amount of imports consumed in tlie United States • . - Imports of foreign produce, &c., from 1817 to 1842 inclusive - Exports of foreign produce, &c., from 1817 to 1842 inclusive Value of imports consumed, &.C., from 1817 to 1842 inclusive Total amount net revenue from imports from 1817 to 1842 inclusive - Proportionate per centage of the whole amount received for duties on the whole amount consumed in the United States - - - - 25 7-: 19; per cent. - $2,481,548,884 496,560,087 - 1,984,988,797 507,994,558 10 per ct. These rales by no means show such a difference in the duties of the two periods as the Senator has supposed. He said that they were not^auch above one-third as high in the first twenty-five years as in (he last. [Here Mr. Bisnton and Mr. McDuffie asked whether (he amount of imports, as stated by Mr. S., did not include both the free and dutiable good.": ■* 1 Mr. Simmons resumed. Tlie tables show the entire imports. The ma- terials &om which the Senate's officer prepared them could furnish no ac- count of free g-oods and specie, imported and reexported before 1S16. To make a fair comparison, then, it was necessary to include these alike in the estimate for both periods ; and, being thus ii.cluded, a fair view of the com- parative rates is presented. Senators will peiceive, in this way, that, during the first twenty-five years, tke average of duties is about 19i per cent., and about 25.^ during the last — a difference of only about licerity five per cent, instead of Uro hundred. The duties upon all the imports of IS43, con- sumed in the country, was 2I.V per cent. Imports of foreign produce in llie year ending 30tli September, 1843 - §89,200,895 Exports of foreign produce, &o., lor the year ending 30tli September, 1843 - 9,568,781 Value of imports consumed in same period .... - 79,692,114 Net refenue from customs in the year ending 30th September, 1843 - - 17,106,35'i Per centage of duties on whole amount of imports consumed in U. S. in said year 21?, per cent. I have also caused to be ascertained the average rate of duty on goods imported, and not reexported, during the year 180S, which the Senator selected as an example of a flourishing commerce. The result is, that the duties collected in that year averaged a rate of above 37 per cent., as follows : Imports of foreign produce in 1808 ...... {56,990,000' Exports of foreign produce, &c., in 1808 ...... 12,997,414 Value of importsvconsumed in 1808 ...... 43,992,586 Total amount of net revenue from customs in 1808 .... 16,363,550 Proportionate per centage of the whole amount received for daties on the wliole amount of imports consumed in the JTnited States - - - -37 1-5 per ct. These fiicts in the history of our earlier revenue laws will correct the erroneous impressions concerning them. Heretofore, a vague idea has pre- vailed, and been spread by confident assertion, that our early rates of im- post were very light. With the rest of the world, the Senator has taken it for granted- Yet surely a little consideration of a few general facts might have taught us to distrust that impression. Then, as now, the means of carrying on the Government, and of redeeming the heavy national engage- ments under which it was set up, were derived almost entirely from imposts upon foreign goods ; the public domain yielded, in proportion, but. a slight income. Duties, in a word, were then quite as high upon many articles ■R'hich came in competition with the products of our industry as now. During both the Senator's peiiods, there were considerable fiuctuations in the amount of imports ; but greater during his first than his last. For this last fact, the embargo and the war sufficiently account. These inequalities — themselves a terrible scourge to business of every sort — are usually the fruit, Biid almost the only sure one, of frequent changes of the law. The orders for foreign goods will often vary greatly, even without a change of the law, in' expettation of one. The efiect of this discussion will be visibly inscribed' upon the. business of this year. The expectation of the embargo induced large itiipoitg In advance. Of such, the greater proportion seems to have been of articles paying a high duly. Hence the greater average of duties f»r that year. Some effect may also be attributable to the credits then allowed at the cusloivi '.ouses. But there were then many articles, coming in competititior tb ^''° domestic product!'^''''' upor '"bich verv ' ' 'h spe- 6 -r-tji£c (iaiies were imposed — much above the maximnm rates proposetl by i: J&js Senator — so that liis proposed limitation will not only cut down what KSistcalls the high duty system, but would have made very large reductions r 'mi i^'i'hat he entitles " the low duly system" — especially if he meant to apply Ms iimilatiou upen the foreign cost of articlea alone ; which, I need hardly ■ &M.,is a part of his plan of reductions. H^^ctv, if there is to be (as the Senator proposes) any discrimination be- jysad (lie best rate for mere revenue, and this (as he avows) for purposes - ^«f ;]?potection, nothing can be better ascertained among praciical men than ^•ftaithe ad valnrem method of levying duties is wholly inefficient for that ■vfj^ieet. This is made clear, not by the testimony of our manufacturers, ^jfeaiftlie memorials and the statements of our American in)porting merchants "■feErcmseives, olfered when »ve last had this subject under consideration. ff&ejCGnciir without hesitation in saying that there is no hope of enforcing ■ f&fc fair collection ®f duties, except by means of specific rates. .*■ jTOwder these, wJuch admit no evasion, business in its usu.al course will 'fe carried on by the American merchants, because of the advantages they •jpa;sess by their location. Chanjre the system, however, to that of esti- ssaXiKg ihe diuies upon a value which the foreign manufacturer may make amierely nominal one, and the native merchants are driven from the trade, •gKijS it is cast into the hands of the European manufacturer alone. If the saftisliant, known to be in a certain trade, (say of New York,) buys of him 6* Cfec fair or lowest market price of Manchester or Lyons, a commodity, Ifcis-Ktre to be met by the competition of him of whom he has bought, 5j3iMi «oirth\vith ships to the same quarter the same article, or even one a •j'Sa^c-iaferior while it seems the same. Taught by the sale he has just «• "i^fiiiSe, he is sure of a vent for his goods ; instead of the real value, tested i%y&iifi prioe to the merchant, he enters his stuff's or other things at his own -ts^jfmi&ie of cost, and is thus able entirely to undersell his competitors, be- "i'caaise .paying a less duty. The effect is just the same upon any manufac- sstuing competitor of this country, whom he may meet in onr markets. !ESim, though to appearance protected by high duties, he can often undersell, 'iiurwigh this means of evading them ; or, when pressed for money or bur- ffe«eJiJ with an overstock of a particular commodity, he can force it upon '-, Mtr market, realize upon what otherwise he was not likely to sell, and com- ■;5}»Baaate his particular loss (if there is any) by breaking down the less opu- vlflEt producer in this country, and so securing himself a monopoly of the Bifijpply.] .ffc short, we might just as.well permit foreigners to fix the rate of duty - i-wfe+A they are to pay, as to fix the value upon which that duty is to be k.^ied. The latter method leaves them, not less than the former, masters of mar Tariff, and of the imposts they are to pay. There will be no complaint Itsim that quarter ; if we take either of these methods of laying duties, prac- toca.Hy, they will not care which we give them. iiCl me consider another of the Senator's propositions. He says that it ..wriil j»oi do to go before the people with the isstie presented in the bill of '"^Ve Senator from South Carolina, which reduces all duties to one rate; Vre musi, hi; avers, bo discrimination. He proposes, therefore — \st. To put the highest rates of duty upon articles of luxury, and to per- those of common necessity to come in either at very low duties, or en- \free, according as they are more or less indispensable. To place the maximum duties on such articles from abroad as come Tipetition with like ones produced in this country, ired the facility with which the Senator from South Carolina, nod- ding his assent to the former of these propositions, acqifieseed in aprin CHrrence in this object of the Free Trade men, he will find it not ss-s-ss';*.. to satisfy the aniiProteciionists, and will be disappointed of the harrEJ-^avni." on which he congralulated himself. The Senator from South Carolina nodded no assent to the Senator's setrsasiKi' proposition. This omission conveys a distinct negative. Tlie fiist pi'ssj'if- sition is more desiruciive to protection than the hoiizonial Tariff propajafc and a greater concession to Free Trade ilieorists; the second is direc^jtw war with all their opinions. It is an attempt to iuiite opposite systerais'rjasrt'' hostile piinciples — the Senator's old acts with his new opinions; lt<8? cannot prevail at once, or be parcel of the same law. The Sena;ior «ja!Bwt:»»s at once be a Free Trade man, and encourage or protect ihe labor ofT iiii.iir'' own countrymen. It is no part of the policy which the Senator from Sfwatfe Carolina proposes to protect Home Industry ; he knows that when feats^- sents to any such proposition, he abandons ihe whole system of VisfT-Tsdm If he yields lo the first proposition, he will certainly expect (as .*le ji^iiaa^ may) that the Senator from Missouri should yield up the second,- sss kaismr sistent with the opinions they avow in common. Besides, the Senators first proposition covers the whole ground, andleaBtsjs. nothing for the second. Let him please examine the former rule ; he ^lais*- poses to divide all commodities into two great classes — luxuries and neaae* saries! On all luxuries, he proposes a duty of 3.3 per cent. And, as- :ijijs& average rate is to be 20 per cent., he must reduce the rate upon nscessii-' ries to 7 per cent, lo accomplish it. The Senator will see tliat this is a proper adjustment of dmies unv 'Mv ground he has hijiiself taken, and by all his own highest Free Tssi&-^aeS'- 8 thorities. This classification, and (hese rales of diUy, are according to his own declaration of principles, sanctioned by the assent of the authorities to which he looks — his Free Trade associates. Can he, after this, set npan opposite declaration lo which tliey liave not assented, and an incompatible system that must entirely and at once overthrow that lo which they have agreed ? It seems to me demonstraied, that his two propositions cannot be embraced in the same system, and that he has committed himself to one which has been accepted, at war with all his piofessioiis in favor of Ameri- can industry, and destruciive of the prosperity of all our laboring classes. I think, therefore, the Senator will have to review all his present positions, and resume those which have signalized the auspicious course of nearly his entire public life. But let us now consider whether, even if the Senator is right and I am wrong as to our comnjercial policy during his fir^t period, it by any means follows that what was, or should have been, our system then, is to be wisely adopted as our system now ? Has there been no change of circumstances? At the beginning of the Senator's fiist period, we had just einetged, with exhausted resources, from a contest in which capital and nearly all the arts which it sets in motion, had been almost swallowed up. With peace, the establishment of public credit and an efficient Government, Game war through- out Europe. Our reviving industry and prosperity w-ere at once nourished by every thing that could make them thrive. Our neutral commerce, wel- come everywhere, spread its sails on every sea. Our agricultural produc- tions found on all sides the best markets ; our shipping found ample employ- ment, not only in wafting our own crops and their rich returns, but in trans- porting those of other countries ; and we became, for the time, in some sort, the carriers, the husbandtnen, and the merchants of the world. Dining a part of this time, Europe had two millions of men in arms, with an attend- -ant multitude probably at least equal, all not merely withdrawn from the work of production, but busy in mutually desolating the fields they had ceased to till, and destroying what they had before produced. This vast amount of labor diverted from the arts of peace there, not only gave us agri- cultural markets, but increased largely the cost of European production, and Hindering competition with the growing arts and employments in this coun- try, left a less necessity that our Government should protect, by legislation, ©ur industrial pursuits : — nevertheless, that Government was vigilant, as we have seen, to encourage their progress, by the imposition of discrimintiting duties in their favor. Such was the stale of things up lo our war with England. But after the peace of Europe, and our own \yith Britain in 1S15, another order of things aiose. Tne disbanded armies of the world returned to industrious pursuits; instead of consumers, they becatue producers. They ceased at once not only to give full employment to our agricultural larbor, to afioid us markets abroad, but seized upon our own for their manufactures. Such was ihe position into which the return of a general peace threw our trade. The country was at once forced to see that foreign markets would be closed to its agricultural productions; and the Government hastened to adopt a policy which, by fostering our own mechanic arts, should create <» diversity of pursuits, and secure a home market for them. This policy, with modifiratioiis, has now been that of the country for above twenty-five years. Under it, the manufactures of the United States have increased (ac- cording to the late excellent book of Professor Tucker, drawn from our suc- cessive censuses) from less than forty millions in 1820, to over four hundred juillioas in anoual production, household niauufactures excluded. The raw 9 materials consumed in 1S40 are estimated, by the same author, at one hun- dred and sixty-four millions ; while lie •ompnies the labor and the use of capital at two himdred and thirty-nine or twg hundred and forty millions. Adding this large amount of raw materials to the value of the agricultural productions consumed by the laborers employed in manufactures, (say one hundred and forty millions,) and you have the basis for a calculation of the value of the manufacturing system to the farmer in the annual consmnp- tion of not less llian $31)0,000,000. Has the policy, then, not accomplished its object? The Senator from Missouri thinks not, and will have it that it has destroyed our foreign trade, and, so acting, deeply injured our agricul- ture. I have already meniionetl that he supports this opinion by ciiing our exports in 1S08; hut that the forty-eight mdlions of our own productions that year shipped abroad, (not his sum of one hundred and eight millions,) forms the sole ground for his conclusion. Comparing this fact of 1808 with the last year of the census, and considering the vast augmentation of home business of every sort, I do not find such a state of things as much alarms me, or threatens our foreign commerce with desiriiclion, and our agriculiure with ruin — crippled as commerce has been of late by treaties for Free Trade in carrying. The Senatoi's calculation of course took into view the difference of pop- ulation now and in ISOS. At that lime we numbered seven millions. If, then, seven millions of -people produce exports of foriy-eight millions, what should seventeen millions of people produce? The answer is, one hundred and sixteen millions. Well, I find that the exports of our own productions, in 1840, was above one hundred and thirteen millions, or within less than 3 per cent, of the required proportion to 180S : so that onr foreign trade, m spite of the singular advantages it then enjoyed, having then an open and now a reslricted foreign market, has not declined. Our agriculture has a large additional market for both provisions and raw materials, near four hun- dred millions of which (or eight limes as much as then went abroad) is now exported and consumed at home in manufactures — so that, upon the whole,- we have had, instead of the ruin of which the Senator spoke, the most as- tonishing increase ever witnessed in an extensive branch of a nation's suc- cessful induslry. Looking back, (hen, are we to say, as a deliberate matter of statesman- ship, that all thisshoulil have then been renounced, and musi now be aban- doned, in order to nipply Europe with food in time of peace — we, mean- time, remaining dependant on her for clothing, for muliiindes of other ne- cessaries, and even for the instruments of husbandry ? And are we now to abolish all the present forms of our prosperous industry, in the hope that the European Stales will abandon their restrictive policy, in order to give a market lo our breadstuffs and provisions, or that ihey will again get up a per- manent general war, expressly to oblige us? To urge us lo base our legis- lation upon any hopes of this sort, is a visionary rashness, such as no coun- try ever yet entertained, and surely no sober legislative body ever yet set about. Cerlainly, gentlemen talk largely of what Europe is doing or means to do, to favor the interchange of her manufactures for our fooa ; but had we not better wait to see the efTect, instead of the expectation, before we ruin such large interests and subvert all our present well-being, by this flight of the boldest nalional anticipation that evei was beheld? Sir, all this idea of entirely remodelling our laws and employments, in order to make us de- penilanl on foreign legislation — all ibis theory of renouncing a success and a prosperity besiowfed by our own will, in order lo wait for a reform in the coiTimercial systeiti of the world, seems to me the most quixotic, the most 10 -iif.«»erical thought tliat ever entered the heads of grave statesmen, or was j^Tsfloated to the consideraiion of a cj^liberalive assembly like this. iPflth reasonable to expect that any independent nation should adopt a po- iirii7*Kaking it dependant upon others tor I he cointnodilies indispensable for iini&rst necessities, food and clolhing? Would notsuch a course be directly ?t««5Bst its existence as a separate people — the laws of nationality itself? C^o^tld two separate nations be found whose interests coalesced to such a «Scv<;ee as warranted an ariangeineiU by which one should supply all the .9T««-d.and the other all the I'loihing for both, wliat would this be bat a case in ■«viKcis ilieir mutual interests would be much better subserved by their at •«*»oe.un!iinij uiidcr a coininon goveriunent, rather tlian by preserving to each o;5»8{?araie will (hat only endangered their common happiness ? Who can .fKHf ttitjd that it would be wise for the governments of any two nations to . fi;4 *;pt a policy by which the comfort and the very lives of their people sfevjsid depend upon the precarious tenure of a commercial treaty, the rup- ^MMS-at' whi>c;h, by any casual quarrel, would expose the people of the one jf>*ft»s£kcn place in the material and the manufactured article. But they 11 who had cnpilal to do lliis, could have made as much, or more, bj' purcfaa©-- ing, and lioldiiig for a rise in tlie market, coitori — an article which baa- sxi- vanced more than any oilier important one thai I know. In a word, nil 3«je&c operations arelo be ^et down as casual merely, and speculative. Such R:«gi",.. at limes, repair the losses, or add to the profits of manufacturings or of e^kau sorts of business, but form no proper pari of it, or of the estimate of its- ^ot»- fils, at whichyeu can only arrive by ascertaining what has been the eeet aS producing an article, and what its market value at the time, so as- to 3?» whether the result is a gain or a loss. But one other reason uiged by the Senator from Missouri for the fisssfiiv- mental change wliich he proposes requires an answer, which is, thai 2®«- tux imposed upon consumers by the present system is highly burdeiiserae, I cannot, however, reconcile with this assumption the tables produGes^ Ity the Senator himself. The«e show that, in his model year of 1808, tJJsgse- was collected, under what lie calls the low duty system, from seven miE&cio- of people, a revenue of above .i* 16, 000, 000, or above '^2^ per capita. Mnva^ iher of his tables shows that, under this high duly system, there wa.s fev.fsrj^ . in 1840, from seventeen millions of people, not quite ^\ 1,000,000, or a lmY»c less than 67 cenis per capita. Under the present law he says we have, £4s6- nng the last year, scarcely been able to collect .^17,500,000, or a ta.^s H^iaa;-- eveiy man of about one dollar. The Senator himself, very sirawgely biitTssi^ . truly, said that, in proportion lo population, there should have been cotfesta^ ' .i)ii46,000,000. If the amount collected did not exceed two-fifths of thc-l-ai**- dens of his own fortunate system in its favorite year, I see not how he caaw call this oppressive ; aud, at any event, I do not think that the consurfjers^^ who paid but §17,500,000 instead of ^'46,000,000, have any reason fo>cs**> plain. Tliis year, when a revenue sulhcienl to defray all the expensa&' »6V the Government shall have been collected, the ta.x, in proportion to pojuQ&t- lion, will otdy be about half of what it was in the pattern year of the s^s^ (em to which the Senator would have us leturn. Sensitive as the people of this country very properly are in the mt»ir*EJ^' (axes, it is important thai this part of the subject should be explaine{f,-3>aL«i!- not he allowed to take that piominence as a political issue, which I-9*a- Trade Senators wish lo give it. I must therefore proceed lo examine se^jff of theaiguments and allegations of the Senator from New Hampshipt-, C&.- VVooDBURY,) who has attempted, in his very labored effort during the etvsliRS part of this debate, to prove that this TarifiT of 1842 imposes burdeiK a^nK- llie people more oppressive than any preceding one. Arguing lo tliis effect, and urging the inunediate overthrow of the pres^afc- system, he says he has high authority for asking this of the very frierwS^F liK (he present act. I will give his own language: " Mr. Clay, in a letter written last September, says, concerning the tarifTof ld42; 'If Jtterar be any excesses or defects in it, (of wliicli I have not the means of judging,) they oug^S t».ft«- correcled.' ISiit as to the tariff of 1828, he was vdl ucquuinkd vi\{.\\ 'the oii'ci(tnslo7i«s'.eiii)jfc were similar. It originated in importunities from only one small class in society; wa* ps.TiiaAJ and unequal in its burdens for then- benefiLs ; and tended to exact tribute fro n tlie rest Ji 2«ifr tain them alone. Did any gentleman who had not examined tlie details critically, deercj tSi»>abi mere opinion founded on loose generalities, and consider it impossible that, after the Sriai'in^l- fects which iloweil from the high tariff of 1828, a majority of any Congress could pmeeati' I'A ■ renew several duties quite as high, and indeed much higher? Let him, then, look to tfeo-.-w* corded facts in our own statute books, from which a tabular statement has been compifeei^cl^ me, a few items in which I will take the liberty to read." 12 The Sena(or's (able referred to is the following : Several articles xeliith pay a higher duty by the tariff of ]842 than that of 1828. Articles. 18^8. 1842. Boots, iUk - _ . _ 30 cents per pair 40 cents per pair. Coal— 6 cents per bushel. at 28 bushels per ton _ _ 1.48) 1.30 S at 25 net _ _ _ §1 50. Cordage, tarred - - - 4 cents per pound 4i cents per pound. Cottons" - - - 80 per cent. 100 per cent. Cotton-bagging < 3J cents per square ) \ yard. S 4 cents per square yd. and 5 if gunny cloth. Cotton laces - - - 121 per cent 20 per cent. (flass, some kinds - - - 400 per cent. 500 or more. Glass bottles - - - §2 to §3 per dozen m to 4. ■Molasses - - - 5 cents per gallon ' 51 on weight. Saddlery - - - - 25 per cent. 30 per cent. Shoes, -ome - - - 25 cents per pair 30 per cent. Silks, some - - - - 20 per cent. 30 to GO per cent. Steel, per cwt. - - - 81 50 - $2 50. Twine Ware, crockery - - - 5 cents per pound 6 cents per pound. - - - 20 per cent. 30 per cent. Ware, japanned - - - 25 per cent. 30 per cent. Wollcns, some - - - 50 per cent. - - 40 to 67 per cent. Wollens, camlets ' — - 15 per cent. 20 per cent. • On one kind of cottons, such as printed handkerchiefs, the duty is more than a hundred per cent, higher than in 1828; and many of the specific duties in this table would be much more above those in 1828, if reduced to a scale ad valorem. The Senator from JNew Hampshire proceeded to say : "Here are eighteen distinct articles, each of which is higher, under the present Tariff, than that of 1838. Among them are the important items of cordage, cotton cloths, cotton bagging, some kinds of glass, iron, shoes and boots, with molasses, crockeryware, and wollens." After a variety of conimenis, and a declaration that among the articles which paid lower duties by the bill of 1828 than in that of 1842 are found the great necessaries of life, equally used " in the log cabin and tiie palace," professing to have shown thai the former bill was far less burdensome than the latter, he asks: " Can any one say that if the act of 1S2S was high or < Best English sheeting (theciieapest by weight in the list, being ^ 2g yards to the pound) - - - - . 73 •< " " Best American (Laurence) - - - - - G^ " " " {'These are the same weight. The English, by weight, is \9h cts. per lb. — the American 16^.] Thus, in every comparison, the American goods are cheaper here than the English in Manchester, and all know tliey are made of better cotton. It is also noioiious that more of such goods are produced than consumed in this country, and that, of course, we rely upon foreign markets for sales of this excess. It is, therefore, certain that home competition will restrain prices within the rates of the principal markets of the world. This fact disposes of the Senator's theory that the duty i.s added to the price and be- comes a bounty to the manufacturer, aiid proves conclusively that tlie pro- tective policy is safe and wise, both for consuiriers and producers. These facts, when advanced to prove these positions, are denied by our opponents, and yet, in the next breath, ihey urge them to prove that protection is un- necessary. The Senator from South Carolina treats the argunient as ridi- culous whieh tissumes that protection is needed for any other purpose tJian to increase prices. But the honorable Senator mistakes both the reasoning and the fact, when he says, '• They gravely tell us that a revenue duly of "20 percent., which will certainly enhance prices 20 per cent., will not en^ able them to maintain a competition with the rival manufacturer." So far from telling the Senator that such a duty will enhance the price, we i>tter- ly deny it, and refer to the Senator's own tables for proof. But we do ■say that such a duty assessed upon the foreign invoice is inadeqate to ilie object for which it is needed — to secure, what is indispensable to suc- cesss, our market for ourselves, against the danger of foreign revulsions, combinations, or other contingencies. It is admitted, that, when there is a demand for goods at remunerating prices throughout all the pioducing countries for cxjiort, we should enjoy our mar-ket for the substantial fabrics with that rate of duty, or perhaps none. But we need our own market most when na such demand exists ; and our ability to sustain our business at such time, depends entirely upon its possession. For the precise time when foreigners would resort to it to rid themselves of their surplus, would be that when we ate burthened with a surplus of our own. If, at such times, foreign goods arc not excluded, producing less will afford no relief, because the market would still be oveistocked from abroad. In such re- vulsions, prices here is a secondary thought with foreigners, their maiir object being to relieve their own markets, and thu.s tuainiain their prices at home, where the great amount of their productions are sold. So that reducing prices here, under such circumstances, will not exclude foreign goods — one decline must succeed another, until proprietors are utterly tu- rned, or work in our mills is suspended — a disastrous alternative, but for which there is no lemedy. Exposed to such interruptions, the cost of production is increased, for 19 labor can be afforded lowest where employrnent is steady. Neither calcu- lation nor skill can insure success in a business subject to the revulsions which would be incident to this, should protection be witlidrawn. The same series of facis applies to the Senator's posiiion, that, if the cotion-growing States were remitted to their natural right to trade in the best market, they could exchange iheir labor (or its products) at much greater advantage with England. His tables disprove it. But to show, besides, that there are orrent advantages in a domestic interchange, I will give a slalement of the results of an exchange of one hundred bales of cot- ton in eac-h coOntry for heavy sheetings — tlie cheapest article in his long list, substance considered : Comparative Statement of the effect of e.vchtin^ng one fnnidred bales of cotton for brctcn sheetings in England and the United States, at the ruling prices in both countries for sheetings one year ago, as quoted in Mr. M:Duffie's tables, and for fair cotton eis quoted in Liverpool and .iinerican price cur- rend at the same time. Amount of sales in Liverpool of 100 bales of cotton - - - - 42,000 lbs. Draft 1 pound per bale, is 100 pounds _ _ _ _ lOO Tare 4 pounds per cwt. on 375 cwt. is - - - - 1,500 1,600 40,400 lbs. At 4Bd. per pound— 8; cents - - - - - - $3,535 00 Charges in the United States and Liverpool : Bagging, twine, mending, and marking, - Wharfage, g4 ; cartage, $10 ; storage, J8 Fire insurance, $3.81 ; postage, &c., $3.50 Mariiie insurance, I per cent, on jji3,578.81 - Policy ______ Dock dues, =f 4 6 ; town dues, 16s. 8d.— ^4 17 2 - Duty 35d. per cwt. on36Ucwt. 2qr. 24lb. - Cartage, porterage, and weighing, .f3 14 1 - Canvass, twine, and mending, «t'2 9 - - - Warehouse rent, Id. per week for 12 weeks, .^5 Postages and small charges, 10s. 6d. - Brokerage, Jd. per cent. ; insurance, id. per cent. ; 3 mos. 10 ds. interest discount i;d.— 1 'd. on .*7°31 9 2 is .f 13 16 I Freight, at id. per lb., on 40,41)0 lbs. is =f84 3 4 Five per cent, primage on freight, ^'4 4 2- Commission and guaranty, 3 percent, on ,£736 9 2 is .£22 1 IQi Three mouihs' mterest on cash charges, $974.70 - - 14 62 1,023 86 Net amount of proceeds, in Liverpool, of 100 bales cotton _ _ _ J2,5H 14 This amount invested in best stout English sheetmg, as quoted in Mr. McDuf- fie's tables, at 3jd.— 7; cents— per yard, is 30,859 yards - $2,391 57 Commission for purchasing, Height from Manchester to Liver- pool, dock dues, &c., 5 per cent. _ _ - - 119 57 2,511 14 _ $14 50 - 22 00 _ 7 31 _ 35 79 - 1 25- -$80 85 _ 23 32 _ 252 50 _ 17 78 _ 11 76 - 24 00 2 52 66 26 404 00 20 20 Il 106 05 _ 14 62 The proceeds of 100 bales of cotton, invested in sheeting lor planter's account, amounting as above to _------ SOjS.W yds. Deduct amount for freight, insurance, interest on the goods during voyage from Manchester to the United Slates; also, interest on cotton to Liverpool, and time it remained u-fsold there, and other charges of importation — 10 per ct. 3,086 yds. Quantity of sheetings returned to the planter - - _ - _ 27.733 yds. Proceeds of the same quantity of cotton sold in the U. S. and invested in sheetings : lOObalesofcotlon— 42,000 pounds— at 6| cents, is _ - - _ $2,730 00' Bill of 43,750 yards of sheeting, at 6 1 ceniis, is - - $2,843 75 Deduct 8 months' interest for cash - - - - 113 75 2,730 00 Result. ■ The one hundred bales of cotton pays for 43,750 yards of sheetings — cotton sold and sheetings bought in the United States. The same cotton pays for 27,773 yards of sheetings — cotton sold and sheetings bought in Eng- land ; or, in other words, it is 57 per cent, in favor of the American trade, if the goods arc imported free. It thus appears that the planter can get for hi« one hundred bales of cot- ton, in this couniry, a much larger amount (57 per cent, more) of equal goods than in England, without duly. 20 To see how it would nftect the planter and the country, if the trade were increased as the Senator proposes, foreigners made its agents in every thing to aid them to purchase our cotton, and our manufactures abolished, I will consider the whole cotton crop sold in England, the proceeds con- vertad into cotton goods for our consumption, and these imported free of duty in this country, and also at his proposed duty of 20 per cent. This I illustrate by an example of one hundred bales, and also by one embracing a crop of two millions of bales : Salts of one hundred hales of cotton in Liverpool, at prices of February 3, 1844, ond proceeds invested in best Englisk sheeting at the English prices, 05 per tables ofJ\Ir. McDtiffie, of Jan. 31, 1843, and sold at the prices of last spring, (18-13,) also per tables of Mr. McDuffie, loith an addition of 25 per cent, for the adrance in price of such goods during the past year. SALES OF 100 DALES COTTON. 100 bales of cotton -------- 42,000 lbs. Draft, lib. per bale, lOOlbs; tare, 41b5. percwt. on 375cwt., 1,500 - - 1,600 lbs. 4U,4U0 lbs. At 5i^d the 100 bales of cotton would have net but $1,799 .59 ; and it would have produced 132 per cent more, if sold in this country ai prices in New York at the s;une time, (Feb, :j, 1844,) dsducting one cent per pound for charges for freight from Southern ports, commission, &c. 21 StalemtJil nf the account of tirn million boles of cotton sold in Liverpool and the proceeds invested ?n best En'^lish sheeting, (that bein^ the cheapest article according to sitbstance,) and the sheeting sold in the United States for acco^mt of planters. ■2,000,000 bales, 420 pounds each ------ 840,000,000 lb». Draft, 1 pound per bale ----- 2,000,000 lbs. Tare, 4 pounds per cwt. on 7,500,000 cwt. - - - 30,000,000 lbs. — 32,000,000 lbs. 808,000,000 lbs. At 5jd.=ll; cents per pound, is ------ $92,920,00000 Deduct charges in U. States and Liverpool, as per statement No. 1, annexed 20,477,200 00 872,442,800 0« Purchase of sheeting : Invested in English sheeting at prices of 1843, as per Mr. McDuffie's table, with an advance of 25 per cent for rise since — 733,133,966 jards of sheet- ing, called in England "stouts or domestics," weighing 2i yards to the pound, at 3jd,=7J cents per yard, is - - - $56,817,882 36 Commission for purchasing, freight from Manehester to Li- verpool, dock duty, &c., 2 per cent. - - - 1,136,357 64 $57,954,240 00 Add 25 per cent, for advance in price in English market since January, 1843 ------ 14,488,560 00 — 72,442,800 00 Sales of sheeting in the United Slates. 733,133,966 yds. (at the same price of American, and of same quality, weighing 2^ yards to the pound, Laurence C, as quoted in Mr. McDuffie's tables for spring prices of 1843,) at 6^ cents per yard -------- $47,653,707 79 Add 2 cents per yard on 733,133,966 yards, for rise since January, 1843, as per Mr. McDuflie's table ------ 14,662,679 32 $62,310,387 09 Charges : Expenses of importation, Ih per cent, on $72,442,800, cost on ship board, is -_-"---- $5,433,210 00 Labor, cartage, storage, advertising, insurance against fire, 1 per cent. -._--- 623,163 87 Interest 9 months, (sold on 8 months' credit one month after receipt,) 4' percent, on $59,200,567 64 - - - 2,664,025 54 Commission and guaranty on gross sales, 5 per cent on $62,- 316,387 09 ------ 3,115,81945—11,836,31886 Net proceeds, without duty ------ $.50,480,168 23 With a duty of 20 per cent, on foreign cost, $72,442,800, is - - 14,408,560 00 $35,991,608 23 Explanation of the result of this impolitic routine of business : Paid to English manufacturers for goods more than the same article could be purchased in thii country --------- $10,126,412 91 Expenses paid on importing and selling the goods - - - - 11,836,218 86 Loss to planters without duty ------ $21,962,63177 Duty paid in this country, 20 per cent. ----- 14,488 560 00 Loss with 20 per cent, duty ------ $36,451,19177 To have sold the cotton in the United States for cash at 9J cents, the price of Feb. 3, 1844, it would have netted $46,268,-398 more, or 130 per cent, than if exchanged for coarse sheeting in England and sold m this country at prices of Jan. 1843, with two cents a yard addition for rise since. The consumption of the United States of cotton goods requires, say three-sixths coarse sheeting, drillmg, &c., two-sixths prints, and one-sixth bleached shirting, &c. If such goods, and in these proportions, had been im|.orted, (instead of all coarse sheetings,) the two million bales of cotton would have netted $37,474,728 histead of $35,991,608, a difference of $1,483,120, or about 4 per cent. more. Since Feb. 3, 1844, the time when the estimates were made of the price of cotton in both countries, it has receded U cents per pound. If we estimate at present prices for the crop, it would yield in the I'nited States $69.36l),00il. As the return in cotton goods of the most favo- rable descriptions (brown sheeting, prints, and bleached shirting) for the crop sold in Europe, yields $37,474, 728, the difference between selling and investing in England, and selling here, -would be but $31,885,272, or about 85 per cent, more, by selling in the United States. 22 Let us contrast the effect of this foreign plan, as presented in the foregoing table, with the result of ihe American system of trade and commerce upon the same crop of cotton. Of a crop of 2,000.(100 bales, say \ is consumed in this country, and J in foreign countries : 500,000 bales, 210,000,000 pounds, worth in the Northern markets February 1, 1844, at )0J cents -------- §22,375,000 Expenses : Freights and shipments, coastwise, secured bylaw to Americans, and labor, &c., at one cent per ponnd _----_- 2,100,000 In Southern ports — for planters _ . - _ 20,275,000 1,500,000 bales sent to foreign countries, and sold at the same prices at which itruled, Feb'ry 3, 1841, 5i'd.=l|! cents on 606.0(1(1,(100, is gBU, 690,000 Paid American ship owners, merchants, &c., for freight and commission _ _ - _ ^10,114,800 Paid foreign duties, dock dues, &c. - - 5,243,100 — 15,357,900 — 54,339,100 Net amount to planters for crop --___- 71,607,100 Deduct amount of same crop received when disposed of upon foreign system 37,474,728 Ditfercnce in favor of planters of the American over the foreign system $37,132,372 Let us present the effect upon the whole country. The 1,500,000 bales sold m Europe, including freight, &c., paid (o Americans, (if invested,) in such merchandise as is required in the United States, will sell for enough to pay cost and charges, as follows : Sales of cotton abroad - _ _ _ _ $69,690,000 Less amount paid foreigners, duties, dock dues, &c. - - 5,243,100 — $64,446,900 Add charges abroad for purcliasing, 2 per cent. - _ _ - 1,288,936 6.5,735,836 Add.freight and charges to United States, 7; per cent. _ _ _ 4,930,187 $70,606,623 Of this amount, say 3 are dutiable goods, at 30 per cent, on $47,111,032, is - 14,133,321 84,799,947 Interest and profit and small charges, 10 per cent. _ _ _ _ 8,479,994 The value of the goods in the United States - - - _ 93,279. 941 Of which there would be to pay planters for net sales abroad - - 51,332,100 38,956,841 Deduct for charges in England - _ _ _ _ 1,288,93& Leaving to distribute between the Government, ship owners, laborers, merchants, &c. ------ - $37,767,905 The 500,000 bales, manufactured in this country, would produce three times the value of the raw cotton ---___ $67,125,000 To pay planters in Southern shipping ports ----- 20,275,000 Leaving to distribute amongst laborers, mechanics, manufacturers, mer- chants, ship owners, and farmers ----- $46,8.')0,00O The entire value of the cotton crop, according to the American system, to wit : 500,00(1 bales manufactured ------ $67,125,000 1,500,000 bales shipped abroad, freights, duties, &c. - - - - 93,279,941 Of which the cotton planter would receive for sales in the U. States - - - - - $20,275,(1110 Sales in foreign countries - _ - 54,323,100 160,404,941 $74,593,100 The merchants, manufacturers, mechanics, ship owners, farm- ers, and laborers, for that part manufactured in this coun- try ----- $46800,000 For that part shipped abroad $37,767,905 Foreigners - - - 1,288,936 38,056,841 85,806,841 — 160,404.941 23 By American system, ) i74_598,i00— For other Americans, ^4,5J7,905— Total, 3159,116,005 ^ISrcceivT' \ 37,474,428-For other Americans, 1,463,163-Total, 38,937,591 Difference in favor of) American system [ $.37 123,B7a — Diff. to other do. g33.n54,74-2— Total, $120.178,414 to planters ) = If business had been encouraged, so that the increase of manufactures had kepi pace with the produciion of cotton, we would now manufacture nearly or quite the whole crop, and produce an annual amount of $268,500,000 of these manufactures. This business would not only have secured a certain market for our crop of raw cot- ton, but would have created a demand for agricultural productions for double the amount of all which we now export to all nations. Such would be the comparative results of the change of system which the Senator proposes. They agree with all the known rules of practical economy, whether itidi- vidual or national. He who commits his estate to the hands of agents, soon finds it a waste; and the community that abandons its most active occupations, commerce and manufactures, to foreign hands, will find the exhaustion equally rapid and certain. The accounts which I have e.xhibiied to show the charges upon cotton, are taken from a book published by J. F. Entz, as a guide to shippers of cotton. No doubt of their practical correctness can well be entertained. These details show a result even more strikingly disastrous than I had expected, as to this foreigner system and its individual and national consequences. Vet are the effects in contormity with what sound reasoning might teach us to expect. The prac- tical consequences would be even worse than those here shown; because the accounts are drawn upon the supposition that prices, even under so great a change of trade, would remain as they are ; while it is almost certain that they would alter much to our disadvantage. The idea of such a system and such a change of trade, is contrary not only to all sound argument, but all sober national policy. The Senator wishes to reduce the price of manufactures, and to raise that of cotton. To do this, he would buy all of England that she may buy of the South. He hopes to succeed by yielding the control of both markets, to a power whose interest it is ■to reduce the price of cotton, and raise that of goods. Could we, by destroying the consumption in this country, add as much to that abroad, we should but centralize the trade in a narrower market ; perhaps that of Eng- land only, where half the crop is already worked up, and where combinations to break down the price are already not only frequent, but generally effectual. I ask the re- presentatives of the cotton-growing Stales, whether they themselves would not bail (even without any increased consumption) the rise in Europe of another market, capa- ble of taking as much as we ourselves consume — more than one-fifth the crop? As much as that change would advantage the price, in breaking up the dependance on a single great market, and the frequent combination of great dealers there, so much must a domestic market profit us, with the addition of its greater regularity, the lessened expense of sale, and the retention in the country of freight, commissions, and all that is left abroad, in expenses To the Senator's other supposition, that such a change would reduce the currency, I readily assent. It would, as he argues, drain us of coin, and thus bring down prices in general, and the wages of labar in this country in particular. We do not disagree in this, nor in the main, as to the influence of currency upon the rate of labor ; but we differ as to what a nation has to desire in this respect. 'I'he Free 'I'mde men wish to see low wages ; I am equally convinced that it is to the interest of this country to have them high. Let us, however, e,xamine the question of that increase of the currency which we agree results from an adequate system of protection, in its influence on the price of cotton. The growers of that great staple (the Senator contends) get no more here, but abroad less, for their cotton, in consequence of the enlargement of the circulation; while for wha ever they buy, they musl pay dearer, in consequence of that cause. Now, we know that there has been a very considerable inciease in the amount of our currency since the present law took effect: what has been the result as to the price of cotton? Among our many productions, all of which have been favorably affected, there is not one of importance that has risen moie than cotton. Indeed, this was to be expected ; for nothing hail suffered more from the crippled state of our currency. Last year, about the coming forward of the crop for sale, there was a very severe pressure in the money affairs of New Orleans and Mobile — the two main cotloa raarkels. In 24 the former, specie payments had just been resumed ; to sustain these, the banlcs of course denied the usual facilities of business, and drafts on New York fell to 7 or 8 per cent, discount. In Mobile, there was a still worse state of things. I recollect sug- gesting at the time to an Alabama Senator, that one of the main causes of the depres- sion in the price of their staple was the weakness and confusion of their currency. The largeness of the crop assisted, of course ; and its shortness this year has contri- buied to tlqe opposite stale of things ; but it is the healthier condition of money affairs, the sufficiency of the circulation, which has enabled us to avail ourselves of the other favorable circumstances, and realize the rise which has occurred. The peculiar char- acter of the article — its imperishableness, its utility, its cheapness in comparison with other substances employed for clothing, its applicability to a vast variety of purposes- secures a wide and steady consumption, and therefore invites investment in it, when- ever its price declines much, or capital is seeking employment. Ifs price is therefore more than that of any other commodity connected with the state of the money market. The facts, then, show distinctly, that the more substantial cotton goods were last year cheaper in this country than in England; that the net product of cotton sold at home is more than abroad; that our own is the best market, to the extent of its con- sumption ; that the interchange betwesn the planter and the manufacturer can be made 10 the greatest advantage in this country ; and that the planter derives a direct and im- portant benefit, not a loss, from the enlargement of the currency that has ensued from the existing law. I desire to establish these positions, in order to remove anv impres- sion that the system imposed burdens on the South, because I wish that every portion of the country may not only prosper under, but feel satisfied with, the existing legisla- tion upon the subject. So much for the burdens attributed to the act ol 1S42. But there are renewed con- stitutional objections to it ; and these, though not without an apology to the Senate, must be succinctly examined. The Senator from South Carolina alune contends that It is against the provisions of the Constitution: his friend from New Hampshire con- tents hirnseU with arguing that it is against the spirit of that instrument. My apology for answering these old objections, lies in the magnitude of the inter- ests at which they strike The proposition is, that this Government shall withdraw its protection — and, .ultimately, even all incidental protection — from the entire industry of its people. A change is urged upon us which vitally affects every laboring man, whether his daily toil be that of the farm, of the work-bench, of the anvil, of the loom and throstle, or upon the deck of the vessel. These many classes, formed in this country of men happily as intelligent as to their rights as they are active in their pur- suits, cannot be expected to remain indifferent when the laws and the system under which, from the beginning, their several trades and occupations have grown up and flourished, are proposed to be suddenly overturned. They are men who would never ask benefits not warranted by thfe Constitution, but who will expect every good for themselves which it permits. The constitutional objection urged, considers the power of Congress in the premises as derived from two provisions : the one, that which empowers it to lay duties on im- ports ; the other, that which authorizes it lo regulate commerce with foreign nations. These general powers are given, they say, but not without clear limitations : 1st. The power of laying duties is given for the purpose of revenue only ; and if they are imposed for any other end, it must be under the authority to regulate com- merce; but when the latter power is used, it must be really to regulate, and not to de- stroy it by prohibitions. 2d. That this last is ihe operation and the aim of the protective system, founded in 1816, enlarged in 1824, and in 1828 carried so far as to be clearly an infraction of the Constitution. To the modification of 1S:^2, the same objection was made ; and against it, one State resorted lo what it regarded as the rightful remedy for such an usurpation. I believe I have stated the argument fairly ; and I examine it as one correct, if the positions taken are true, and if the aim and effect of protection was really (as thev who reasoned thus succeeded in convincing themselves) to destroy, not regulate, com- merce. This was an effect to be tested by experience alone. The country iiiade a twen- ty years' continuous trial of these laws: did they, or did they not, destroy commerce? A speech made here last year, by the Senator from South Carolina, on the same sub- ject, and with the same purpose as now, shall answer this question. He then said that our foreign commerce, in addition to bearing the burden of nearly all the ordinary expenses of the Government, bad, in the twenty years succeeding 1816, performed the unexampled achievement of lic|uidatiiig the immense national debt of two wars with the most powerful people of modern times — a result from our commerce which has attracted the admiration of the civilized world. 25 Sir, this candiil and manly admission of the Senator annihilates the entire positioa on which his argument rests. He himself selects the very period when these laws were in operation, us that when our commerce was at an eminence which enabled it to accomplish these astonishing results. I will only add, that the very palmiest days of that trade were precisely those in which uur home industry received the greatesi aids of high protection ; and that the enormous debt of which the Senator spoke, so rapidly paid, was discharged before the modification of WS'S took effect. That it might Appear that, even upon the grounds taken by the opponents of pro- tection, their objections were unlounded, I have granted that the power conferred by ihe Constitution was really subject to the liraitaiiuns for which they contend ; but I by no means think it is so. I think that the authority given " to regulate commerce with foreign nations," in- cludes the power to prohibit importations I have but few words to say upon this poi'Jt, because this clause of the Constiiulion was examined two years ago, in this body, by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, (iMr. Choate ) He fully explained the e.ttent of the power thereby conferred, according to the settled meaning ot those terms at the time they were inserted. His argument has not been answered, and I believe it to be unanswerab e ; su,>ported by the various authorities he introduced, he clearly established in this Government the constitutional right both of protection and prohibition. But as there is a single view which was not then presented, and which I think conclusive, I will present it. 1 find il in the Consiiiuiion itself; it does not rest upoa the argument of conslructionisis. All agree that the power in quesliun is to be found either under the clause authorizing Congress to lay duties on imports, or under that to regulate commerce with foreign nations, &c. On thai grant, iheii, what limit has the Constitution placed? The instrument itself is its own besi interpretation. Now, does it say that all duiies must be laid solely for revenue? Does it declare that the power to regulate commerce does not include a power lo prohibit importations ? iJy no means ; nothing of the sort; but there is in it thai from which the very opposite may be strongly inferred. There is a special clause relaiing to both these powers — the laying duties and the prohibiting importations. The Isl clause of the 9th section of the 1st article of the Constitution is as follows: " The migration or importation of such persons as any of the Stales now exisiing shail think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the (Jongress prior lo the year 1808; but a lax or duly may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Now, it is evident that the framersof the Consiilution thought such a clause as this necessary to limit, in a particular case, the general power given by the two other clauses already referred to. They certainly thought thai Congress could, unless limited by this clause, do what it prohibits ; or else hey introduced a provision without mean- ing. Its introduction shows, then, what power was meant lo be conferred as to all other articles and branches of trade. VViiliout it, this pariiculai one would have been subject to just the same unlimited exercise as all ilie rest ; and, the limitation of time once expired, it fell back under the general power. Accordingly, the time once past, that trade was entirely prohibited — prohibited, loo, under and by virtue ot the power to re- gulate commerce; and no one has ever questioned the consiiluiional right of Congress to do so. Can any man pretend that Congress, after 1808. h.id any mure power over that branch of trade than all others?— and if it could prohibit that, it could equally prohibit any other, when it judged ihe public interest to require i' The same clause limits the taxing power. Can one doubt that this was done to re- strict il within a revenue rale, to prevent such exercise of it as might abridge the im- port of slaves prior lo 1808 ? Confessedly, the interpretation which can be drawn from an inst-ument itself, pre- vails over all others. That which I haye presented 1 think clear and positive ; it does not rest upon any equivocal interpretation of single words I see not how, therefore, upon any principle of law or logic, the conclusion is lu ht- resisted. Of course, I do not mean that the power for which I coniend is to be exercised wan- tonly, but that there may be exigencies wliich require il In general, I am for a mod- erate exercise of all the powers of this Government, and in the use of that fOr revenue particularly, would endeavor to produce harmony throughout the country. It is this feeling which has urged me to offer to the South the facts and the considerations which I have had the honor to submit Are, then, the laboring men of this country entitled to protection, since we have a right to give it? — that is the next question Is il wise lo have a system which main- tains an ample circulation, (which we all agree thai this will,) and. as its admitted consequence, generous prices and wages ? I see not how there can well be a negative 26 answer ; yet that negative is urgeil both so violently and so ingeniously, lliat one must reply, least the people be misled. Adroitly enough, it is managed to make it appear that high wages are no better un- der this system than low wages would be under that which is proposed; that if the present system gives a producer a high price for what he h'^is made, it forihwith takes it all back in taxes. And yet, in the next breath, they tell you that, under their system, a larger sum is to be drawn from consumers than under this ! Under the Free Trade plan, there is a son of magic in the process, by which a man may pay ten dollars to the Government where he now pays but five, and yet be lighter taxed. Like this, is their reasoning to show the necessity of altering the present law: du- ring the earlier part of the session, it must be altered and reduced, in order to get rev- enue enough to carry on the Government — so then thoucht the Senator from Alabama, (Mr. KiXG ;) bat since the revenue has proved adequate, the Senator from New Hamp- shire (Mr. Woodbury) expresses the liveliest apprehensions that, if this continues, we shall have a plethora of the Treasury. He fears, also, a revulsion — a return to the heart-rending scenes through which we have passed not long ago ; and he urges us to reduce the duties, in order to avert them. In short, you are to reduce the duties to increase the revenue; and you are to reduce them to diminish it. If you have not in- come enough ! then down with the duties I If an excess : down with ihera again ' They are alarmed, at first, with the certainty that there will be no importations; but, presently, when your law is found not to have kept them out, they are equally alarmed at their excess ; and invite you to a system whicli ihey say will almost double them ! Somewhat strange is all this; but a thing still more extraordinary is behind. They urge us to change the rates, in order to keep the Tariff' steady I " Permanence !" cry the advocates of change : "Permanence is everv thing in legislation ; therefore alter the laws every session !" Sir, it has been gravely argued by nearly all the opponents of the law of 1842, that we can never expect anything like s;ability under a high Ta- riff; the imports, they -ay, will fluctuate, or (as others style it) "flounder;'' the re- venue will fluctuate; the currency will so augment that men will run wild with spec- ulation; wages will rise— the laborer grow extravagant. All sorts of ill, they say, attend a state of prosperity ; come down, therefore, to a level from which you cannot fall ; have Free Trade, or an approach to it, and then you need have none of these vi- brations into a dangerous state of success; then, things will be kept steady. For every variety of condition— tor all that may by and by go amiss, through too much thriving; there is one universal remedy : Reduce the Duties — take away Protection — cut down Wages; then, you are sure to have a steady state of things — a calm, uninterrupted dependance on foreigners and foreign governments — the great disideratum of commerce and policy. I have endeavored, however, to show that the placing ourselves in this dependance on others, is by no means certain to nisure us just and liberal treatment ; that, so sel- fish are nations, little is to be expected of the best of them; and that our true policy is to look to and encourage the development of our own resources, to increase as far as practicable the market for our own productions at home, by employing American la- bor in furnishing the supplies for our own people. These objects, the system of prr>- tection now enjoyed secures without injury to any section. We are just beginning to feel its good effects. The coin has increased, and the circulation is adequate to the business of the country ; the exactions of the money-lender, under which, but a little while since, business of every sort were said to groan, have ceased ; interest has fallen to but little more by the year than was lately its rate by the month. This, let it be remarked, removes one of the Senator's objections to the introductioiv of the business of manufacturing in this country — that capital was too scarce and inte- rest loo high. It overthrows, too, one oi his predictions of a year since — that our me- tallic currency would increase at the expense of England and to the injury of prices there for the Southern staple. It turns out that though we have, under this law, added largely to our coin, England has still more largely increased hers, for purposes of busi- ness. In truth, I doubt not that the same general cause— a returning confidence in the wisdom of legislation as to trade and national industry— has biought about or greatly aided these effects in both countries. 1 could perceive but little improvement in affairs among us until August last, when an election in the gallant State of Tennessee secured the return to this body of two Whig members, and thus placed this law in the hands of its friends, not its enemie:-. This gave confidence that no rash change would be made which would injure our national industry; and from that moment business im- proved. In England, like events have produced a like confidence: elections have oc- curred which secure the present Conservative Ministry, upset Radicalism, and exclude a Free Trade Administration, Upon this, as among ourselves, a feeling of security has 27 at once sprung up; money has returned from ils hiding-places into the channels of bu- siness, and exhibits itself in the greatly enlarged returns of specie in all the moneyed institutions. I come now to consider whether the industrial pursuits of our country merit the con- tinuance of this system. By these, I mean more especially those arts and employments which more or less depend for their subsistence among us on legislative encouragement. The claims of the agriculturists are admitted, although iheir business, too, is proposed to be destroyed, or at least such branches as directly depend upon this systeni of pro- tection. It really embraces, direcily or indirectly, nearly all pursuits alike, mechanical and agricultural ; but, among the latter, more especially affecls the growers of wool, of hemp, and of sugar— of themselves, not very unimportant classes of producers. But as the principal objection is to ihe protection of the mechanical trades and manufactures, I shall confine myself chiefly to their claims upon this Government lor continued pro- tection under ibis law. The Senator fr.rn Missouri says he was deceived or " humbugged " when he voted for this systeni : he now thinks it gives enormous profits. I have already explained how he infers this, lie instances (he fact that a colleciive capital vf two millions en- gaged in the leather manuficlures of Massachusetts produces annually six millions worth ot ai tides. 'I his is his only evidence of great profits. The fact might exist, and yet the entire product be sold at a loss. The Senator from South Carolina argues upon a larger view, and principles more general— the enlargement of the currency and consequent increase of the wages of la- bor and of prices under a system of protection. As to wages, I agree wilb him, but con- sider the effect a good, not an ill ; and this is the main point of difl'erence between us. We concur in ascribing the permanent advance of prices, where it exists, to the re- Jative amount of currency rather than to the influence of supply and demand. These iast govern the temporary fluctuations in prices; but the standard kept in view when we talk of high prices and low prices is the cost of production. We call prices high or iow, as they range above or below that. Looking back to the times when yet the mines of this continent had not been open- ed, we find the price in lingland of a fattened ox, 30 shillings, or about $7. The ani- mal would now be worth from S40 to $.50 Now, as the English markets cannot be supposed less well supplied with beef, in proportion to the demand, than three centu- ries ago, the rise of price has come about i^roni no variation of supply or demand ; and since during the time in question, there has been an increase of the coin or currency about proportionate to the advanced price of the ox, it is to that cause we shall trace it. It is the relative prices of the various articles produced for the subsistence or comfort of man, and the influence which systematic legislation can exert upon them, which should engage the attention of statesmen, and will, I trust, direct the attention of the Senate to the claims of our artisans upon the protection of this Government. Now, while we have seen ihe vast increase in the price of an ox which has arisen from the augmenta- tion of the precious metals, and while it may be seen that a like advance has marked the price of agricultural products generally, it is to be remarked that the cost of cloth- ing and of nearly every production of the arts has declined. I am not one who thinks that the immediate fall in prices, which have occurred upon the passage of bills raising the rates of duly, is the effect of the increased duty. It is caused by an excessive im- port in anticipation of the time when the laws take effect. 1 have, therefore, always regarded it as injurious, both to American importers and producers, to allow three or six months from the passage of an act before it takes effect — a time seized to overstock the country with imports. This course of legislation has injured all classes. If the laws had taken effect upon their passage, they would have sustained prices until redu- ced by the ordinary causes — ^reduced cost of production, competition, ice. This re- sult follows the certainty of the market, which invites capital into the production of the protected article, and stimulates exertions, until the whole energy is engaged to pro- duce cheap and perfect product. The cost of production is thus reduced, not only with- out depressing, but even when the wages of labor are increased. These facts are within my own knowledge, fjunded upon twenty years' experience. Diinini.-hed cost is the result of improved processes, machinery, and the division of labor, of which the effects are visible in all the details of the mechanical trades, under a system of protec- tion. But it is to the aggregate effects, not the details — the vast benefits which im- proved art has conferred upon society, that I would refer the Senators. I need not go back to the introduction or invention of the mariner's compass, of fire arms, and the printing pre.-s — things which, confessedly, revolutionized society not less as to peace than war, and not less in secular pursuits than in religion itself — destroying the feudal system, giving new impulses to civilization, a id new life to the doctrines of Cbnstiau- 28 ity. I may leave lliese earlier triumphs of the mechanic, and glance only at the extent to which the improvements of the last half century have ministered to the necessities and comforts of man. During this period, there has been no sensible addition to the metallic currency of the world, and the price of food has therefore varied but little. But how is it with the productions of meciianic pursuits — clothing, the implements oi agriculture ?— and how with the general improvements in transportation and travel? Refer again, sir, to the work of Mr. Tench Coxe. In 1810, he sets down the prices (wholesale) of cotton goods, such as are now 6 or 7 cents the yard, at 40 or 50 ; yet 10 cents was then the price of cotton as now. Meantime, much more to the hand is now made of that staple than was then. In 1810, 7 or SOO pounds to the hand was a fair yield ; now, four or five times as much is often produced. Methods have improved, and the production of cotton has been every way cheapened. Vet, witli all this — get- ting five or six times as many yards of cloth for a hundred pounds of cotton as in 1810, and raising from three to five times more cotton to the hand, so that a day's work brings him at least twenty times as many goods as in 1810 — the planter complains. In every product of the mechanic trades, there is also a great reduction of cost, so as to bring every needful enjoyment within the means of the mass of men. The poorest share in the benefit as to the employment and the comforts ihey can now procure; while many that could never otherwise have been disengaged Irom labor find the means of education, which, directed to mechanical science, has marked the spirit of the age, and others become the ornaments of professions, and, as members of this body, delight and instruct us with their e oquence and ability. Sir, if he is to be regarded as a public benefactor who makes Itvn blades of grass grow where but one grew before, surely something is due to the mechanic who has thus, in a much greater ratio, added to the supply of human necessities and the means of human comfort. Though he be of a modest class ol men, he may well, on these grounds, claim the continued protection of this Government. The Senator from Missouri has found one argument unurged by the other oppo- nents of protection. He says that a league to keep it up has been formed between the millionary men and the politicians ; that the great champion of protection is their common leader, Sec. This is the first distinct declaration in this body, from any quarter, that the destruction of the protective system is to be a party and a Presi- dential question. External indications there were of this plan of operations — as in a letter dated more than a year since, in which a distinguished citizen of New York an- nounces his hostility to this Tariff, " both as to its principles and its details ;" and, again, in a more recent letter from a distinguished citizen of South Carolina, declaring that he will support no man who does not, by himself or his friends, sustain a certain ruleofihe other House and the principles of Free Trade. There has been indications of late of a desire to conciliate this support, but I confess I thought the Senator from Mis- souri would have been one of the last men to do it ; and I was, therefore, surprised when J heard him talk of" the highest Free trade authorities," and give in his adhesion. Although there be, on that side, this visible connection of this question with mere parly politics, I have seen no like indication on the part of the friends of protection. — Among the mechanics and manufacturers, there has certainly been no movement which warrants the Senator's charge. They have held no convention for political purposes ; they have never nominated candidates for the Presidency. I freely admit that the em- inent individual referred to by the Senator will be the choice of the friends of protec- tion, and is now their candidate, but not by any concerted efforts or action of manufac- turers. Suppose, sir, that distinguished citizen had never said one word in favor of protecting the national industry ? Is there not enough besides, in his long life of devo- tion to his country, to entitle him to the gratitude of every American freeman ? Sir, the response of every heart that beats with a warmer throb at the renown or the hap- piness of this nation, will be " Yes !" and I may say to the Senator from Missouri that when, with a menacing attitude, he warns the mechanics to beware of a war like that with the late U. S. Bank, his course and his threats may astonish, but will not dismay them : he will not make them torget the magnitude of a nation's industry, nor the man who has been their ablest and most constant friend and advocate. But the Senator says he is now opposed to protection, because millionary men are engaged in the business of manufacturing, and unite with politicians to support a par- ticular candidate. How is this? A few days since, the Senator from South Carolina insisted that we could not carry on manufactures in this country, because there was not sufficient capital among us ; now, all of a sudden, those engaged in the business have too much capital. So here we have it again as on the question of revenue : you are lo reduce the Tariff to get more — you are to reduce it to get less. Banish manufactures, you haven't capital enough .i banish them again, because you have too much. 29 I most respectfully submit that it is bad policy, if not worse, in this country and in this body, to denounce uien for having a large properly — still more, to overlurn pursuits because some of those engaged in them are wealthy- We hear of them as millionary men, in one breath, and as men living upon the bounty of Government in the next. In my judgment, it is unwise, as well as wrong, to speak of any of the important pursuits of life in a way to make them odious or disreputable. These are laborious and useful occupations, in whjch all llie care of Government can at best but second the qualities and the exeriions that entiile a man lo success. Is he to be blackened, is his whole class to be enrolled for public antipathy, because his honest and skillful toil has been rewarded ? Those engaged among us in these employments have never felt, hereto- fore, that they were living upon the earnings of others — that tliey were pensioners up- on the bounty of Government. This is a new doctrine, and one which deprives labor of its most efficient encouragement — the sell-sustaining conviction, that, by its own ex- ertions, steadily applied, it may win support, and eventually achieve couipetenee and respectability, unaided by extorted bounties or contributions from any quarter. 1 have the same views of the denunciation of wealth otherwise acquired. Where, it this is to be done, are the inducements to exertion ? Will men toil when the fruit of success is to be stigmatised, and to have the very business in which they have thri- ven placed under the ban ol society ? This is making war upon a chief aim of society itselt— the accumulation and enjoyment of properly. Sir, the statesman who adopts this course is in a way to destroy all the hopes and all the e.\ertions of life, to check all honorable activity, to blast all ilie expectations of labor, to cut ofl' all the enjoyments the attainment of which aniniates it. In the nature ot the mechanical or the manufac- turing business, there is nothing to justify this obloquy which does not apply lo all other pursuits. In all, the object is to acquire property. None has a more direct effect to distribute the gains than those which our policy protects; and if, on the other hand, there be pursuits which, more than all others, tend to aggregate profits in the hands of a few, they are precisely those for the sake of which the destruction of the present system is now proposed — namely, foreign commerce and planting on a baronial scale. Are these noble and national pursuits to be denounced and destroyed, because equal fortunes have not been made in any other ? This would be almost as unreasonable as the present attempt of the peculiar friends of those interests to deny to others the same protection which they have enjoyed Irom the earliest action of this Government. Sir, although this may be popular in some quarters, and some men may deuounce with one breath the unfortunate men of business, and in the next the successful ones, the course has been pursued too long to succeed — men begin lo understand their object — and when this question is presented lo the people as we are told it will be, and they are asked to destroy iheir present law to injure a successful neighbor, they will inquire, " What are we to gain, or what is to be gained by the proposed change in our policy ? If these manufacturers, now consuming annuallv, (according to the census and Mr. Tucker,) in raw materials alone, $164,000,000, wi'th a further amount in food of $140,000,000, making in all above $300,000,000 of our own agricultural products, are broken up, how is this new policy to procure for our farmers a market to ihat extent ? Nay, how for any considerable part of it ? And how, still worse, when nearly the whole manufac- turing population is at once forced to become agricultural producers ? All we can now dispose of abroad amounts (excluding cotton) to but some forty or fifty millions a vear. Can any one suppose that we are, in countries already supplied with such produce, to find a market for that amount many times multiplied ?" The advantage of supplying the manufacturers is obvious. This benefit is acknow- ledged by all, and by no one more than by the honorable Senator from South Carolina. He says, " the manufacturer deals with the farmer, because he takes from him what he has to sell ; and, on the same principle, the farmer deals with the manufacturer : so far, ills true, there is a mutual benefit." Into this single sentence is compressed the philosophy of the protective system. " Mutual benefit," derived from "natural mar- ket," the extent of which is limited only by the distance and the cost of transportation. Yet the honorable Senator contends that " Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and the other manufacturing towns of Europe, are the natural markets of the South !" Sir, our farmers already feel too keenly the want of a sufficient market, even with the aid of the vast amount consumed by their fellow-citizens, the artisans, ta venture upon any such self-destructive experiment ; and I have, therefore, no fear of seeing them make it. Mr. President : The remarks I have addressed lo the Senate are intended to defend the system of protection — to show the impolicy of an opposite or low duty one. To the ends of revenue, for which the act of 1842 was passed, I believe it well-adapted. I do not pretend that it is perfect, and therefore never lo be changed ; but I think it de- sirable to give it a fair trial, tha* 've ;..ay be sure, if we alter, to improve it. 30 This, at least, can be truly said of it — that, so far, it works well. Can any one say ilhal the substitute proposer! by the Senator from South Carolina will operate equally well 1 In thai substitute, I see nothing but its delusive title to recommend it — a title on which, much more than on any provision which it contains, its advocates depend. At every renewal of the discussion here, the Free Trade papers mark it, with capitals, -" The Compromise Ai t." True, its title is, "A bill to revive the Compromise Act;" but there is not a provision in it which is in conformity with the principle or spirit of thai law —not a provision but is hostile to bolh. This title is calculated, if not intend- ed, to create in the minds of those favorable to protection, a belief that the Compromise Act of 1S3-i was like this in lis provisions, and of course injurious, if not fatal, to the national industry. The Senator from New Hampshire, in his zeal to establish Free Trade, said that the principle of proteclion was abandoned in that law. Now, whether all this is for iho purpose of making Iriends for the present bill, or enemies for him who ':hietly brought about that of 1833, may be doublful. Nevertheless, thai act provided that the duties to be laid should be such as would raise irorn them alone ati amount ot revenue equal to the entire support of the Government, economically administered ; and further, that a mode of assessing these duties should be employed which is quite as se- cure, for purposes of protection, as specific rates. The bill of the Senator from South Carolina contains neiiherjjf these great features of the Compromise Act. Now, he spoke of the act of 1842 as having "fraud and falsehood stamped upon its face:" 1 ap- peal to him, then, to compare his own with that of which it is made to lake the name, and say to which his epithets best apply. All know there were friends of domestic industry who regarded the provisions of the law of 1&33 as inadequate to a system of just proteclion ; but I was not among such. Some of them have, in this debate, pronounced it particularly defective for that acd for revenue purposes, because it did not provide for Jiscrimincition in levying duties. I could never discover what more useful dhcrimination for protection could be desired than that contemplated by the Compromise Act. It proposed to raise the entire reve- nue by duties on articles which would come in competition with products of our own, and to allow others, which did not, to be imponed//ve, when the state of the Treasu- ry permitted. What broader discrimination is needed, or what more for protection ! [jThe objection as to the uniformity of rates was fully answered, at (he passage of the bill, by the declaration then made and acceded to, that if any interest would be likely JO suffer under the general rate of duty, an exception would be made in its favor. The law, therefore, thus qualified, would have afforded equal protection to all American la- bour. I: contained the only just principle of discrimination — one which favored all interests according as they had claims. In the examination of this subject by the Cotnmittee on Manufactures of this body, but two branches of industry seemed to claim higher rates of duty than were indispen- soble for revenue. These were the producers of sugar and the makers of certain kinds of iron. The committee agreed that they required higher rates, and so provided. All other interests seemed content with a revenue rate of about 25 per cent, upon the ac- tual value in this country — that value asceriaiued and fixed in the law, so as to insure its collection. Foreign agents objected to the plan as insupportable : these would, no doubt, have preferred much higher rates, if, in some form, offering a reasonable chance of evading them. Let them fix the value on which the duty is to be assessed, and no objection will they make to rates as high as those proposed by the Senator from Mis- souri — llroni yo to 33 per cent. We have had such a system : under it frauds were proverbial, and custom-house oaths a by-word; yet here we are gravely urged to re- turn to it. I should certainly prefer aO per cent, upon an actual value in this country, which can be fairly collected, to 40 per cent, on the foreign invoice, though you should provide all that can be enacted to secure it. It is known to all who were members of this body in 1842, that the friends of pro- tection here were in favor of a plan conforming to the provisions of the Compromise Act — one which would make the duties uniform in every port in the country. But, upon a discussion of the question, it was declared here, by the leading advocate of Free Trade, that one of its most important provisions was unconstitutional, and never in- tended to be carried into effect ! After that, who would have expected to see present- ed here, by a Free Trade man, a bill to revive the law thus denounced as unconstitu- tional by the very leader in that school. One word to those friends of protection who urge the necessity oi discrimiiialing for revenue. Discrimination for this alone would practically destroy most of the incidental protection given in a revenue law; because if a duty of 25 per cent, (or $1 each) upon bats, gives our hatters the market, it destroys the revenue from hats : therefore, we must reduce the duty until foreign hats take the place of American, in order that there 31 may be a revenue from them. If revenue is the sole object, you must reduce the rates- until the foreign article can be introduced, or else revenue fails. It is under this favo- rite word of discrimination, used indiscriminately for and against protection, that the wants of the Treasury are made the pretext for destroying the mechanic. The reasons which induced me to prefer a law framed in real accordance with the Compromise Act to the law passed in 1842, have lost none of their force since. 1 thought that plan would deprive the eKcmies of protection of all pretext for saying thai duties were extravagantly high according to the value of articles actually imported.— This, they now say, under a law imposing specific duties, although no higher in fact nor affording more protection than would a uniform rate of duty suflicient for revenue. This I may illusirate by an instance from the speeches of each of the Senators (Messrs. WooDBUiiv and McDuffif.) who urge the most unabated Free Trade doctrines. The Senator from New Hampshire, (Mr. Woodeukv,) in support of his assertion that the law of IS-fi imposes duties greatly above the revenue standard, (which he declares fiom ."SO to 33 per cent.,) has annexed to his speech several tables. One of these exhibits the rales of duties on the foreign cost of articles, as shown_on the books of the Treasury Department. In this, the duty on molasses is rated at 51 per cent. — In other tables, he gives the present price in New York as froin 26 to 30 cents the gal- lon, and the duty at 5' cents. The average value in New York is 2S cents, the duty 5' cents per gallon, which is IS^' per cent., or less than two-thirds the Senator's reve- nue rate. Yet, by the bill now proposed in the other House by the anti-protectionists, on this article, ihe duly is proposed to be reduced one third, or to 12^ per cent, on the present market price in New York In every argument made here against protection, the duties on another class of goods (rivals to our own productions) have been denounced: I mean cotton goods. Upon these, during the last year, the duty, according to the Senaior's tables, has averaged 43 per cent, upon the foreign cost. The duties on these operate like that on molasses — specifically on the quantity ; and the extremely depressed value of such goods every where last year has served to make xhesejixfd duties at least 20 percent, more on the cost than they would ordinarily average. This slate of the prices of these goods has not only furnished the means for a comparison for this reason not fair, but it has beeu seized by the Senator from South Carolina for a still more disadvantageous comparison — of what would have been the rates upon goods which were not imported, and which could not be, even if there had been no duty, since the Senator's own tables prove that such, of .'Vmeriean fabric, were sold as low here as in England, or lower. 1 allude to prints or calicoes, which he has several times noticed as illustrating " the enormities of this law.'' He says, " .\. large proportion of the prints and calicoes consumed in the United States, and of which every female of the middle and poorer clasess is a consu- mer, cost in Manchester from 6 to 12 cents a yard ; but they are charged with duties of irom 75 to 150 per cent, by the ingenious contrivance of artificial and false valuations." • Of goods like these here referred to, there are annually made and consumed in the United States at least fifteen yards for every female in the country, including children — - quite an ample supply, one would say ; and the prices of them quoted in the Senator's own tables, are as lov.' as he says they are in Manchester. Now, with a full supply of our own make, at prices as low as abroad, it is not very easy to conceive that "a large proportion " of the goods consumed would be imported and pay such duties. I very much doubt whether there has been imported, since the law passed, a case of goods of that grade. It is well to point to such facts, if for nothing else, as instances of the errors into which Free Trade Senators invariably fall, when they attempt to give any fad con- nected with these duties. But if these low priced prints were actually imported, they would not pay his high rates of " 75 to 150" per cent- He has omitted to take into cal- culation a fact mentioned in his tables: that these goods are but from 22 to 26 inches wide, while he has estimated the duty on each running yard of them as on the square yard ! By this single mistake of 24 to 36 inches, he has added just 50 per cent, to the duties which such goods would pay, if imported. This is another small instance of the influence of the imagination upon the facts, when an inveterate enemy of protec- tion denounces it to his constituents and to the country. Take, now, a greater: in the same paragraph, when these facts have once more passed through the Senator's mind, he says : " But when tliese articles come to the custom house, the importer is required to pay from two and a half to five times their original cost." Here, in less than half a minute, a fixed rate of duty upon a fixed value is, from his own erroneous estimate of 75 to l-'iO per cent., increased to 250 and 500, and this on the Bame article. As I have often said, it was to prevent the presentation to the coun- try of over-estimates like these, by public men wiio have a wide influence upon opin- ion, thai I desired rather to see a Tariff law upon the basis of the Compromise, thaa I ' I 7 5>^ 55- 32 the present act. With that, every man who purchased an article, could tell whether or not it was valued in the law at more than he paid for it; and if not, he would know that a rate of duty no higher than was necessary for revenue was imposed on it. I have inquired of dealers in foreign prims, ihe duty upon which is so much com- plained of, and find that the value in this country of such as are imported, is now as high as that fixed in the present law upon which the duty is computed; so that the revenue rate of 30 per cent, is what is collected upon the actual value here. This would not be complained ol as too high, if it was, by the terms of the law, 30 per cent, upon the home value, and that declared in it. Such a law would, and the one now in force does, cause ihe importation of fine, light, and lastelul ariicles, and leaves the more subslaniial to be supplied, cheaper and better, by ourselves; and thereby the revenue is collected from those who buy, what may be called luxuries, and secures the object which those profess to have in view who seek to destroy it. I might go through the entire list of articles selected by the Senators to prove the extravagant rates in this law, and show il.at, upon the actual market value of such goods really imported, there is scarce one which pays a higher rate upon ihat value than they themselves admit to be necessary, to raise an adequate revenue. That this must be so in general is plain, for the Treasury is not yet siithciently supplied. Mr. FresiJoni, the imporiance, in and of itself, of this rjuesiiim lo the pL-ople of ibis -onntry, augmented as Jt has been by the declaration that it is to be turned into one of the great issues of the l^residential election, has constrained me to go into an exarai- nation of the various objections urged against the present law, and of the specious • plans proposed as substitutes for it, tedious as I fell that this must be to the Senate : for I regard the success of this proposition to establish a Free Trade policy, as the certain destruction of the interests of the mechanic and manufacturer. Though gentlemen talk of the continuation of business here, in unrestricted competition with the pauper labor of Europe, and calculate on seeing tlie labor of our people reduced to the rates of Wales and Germany, I desire not to see such an experiment upon a people now generous and free. 1 wish not to see how much our people will bear, before they learn to hate their Ciovernment. Better quit iheir business at once, than, through a long process of pri- vation, become alienated from their countrymen. Let the change, then, be instant : wear not out their energies in a hopeless conflict with the half-fed labor of the Old World. Give ihe blow now, while they have the strength to bear it, and attachments to their country which cannot be destroyed by a single act of its Government. Let the mechanics, who now from their various and useful toil lie down to rest in perfect confidence of the protection they are enjoying, rise from their pillows and find »heir " occupations gone. . In such an event, I trust we shall see no gatherings, no angry murmurs, for they are a law-abiding people. Each head of a family will call about him his wife and chil- dren, and say to them : " When the country was in straitened circumstances, I engaged in the business which has supported you, with the fullest assurance of the encourage- 2DeQi and puoteclion of our Government. For some cause, I know not what, that bu- siness has become odious, and protection for it has been withdrawn. VVe have to seek some other means of life." The melancholy group will turn to take leave of their late cheerful employments, of their homes, of the graves of their ancestors, and, last of alt, of the church in which have ascended their cheerful devotions to the Creator — but where now a sadder prayer is breathed for His blessing upon their new efi'orts to find support. Sir, should such a day ever come, there will rise up from the altars o*" iheir trod near thrre million- '( people \'!>ii. fi.rvi.'tue, miilligence, energy, and patriotism, have not been surpassed in the history ot this world ; nor equalleJ, perhaps, unless when, sixty-eight years ago, a nearly equal body of Americans raised their voices to the same Being, to invoke His aid in their resistance to laws of the mother-country, not more unwise or unjust, as it seems to me, than that which we are now called on to pass. Different, however, would be the condition of these citizens, called to no lofty struggle, in which the honor compensates the sacrifices, but condemned to seek, through the dark uncertainties of toil and distress, new occupations for support. But one will be left upon which they can throw themselves: they must, as husbandmen, become rival producers to their brethren, in supplying markets already overstocked in every part of the world. This, sir, is no overwrought picture ol" the desolation which such a law would pro- duce; nor is it in my power to draw it to the life. But [ am glad to know, that no such law can prevail in this Senate. I DOW leave the subject with the most entire confidence that the existing law will be sustained by the majority here; and that the American people will co-opeiate with us in the maintenance of a system of protection which sustains alike the labor of the individual citizen and the prosperity and independence of the country. iimiiiNll IIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIMHIIIlim D 000 334 839 8 THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. Series 9482