b) 
 
 
 
 @ 
 
 ° 
 
 ake 
 
 ON 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 - 
 
 THE TARIFF BILL. 
 
 
 
 CUSHING, 
 
 . 
 . 
 \ 
 
 MR. 
 
 a ee 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 \. 
 
 
 
 * 
 
i 
 
 | 
 
 “GAs Sse 4-VV\ c 
 
 7 
 " J 
 * 
 
 A 
 st 
 
 , ee 
 
 ‘, 
 | 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PS Seba EER ie San ene Som weer na a 
 1 
 
 Ag pee 3 
 
 * 
 
 ae 
 1d 
 
 RASA 
 
 > 
 
 Se al eal 
 
 Ty 
 
 a2 
 - CMe 5 ei 
 
 i 
 
 REMARKS OF 
 
 House or Represenratives, June 22, 1842. 
 
 THE GENERAL QUESTION. 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole on 
 _the bill to provide revenue from imports and to 
 change and modify existing laws imposing duties 
 on imports and for other purposes— 
 
 Mr. CUSHING said the question, as presented in 
 the present debate, was a very general one, not being 
 upon details at all; and yet details, after all, were 
 the most material to be considered, and constituted, 
 in faet; the real and only question to be decided. It 
 was a vice of the House, in its mode of discussing 
 all subjects, which came before it, to attempt too 
 much, to strike too high, and to cover too much 
 ground. The few suggestions he had to offer were, 
 ‘in their nature, wholly practical,—so far, at least, ‘as 
 the state of the question would admit. 
 The basis of this whole discussion was the admit- 
 
 - ted necessity of raising some twenty-seven millions 
 
 of revenue to carry on the Government ; and the pre- 
 cise question was, how this sum -was to be raised? 
 That the money was needed, and must be obtained, 
 noone had as yet denied; the only thing disputed 
 was the mode of raising it. This was a question of 
 revenue,—a question of Government. Two bills had 
 been presented to the House, the one by the Commit- 
 tee of Ways and Means, the other by the Committee 
 on Manufactures, and the House was considering 
 them as in comparison with each other. These bills 
 contained the only mode yet suggested for supplying the 
 revenue needed. No antagonist proposition had 
 been started in any quarter; for the bill of the gen- 
 tleman from Georgia, (Mr. Habersham,) offered as 
 an amendment, was a bill to lay duties on imports; 
 and the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Pick- 
 ens,) had expressly admitted that he had no opposing 
 
 . scheme uf finance to propose. What amount of duty 
 should be imposed upon woollens, what upon sugar, 
 what upon cotton, were questions of detail purely ; 
 so that on the general state of the subject there was, 
 in reality, no question at all. 
 
 Mr. C. knew that all the great questions had been 
 mooted, which had heretofore agitated our councils— 
 the questions of protection and a tariff, and of sec- 
 tional interests, &c.; but were those questions really 
 before the Committee? Certainlynot. The question 
 was, how a revenue should be raised? And on this 
 question it was not allowed to gentlemen to stand in 
 a negative position : it was incumbent on them to act; 
 they were bound to provide the means to carry on 
 the Government. This was no question of party ; no 
 question betwees schools of finance, or schools of 
 political economy; neither was it a question between 
 sectional interests; it was purely an American ques- 
 tion of Government. 
 
 Gentlemen, who contended that laying duties on 
 imports was not the proper mode of raising the sums 
 
 boa 
 
 j 4 
 
 MR. CUSHING. 
 
 needed, were bound to tell the House of some other 
 mode. Gentlemen talked about anti-tariff princi- 
 ples: what did they mean by anti-tariff? There was 
 only one way of translating that phrase into English. 
 When he looked into the Constitution he found Con- 
 gress clothed with the power and charged with the 
 duty of carrying on the Government, for which pur- 
 pose they were authorized to levy duties on imports 
 (which was the ordinary sense of a tariff) or to. lay 
 direct taxes and excises. Now, if gentlemen denied 
 the propriety of laying duties on imports, they must 
 be in favor of an excise or of direct taxes. Eaclusio 
 unius conclusio alterius: if they rejected the one 
 they must resort to the other. 
 
 As to direct taxation, Mr. C. would not enter on 
 that subject till some gentleman proposed the adop- 
 tion of that mode of raising revenue. es ee 
 
 The true and only pertinent question then was 
 whether the duties proposed in either of the two bills 
 before the Committee would furnish the requisite 
 amount of money. It was a practical question—a 
 question of details, which eould only be settled by 
 analysis of the bill, clause by clause. It could not 
 be intelligently discussed as a general thesis, either in 
 affirmation or denial. If examination should show 
 that the duty proposed to be laid on certain articles 
 was so high as to be prohibitory, and so to produce 
 no revenue, that was a good reason why they should 
 be lowered. This was a separate question arising on - 
 each item. To attempt a general discussion of a bill © 
 of this kind, was fighting in the dark: no logical or 
 exact disquisition concerning it was possible in the 
 nature of things. 
 
 The gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Pick- 
 ens, ) in his speech of this morning, had said that the 
 capacity ofourcommerce to afford revenue had reached 
 its maximum, so that no more could be obtained from 
 that source. But this, too, was a question of details : 
 and it looked beyond the action of this Government 
 into the general subject of taxation. It was probably 
 true that in every community there was a capacity of 
 revenue which might be filled, and beyond which 
 nothing more could be raised by the imposing of du- 
 ties. Now, suppose it tobe proved that we had 
 reached that point, what else wasproved? That we 
 were bound to resort to other means, if more money 
 was needed. There was no escape from this. 
 
 What, then, would be the aspect ofthe question? 
 When gentlemen told him that commerce could be no 
 further taxed, and asked him not to Jay duties on im- 
 ports, to what did they bring him? ‘To what did they 
 bring themselves ? 
 
 Wasit the General Government alone which, in 
 this country, imposed taxes on the people? All who 
 understood the theory of our Government must know 
 that its theory, the theory of liberty, was the localiza- 
 tion of power, and that the opposite theory *-*"" 
 was the centralization of power; and nop~” 
 

 
 oy 
 
 ' only as a Government question. 
 
 4 
 
 norant that, with us, this principle of localization of\ the anti-protective. Let us see if the question of pro- 
 
 power had fully developed itself. The larger ¢ ortion 
 of the whole amount of taxes paid by the Ameri- 
 can People was not paid to the General Government. 
 More was paid to the State Governments than to the 
 General Government. On a rough estimate it might 
 be near the truth to say, that for every $2 paid in taxes 
 to the General Government, there was paid by the 
 people to their respective State Governments in the 
 form of State taxes, county taxes, towns)ip taxes, 
 and other municipal requisitions, not less than $5. 
 Less than half of what was raised came into the fe- 
 deral coffers. 
 
 Now, Mr. C. would ask of every gentleman here, 
 -not as a member of Congress, but as the citizen cf 
 some one of the States of this Union, how the ordina- 
 ry current expenses of the States were to be met? 
 He did not ask how the capital of their existing State 
 debt was to be discharged, or the interest on. it paid, 
 but how they were to meet their ordinary annual ex- 
 -penditures? It must be by taxing something—by 
 taxing persons or commodities. But how? Were 
 they to tax commerce? No. That was inhibited by 
 
 the Constitution, which conferred this power exclu- 
 
 sively upon Congress.. It must then be by direct taxes 
 or by an excise. ‘They had nothing else. The taxing 
 of commerce belonged to Congress. 
 
 But gentlemen said that commerce was already 
 ‘taxed to its maximum. Here was the fallacy of 
 the whole argument. Gentlemen who had ad- 
 vance d this proposition looked only at the system of 
 other countries. It might possibly be that in France 
 “or England commercial duties for revenue had attained 
 their maximum point. Butin those countries gov- 
 ‘ernment power and expenditures were comparatively 
 centralized, and therefore the amount of money actu- 
 ally raised by the central government had to be much 
 larger than with us. Whether the taxation of our 
 commerce had reached such a point was, as he had 
 
 _ before said, a question of details. 
 
 In this brief view, Mr. C. had touched the subject 
 And he would put 
 it to gentlemen whether all the questions which had 
 been mooted in this debate—questions of a protective 
 tariff, of the mode and degree of protection on vari- 
 ous interests of commerce, agriculture, manufactures, 
 &c.—wer1e material to be settled? Would not the 
 question on passing these bills be just the same if 
 there were no such thing as protection? The ques- 
 tion of revenue exhausted the whole subject. Who- 
 ever conceded the necessity of raising twenty-seven 
 millions of dollars, conceded the whole general ques- 
 tion to be settled. Mr. C.did not know how gentle- 
 meén ‘Were going to escape from this; he could not 
 imagine what answer could be made. None seemed 
 to assume that the Government was to stop; that, in 
 addition to the bankruptcy of the States, we were to 
 have the bankruptcy of the General Government. 
 And if not, then a bill of the nature of one of these 
 bills, established on views of expediency as well as of 
 the Constitution, and concerning the necessity of 
 which there was no controversy, must be adopted. 
 
 But, while he stated the true question, and the only 
 true question, before the Committee, to be this, he must 
 not wholly omit to notice two or three of the seconda- 
 ry, and ‘incidental questions which, in the general 
 discussion, connected themselves with it, 
 
 “And the first he should notice was one presented by 
 the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Pickens.) 
 The country, he said, was divided between the two 
 gteat schools of political economy, the protective and 
 
 te 
 
 . tions. 
 
 tection might not besolved by a course of reason in 
 the inverse order from that pursued by that gentle- 
 man. 
 
 When gentlemen argued in favor of what was or- 
 dinari'y denominated the doctrine of free trade, they. 
 always fell into a course of general remark on the ex- 
 pediency of an unshackled intercourse between na- 
 They were compelled to rely on generalities. 
 The gentleman from South Carolina had put the 
 whole question on ‘‘the eternal, universal, equal rights 
 of the human race!” Well; and what were these 
 eternal, universal, equal rights of the human race? 
 Such were the gentleman’s words, and ‘words were 
 things.” There was aschoolin the world which held 
 to these universal, eternal, equal rights of the human 
 race. Was it the political school of the gentleman 
 of South Carolina ? 
 
 For his own part, Mr. C. never yet saw two human 
 beings who were equal, in all respects. Gentlemen 
 might go into an investigation’of the whole constitu- 
 tion and condition of man, and they never would find it. 
 Yet the free trade, for which gentlemen contended,was 
 part and parcel of that system of universal equality. 
 Mr. C. should not apply this doctrine to the internal 
 organization of the States, or of any one of the 
 States, but only as a question of Government. He 
 pronounced the doctrine a fallacy generally, and its 
 application to Government was still more a fallacy. 
 
 For what wasGovernment ?’ Wasit not the organi- 
 zation of associated men under the forms of law, with a 
 view to give to them certain exclusive advantages as 
 against the rest of the world?) Was not that Go- 
 vernment? Gentlemen said that all the world ought 
 to share with us the advantages of a perfectly free 
 trade; if so, then on the same principle they ought 
 to participate with. us in all other advantages and 
 benefits we enjoy. ‘The doctrine would go this 
 whole length. ‘Then all national barriers ought at 
 once to be thrown down and abolished. ‘Then there 
 should be no such thing as patriotism ; it must cease 
 or be a crime; that glorious’ virtue of patriot love, 
 which had become immortal in poetry and in history, 
 which had inspired the greatest and the noblest men 
 in all times—a virtue which belonged to man’s social 
 existence, and was ‘its safeguard and its ornament— 
 et presidium et dulce decus—must be given ‘up, and 
 we must substitute in its place a cosmopolite benevo- 
 lence forall mankind. * 
 
 Mr. C, was no cosinopolite. He went against all 
 cosmopolite commerce, and cosmopolite all else, 
 which was adverse to AMERICANISM. It was the inte- 
 rests of these United States which he was sent to that 
 Hall to promote. He should sacrifice his duty, de- 
 sert his trust, and violate the spirit of the Constitu- 
 
 tion, could he consent to throw all the innumerable 
 
 advantages possessed by this land into common with 
 all the other nations of the world; more especially 
 when, while he surrendered all, he got nothing in 
 return. He repudiated all such. philosophy and all 
 such politics. He was against postponing the advan- 
 tages of this Union to the advantages of the whole 
 universe. He was not bound to do any such thing. 
 When he ceased to desire and to endeavor by all 
 lawful and honorable means to promote the advan- 
 tage of his own country in preference to that of any 
 other, he should cease to be an American, and should 
 become a foreigner. That was his answer to the 
 gentleman’s doctrine of the eternal, universal, equal 
 rights of the whole human race. That might bea » 
 very good theory, if all the people of the world co: 
 
 . 
 
dD 
 
 ¢ 
 
 stituted one nation and were all under one govern- 
 ment. Butsuch was not the case. ‘They were se- 
 parated, separated by the act of Providence. And we 
 were separated from other nations by the solemn act of 
 our fathers, and by our own approval and ratification of 
 it; and it was the business of an American legislator 
 to advance the interests of this his native country as 
 against those of the whole world, whenever those in- 
 terests Were incompatible. ; 
 
 {Mr. Clifford here interposed, and inquired of Mr. 
 C. what: amount of taxation he thought was a benefit 
 to the Union ?] 
 
 Mr. Cushing said that the question of the gentle- 
 man from Maineassumed that Mr. C. was arguing 
 that taxation was a benefit. He was not arguing to 
 -show any such thing, and his argument warranted 
 no such inference. The gentleman cou'd not have 
 attended to its commencement. Mr. C, had com. 
 ‘menced by assuming that twenty-seven millions of 
 -dollars must be raised to carry on the Government.— 
 We had this money to pay. He had not said this 
 was a benefit, or that it was not. But, even if he 
 had said that it was a benefit, he would not now 
 retract the position. It was a benefit. All money 
 paid for value received was a benefit. We paid this 
 money to have a Government, andif the gentleman 
 could show it was an evil to pay it, he would at the 
 same time show that the Government of the United 
 States was an evil. : 
 
 _ [A voice, ‘‘ And so it is—a necessary evil.’’] 
 
 Gentlemen might say that our Governinent was 
 a necessary evil, but it must only be in the sense in 
 which all government is an evil. It was notan evil, 
 comparatively, but the reverse, since it freed us froma 
 greater evil. In that sense it wasabenefit. Mr. C. de- 
 nied also that it wasin any sense an evil; it wasa bles- 
 sing, in whosesoever hands it might be. It had now ex- 
 isted for sixty years, and he asked gentlemen to1emem- 
 ber what had been the history of the rest of the world 
 during that period of time. He would have gentle- 
 men true to their own position as Americans. Our 
 Government had conferred blessings mnumerable 
 and beyond all price. During all the time of its 
 endurance had our people ever been burying their 
 swords in. one another’s bosoms? Had we witnessed 
 bloody insurrections and civil wars? Foreigners were 
 in the habit of reproaching. us with our occasional 
 legislative disorders and violations of the peace by 
 mobs; but all the cases they could muster in this way. 
 had not a feather’s weigkt in comparison with what 
 was daily occurring in other Governments. 
 
 ~He would not ask gentlemen to go so far as the 
 Government of Spain,which,during most of that period 
 had been rent with ciyil wars of the most ferocious 
 and sanguinary character; nor to look merely at 
 those Governments which were ultra monarchical in 
 
 their principles end form of proceeding; but he} 
 
 would point to England herself, and ask if she had 
 been free from the tumults of faction and the evils 
 of .civil strife during all that period? Among us not 
 a political death had yet occurred, nor a political 
 banishment. With all our parly heat and momenta- 
 ry commotions, we were by far the happiest nation 
 on the globe. 
 
 And as to the reproaches heaped upon us on 
 account of the suspended debt. of some of the 
 States, (a fact wiich Mr. C. regretted as deeply 
 as any man could,) he would ask Europeans, before 
 they indulged in too severe a strain on this point, to 
 remember the millions of passive debt of Spain ; to re- 
 
 ay. 
 
 
 
 collect what amount had been repudiated by Holland ; 
 and.not to forget that the whole French debt in_ the 
 course of the Revolution had been sponged. While 
 loading our new States with reproaches,let them look 
 at what was passing every day before their own eyes 
 in some of the oldest States of the old world. . 
 
 But he had been led from the argument. He had 
 been observing that the only mode in which man 
 could enjoy the benefits of social existence, and avoid 
 
 perpetual anarchy and wars, was to submit to sepa- 
 
 ate national Governments. Now, the unavoidable 
 condition of taxation to support this was complaint 
 from some of those who had taxes to pay. .But with » 
 a state of things having been established by the order 
 of Providence, it remained that every patriot should 
 strive for the good of his own country, to. the exclu- 
 sion and rejection of all new-fangled theories of free 
 
 trade. 
 
 There was. but one other element in this question 
 of protection. We were all agreed on raising revye- 
 nue by duties on imports. Taxation, in some form, 
 we must have. Now, he would set gentlemen to fig- 
 uring, and ask them to tell him how taxes were to be 
 laid, so as not incidentally to confer protection on 
 some persons or some interests in society? Was 
 such a thing possible? Mr. C. confessed that he knew 
 no mode in which this could be done, He never had 
 heard of any; nor could he conceive any system. that 
 would act with perfect equality on all. Those, there- 
 fore,who argued against all protection—that is,against 
 giving by taxation protective advantages to various 
 interests—argued. for an impossibility. It was im- 
 practicable to create a complete separation between 
 a people and their Government; they must and would 
 act upon each other. . fe cea 
 
 Mr. C. was not arguing this question as a question 
 between adversary specific interests. The general ques- 
 tion was only this : how we should so raise revenue as 
 to do the most good with the least injury? And to this 
 question the answer could be obtained only by a com- 
 parative analysis of the details of different projects 
 of taxation in their operation on the various and com- 
 plex interests embraced in this Union. es 
 
 Mr. C. should like to enter on the question, what — 
 method of laying imposts would have the best effect 
 on the whole intervsts of the country, collectively 
 considered ; but his hour was gone, and he should not 
 now attempt it. When the proper time arrived, he 
 should have something to say as to the way of rais- 
 ing our twenty-seven millions with the most benefit 
 to all, and the least concomitant evil to any, of the 
 various classes and interests in the United States. 
 
 House or Representatives, Juty 12th, 1842. 
 CARPETINGS, 
 
 Mr. Cusuine moved to strike out the proposed du- 
 ty of 5 per cent. on wools costing 8 cents and 
 less per pound, so as to make that class of wools 
 free. _He said that, under the act of 1832, and 
 under the Compromise» act, these wools, had 
 been allowed to come in free of duty; during 
 which period the manufacture of carpets,and of worst- 
 ed yarns and fillings, proper to be used in that 
 manufacture had gradually become a highly impor- 
 tant branch of industry, giving employment to many 
 persons and to much‘ capital. tse believed that 
 not less than two millions of yards of carpeting were 
 annually: manufactured “in the United States, and 
 that if there were no injurious legislation to prevent 
 
6 
 
 it,the quantitywould constantly and regularly increase. 
 The wool used in the manufacture was of foreign pro- 
 duction, and of a kind not raised at present at all, and 
 not susceptible of beingraised with profit in this coun- 
 try. At the present rate of importations, the amount of 
 revenue to be obtained by the proposed duty would be 
 small, and it would probably prove to be much less 
 than anticipated, because the importation would be- 
 come less under the duty, in consequence of 
 the diminution the duty would occasion in carpet 
 manufa:ture, and the consequent diminution of the 
 demand for the wool. It was, in fact, a proposition 
 to impose a tax to the amount of this duty on the 
 manufacture of carpeting. He hoped, therefore, this 
 article would be left on the footing on which it now 
 stood. : - 
 The motion was rejected. 
 
 COARSE WOOL. 
 
 Mr. Cusuine moved to strike out five per cent. from 
 the duty on coarse wools, and instead thereof to in- 
 sert two per cent. He said that the Committee had 
 rejected his motion to make these wools free as they 
 stood under the Compromise act. They had also re- 
 jected the motion of Mr. C. Brown to leave them ata 
 duty of one percent. He, Mr. C., would make one 
 more effort against the proposed change. And it 
 
 ‘would be seen that, as the question now stood, the 
 change would be a very serious one. The Committee 
 of Ways and Means have proposed to reduce the 
 maximum from eight cents to seven cents, and, upon 
 the motion of the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. 
 Siade,) the Committee of the Whole have adopted 
 six centsas the maximum. Observe the effect of this. 
 Wools which cost six cents and under, are to pay a 
 duty of five per cent. ad valorem; and wools which 
 cost six and’a quarter cents, seven, eight cents, | 
 which have heretofore been free, are to pay a duty 
 of thirty ver cent. ad valorem. This duty of thirty 
 per cent. on wools heretofore free must be ruinous to 
 the carpet manufacturers. Sir Robert Peel states 
 the true principle on this subject. He says, ‘ Our 
 object has been, speaking generally, to reduce the 
 duties on raw materials, which constitute the ele- 
 ments of manufactures, to an almost nominal amount.” 
 And this is the correct view of the subject. Instead 
 of this, the Committee propose, not only a duty, but 
 a very high duty, on this raw material, which is now 
 imported solely to meet the demands of manufactur- 
 ing industry. 
 
 . ° 
 
 The motion was re} 
 
 COARSE WJOL. 
 
 Mr. Fittmore having moved to strike out thirty 
 per cent. ad valorem from the duty on fine wools, and 
 insert instead thereof nine cents per pound; and Mr. 
 Arnold having moved to amend the amendment by 
 striking out nine cents and inserting twelve and a 
 
 If cents per pound, 
 eens Citaine opposed the motion. He said the 
 proposition was a monstrous one. On wools costing 
 six and a quarter cents, Mr. Arnold’s motion would 
 be a duty of two hundre | per cent. ad valorem; and 
 Mr. Fiilmor ’s, a duty of nearly one hundred and fifty 
 per cent; and the least of the two sums would be a 
 duty of more than one hundred per cent. on the seven 
 cents and eight cents wools. In this way the Com- 
 mittee would get no revenue on these wools, as none 
 would ever be imported. They might as well at 
 once prohibit the importation of all such wools, and 
 
 ected. 
 
 also prohibit the manufacture of carpets in this: 
 country. . 
 
 COARSE WOOL. 
 
 Mr. Everett, of Vermont, having proposed a scale. 
 of minimums for a duty on wool, with the specific 
 duty of ten cents per pound on all wools costing less 
 than thirty cents, 
 
 Mr. Cusuine opposed the motion. He did not ob- 
 ject to the minimum principle, as such, nor to spe- 
 cific duties. On the contrary, he considered specific 
 duties incomparably better than ad valorem duties, 
 in allcases when they could be applied; but he was. 
 sorry to see the wool-growing interest trying to force 
 upon the Committee such heavy duties, at the ex- 
 pense of the wool manufacturer. This project was 
 injurious to the Government, for it would prohibit 
 importation; it would do no good to the wool grow- 
 er, for the manufacturer could not afford to use fine 
 wools for the purpuses for which he had heretofore. 
 used the coarse ones. The Committee would now 
 see how fallacious was the idea which had grown up 
 at the beginning of the session, under the motion to 
 refer the Tariff question to the Committee on Manu- 
 factures. They would see how fallacious was the 
 idea that the manufacturers only,or the manufacturers. 
 chiefly, called for protective duties. They would. 
 also see that, when the details of a Tariff came to be 
 arranged, it was not between Massachusetts and. 
 South Carolina that a conflict of interests existed, but 
 much more between Massachusetts and Vermont.— 
 Whatever protection Massachusetts got for her man- 
 ufactures, she paid full consideration for, in the pro- 
 tective duty charged on the raw material, which 
 she had to buy chiefly from the other States of the: 
 Union. 
 
 WOOLLEN CLOTHS. 
 
 Mr. Cusuine moved to amend the bill, by striking” 
 out 40 per cent. ad valorem, the duty proposed on 
 broadcloths, cassimeres, &c., and inserting 75 cents: 
 per square yard. Mr.C. said that this ad valorem 
 duty might perhaps suffice if it could be collected, but 
 this was impossible. If there was anything establish- 
 ed by the report of the commissioners for investiga-- 
 ting the New York Custom-house, it was the per- 
 petual recurrence of fraudulent importations under- 
 the system of ad valorem duties on fine woollens. It 
 
 |is a bad system for the Government which is thus de- 
 
 frauded of its revenue. It is bad for the manufactu- 
 rer, who does not get the protection he counts upon. 
 And it is bad for the honest importer, who is driven 
 out of the market by the lower price at which the 
 fraudulent importer is able to seil his goods. 
 
 Mr. C. said he could not conceive why this bill 
 should make so much distinction between the inter-- 
 ests of Massachusetts and those of other States. The 
 bill proposes a heavy square yard duty of 5 cents per 
 yard on.cotton bagging, for the benefit of Kentucky. 
 It proposes high protection in the form of specific 
 duties on the iron and coal of Pennsylvania. A 
 square yard duty and a specific duty was proper 
 enough in those cases, and a specific square yard 
 duty is in like manner just aid proper for the cloths 
 and cassimeres of Massachusetts. 
 
 
 
 Hovse or RepresENTATIVES, Jnly 13, 1842. 
 CARPE’S. 
 Mr. Cusuine moved to strike out 65 cents, and in- 
 sert 75 cents for the duty on certain carpetings. He 
 said that the duties on carpeting were, in the aver-- 
 
a 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 * 
 
 age, less than under the act of 1832, and yet of the 
 wools employed in carpet manufacture, and which 
 were free under that act, there was imposed, by this 
 bill, on part a duty of 30 per cent. ad valorem, and 
 on the rest a duty of 5 per cent. ad valorem. This 
 would be doubly unjust to the carpet manufacturers; 
 for them it would be lighting the candle at both ends. 
 They were made to pay a duty, and in part a heavy 
 duty, on the raw material, while, at the same time, 
 the duty on the foreign manufactured article was les- 
 sened. He wished to correct this injustice in some 
 
 _ degree, by increasing the duty on the foreign manu- 
 
 facture. 
 BLANKETS. 
 
 Mr. Cusine moved to increase the duty on wool- 
 len blankets of the first class. 
 
 He said the manufacture of blankets, although yet 
 in its infancy, had grown into an important business, 
 and he thought it ought to receive more protection. 
 In a national point of view, they belonged to that 
 class of articles, which, in anticipation of the neces- 
 sities of war, every nation should produce within it- 
 self. It was bad enough, during the last war, to be 
 dependent on our enemy for the supply of this neces- 
 sary article, and such a difficulty ought not again to 
 recur. And not only was the proposed duty on coarse 
 blankets too low of itself, but the injury to the blan- 
 ket manufacturer was the greater under this bill, in 
 consequence of the heavy additional protection which 
 this bill conferred on wools, especially coarse wools, 
 which had been heretofore free. This course of poli- 
 cy was equally injurious to the wool manufacturer 
 and to the wool grower.* : 
 
 COTTON MANUFACTURES. 
 
 Mr. Siu, of Virginia, having moved to strike out 
 the minimum valuation in the proposed duty on manu- 
 factures of cotton, Mr. C. objected. He said that much 
 misconception, and a very groundless prejudice with 
 regard to the minimum principle, existed in some quar- 
 ters. It was but another form of specific duties. If 
 they were wrong, the alternative was uniform ad va 
 lorem duties in all cases. To this, the objections 
 Were obvious and insurmountable. {t would violate 
 every principle of legislation, every doctrine of finance. 
 No Government ever did, and he did not believe any 
 Government ever would do, so absurd a thing as to 
 impose indiscriminate and equal ad valorem duties. 
 Suppose Congress were to apply an equal ad valorem 
 duty of 20 per cent. to all articles. Would this ope- 
 rate equally? No. On the contrary, on some arti- 
 cles it would be revenue without proteciion ; on others 
 revenue with protection; and on others again, no 
 tevenue, but absolute prohibition. Equality in these 
 things is impossible. It is necessary to apportion the 
 duty according to the nature, uses, and relations of the 
 particular thing. Accordingly, in this bill, there are 
 many articles on which the duty is: less than 20 per 
 cent., because they could not bearsomuch. On others, 
 the duty is more, because they can bear more, and 
 because they affected interests which required protec- 
 tion, For in the imposition of duties many things 
 were to be considered ; as, first, revenue for the Go- 
 vernment ; second, incidentally, regard for other in- 
 terests.to be affected well or ill by the duty; and third- 
 
 
 
 *There was, on motion of Mr. Evyrrert, of Ver- 
 mont, after the bill was reported to the House, a still 
 additional duty imposed on wool, so. that the duty is 
 30 per cent. ad valorem, and 3 cents per pound spe- 
 cific besides, 
 
 
 
 ly, the consideration of vested interests, which, hav- 
 ing grown up under the legislation of the country 
 are to be respected. In a word, the idea of rais- 
 ing the revenue of the United States by duties on im- 
 ports, framed on a fixed and horizontal ad valorem 
 scale was totally incompatible with the public inte- 
 rests, impracticable and unwise as a question of expe- 
 diency, and was in no sort required by the Consti- 
 tution, 
 AD VALOREM DUTIES. 
 
 Mr. Ruerr, of South Carolina, having in another 
 form renewed the motion to strike out the minimum 
 from the duty.on cotton, 
 
 Mr. Cusurne replied: He said it was a great error 
 to suppose that specific duties were desired by manu- 
 facturers only. ‘The system of ad valorem duties was, | 
 to be sure, Inconvenient to them, because by false in- 
 voices and other fraudulent devices, the ad valorem du- 
 ty was liable to be evaded,and the domestic manufac- 
 turer did not obtain the anticipated protection. The. 
 system was prejudicial to the Gevernment, because. 
 it made a corps of appraisers necessary, increased the 
 cost of collection, and did not give to the Treasury 
 the legal rates of imposts. But the system was equal- 
 ly inconvenient to the importing and commercial in- 
 terests, and it was to this point that he (Mr. C.). 
 wished particularly to call the attention of the gen- 
 tleman from South Carolina. If you have specific. . 
 duties, the merchant knows precisely beforehand what 
 duty he has got to pay, and is able to make his cal- . 
 culations as to the probable result of his enterprises, 
 free from uncertainty in this respect. But with ad 
 valorem duties he can do nosuch thing. The amount 
 of duty that he has to pay depends perhaps upon the 
 accident of an appraisement at the custom-house. 
 Besides which, if he be an honest man, he finds 
 himself undersold by some foreign importer, who, 
 disregarding alike the laws of his country and of ho- 
 nor, has made his importations with false invoices, so 
 as to evade a part of the duty, to the injury of the 
 honest importer, as well as that of the manufacturer 
 and the Government. 
 
 SILK MANUFACTURES. 
 
 Mr. Fittmore having moved to amend the bill, by 
 striking out the various proposed duties on silk man- 
 ufactures, 2nd substituting therefor a specific duty of 
 two dollars and fifty cents per pound, 
 
 Mr. CUSHING m ved to amend the amendment 
 by substituting two dollars for two dollars and fifty 
 cents per pound. Mr. C. said that he was very 
 glad to see that the Committee of Ways and Means 
 had thought better on this question of the duty on 
 silk manufactures, and proposed not only to re- 
 duce it in rate, but to make it specific. He should 
 be glad to see it lower still, and therefore moved the 
 rate of two dollars, equivalent to about twenty per 
 cent. ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. C. thought the United States ought never to 
 forget their debt of gratitude to France for the effi- 
 cient and decisive aid she afforded in the war of the 
 Revolution. France was then, and is now, a natural 
 and necessary ally of the United States. We ought, 
 therefore, in every proper. way, to cultivate friendly 
 relations with her, and in the arrangement of our 
 tariff, if the necessities of the Treasury require that 
 additional duties shall be imposed on French articles, 
 we ought to take care that those dutis s all be so 
 arranged as not to.involve or imply any act of un 
 kindness towards France. 
 
 It was furtherto be remembered, that our ships con» 
 
 
 
8 
 
 Stitute 85 per cent of the tonnage employed in the 
 navigation. between the United States and France, 
 and that, with the exception of tobacco, the importa- 
 tion of which into France is a Government monopoly,. 
 the tariff of France is. not generally higher than 
 is the present tariff of the United States, and in some 
 cases makes distinctions in favor of our productions. 
 Thus our cotton pays only about twelve. per cent, 
 wheat, at the highest, twenty-two anda half per 
 ‘cent; our rice two francs, while that of other coun- 
 tries pays from four to nine francs; our potashes pay 
 only fifteen francs, while those of Russia pay eigh- 
 teen francs. 
 
 Mr. C. said that the bill, as originally reported, by 
 imposing a higher duty on figured than on plainsilks, 
 did, in fact, make a distinction against the silks of 
 France. ‘The present proposition was free from that 
 objection, and apart from the political objection against 
 high duties on French articles, there was a financial 
 objection which was entirely conclusive. If anexces- 
 sive duty was put on French silks, it would not. be 
 collected, the business.would go into the hands of 
 smugglers and fraudulent importers. Naples silks 
 could be smuggled into the United States, by the way 
 of England and Canada, at a premium of ten per 
 cent, and itis said that a company fas been organ- 
 ized in Paris for smuggling silks into the United 
 States at a still less premium. However this may be, 
 there is no doubt but frauds will occur it duties be ex- 
 cessive. And the existence of such smuggling asso- 
 ciaiions undertaking to run silks fora stipulated prer 
 mium, is mentioned by Sir Robert Peel. Mr. C. 
 hoped, therefore, that either two dollars per pound, or 
 if not two, at most two and a half dollars would be 
 substituted for the heavier ad valorem duty proposed 
 -and reported in the original bill. 
 
 FLAX—TWINE—HEMP. : 
 
 Mr. CusHiING moved to amend the bill by striking 
 “out forty dollars per ton the proposed duty on flax, so 
 ~as to make the article free. He said it was free un- 
 der the act of 1832. It was chiefly used in the manu- 
 facture of thread and twine. It would be idle to im- 
 pose a heavy duty on flax, for the duty would yield 
 nothing, It would stopthe manufacture, to carry on 
 which, flax has been imported, and there was nv do- 
 -mestic reason to justify this bigh prohibitory duty, as 
 at wasaraw material of manufacture, flax of the same 
 discription not being produced in the United States. ~ 
 
 The motion to strike out failed, but the duty was 
 lowered to twenty dollars. 
 
 Mr. Cusnine- moved to reduce the proposed duty 
 on Manila hemp, from thirty-five to twenty-five dol- 
 Jars the ton. ‘The duty was reduced to twenty-five 
 dollars per ton. 
 
 Hlouse or Representatives, Juty 14, 1842. 
 
 IRON—SHIPS. 
 Mr. “Epwarps, of Pennsylvania, having moved to 
 raise the duty on hammered iron to twenty-five dol- 
 Lars, 
 ir. Cusine objected. He said that. the origi- 
 nal bill proposed a duty of eighteen dollars per ton 
 on hammered iron in bars, and thirty doHars on rolled 
 iron in bars.. He thought both of these duties were 
 high; buthe was especially opposed to increasing the 
 duty on hammered iron. He was in favor of main- 
 taining the distinction between hammered. and 
 rolled iron, which this billyproposed in conformity 
 with, the principle of previous laws. Jt is the rolled 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 duties, but to return” kindness. for kindness. 
 
 
 
 iron from England, fabricated with mineral coal, | 
 
 which chiefly comes in competition with our own ; 
 which is; much, less the case in regard to: hammered’ 
 iron fabricated .with charcoal, and) coming fromthe 
 Baltic,..and. chiefly . from, Sweden. 
 the. hammered iron is needed for a great)many pur- 
 poses.of mechanic industry in.the United States. It 
 is prefered by. blacksmiths, because it is more easily” 
 wrought under. the hammer, and. is preferable for 
 fine, works...in . steel, 
 springs, horse shoes, and-in the,construction of ves- 
 sels. 
 
 There. is another very important reason why this ~ 
 motion should not prevail. 
 present session ahout retaliatory duties. 
 
 It. is also -used for making 
 
 Much had. been said the 
 In this. case 
 he did not call on the House. to. impose ee 
 ur 
 trade was of great importance to Sweden, in 
 consideration. of . which. she admitted the - pro- 
 ductions. of. the United .States. into her ports 
 at a duty 15 per..cent. less than similar goods 
 would pay,.coming from other, countries. He wished 
 the House to meet this liberal and friendly overture 
 
 in the same spirit in which it was. made by the Swed-. 
 
 ish Government. 
 
 Mr. C. said he regretted to see so. little considera-~ 
 tion shown to.a branch of manufactures which is se- 
 cond in importance to none in. the United States.— 
 He meant ship-building, which, by this bill, is taxed; 
 right and left, without mercy. 
 wood work, and taxed in her iron—taxed in her cop- 
 
 per and taxed in her lead—taxed in her.sails and tax- 
 
 ed in her rigging—taxed in her anchors and taxed in 
 her cables. Ifthere be not some forbearance in this. 
 
 all theship builders will be driven out of the. United: 
 
 States and compelled to take refuge in the British 
 Provinces. A ship owner has now to labor with 
 
 fearful odds, under all the duties imposed on ship 
 
 building in connection with our reciprocity treaties. 
 He (Mr. C.) protested against there being any unne- 
 
 cessary additions made to the present heavy burdens 
 
 of thesbip owner and ship builder, 
 
 SHEATHING COPPER. 
 Mr. Fitumore having moved to make the duty on 
 sheathing copper two cents per pound, and Mr. Wm. 
 
 C. Jounson having moved to amend the motion so as: - 
 
 to make it 34 cents per pound, Mr. Cusnine objected. 
 
 He said this was a proposition to impose a heavy 
 tax on the construction and repair of ships, for the 
 benefit of four or five establishments in the United 
 States, engaged in rolling sheet copper, and it was, in 
 his opinion, altogether impolitic and unjust. He had 
 already complained of the excessive burdens which 
 this bill imp»sed.on ship building, and here was an- 
 other striking example of the same fact. He pro- 
 tested agaiast it on many accounts. 
 
 First, in this case, asin regard to the heavy duty 
 
 imposed on hemp, and chain cables. and an- 
 chots—in proportion aS you raise the duty, you 
 drive our vessels to supply themselves with these arti- 
 cles abroad, as much as possible. That great portion of 
 our mercantile marine engaged in the carrying trade 
 usually visits England, atleast once a year. Some of 
 
 those veasels do-now, and all of them could, as well 
 
 ag not, have their sheathing. and re sheathing done ia 
 England. - 
 In_so far as this is done, you, by driving the ves- 
 sels out.of the ceuntry to beshéathed, prevent sheath- 
 ing from being iaported into the United States, and 
 deprive our own mechanics’ and Jaborers of the ad- 
 vantages of fitting up and putting in order our ships. 
 
 A ship is taxed in her, 
 
 -# 
 
 Besides: which, | 
 
-chanic, rather than a machinery. manufacture, 
 
 Now, a large amount of capital is invested in ma- 
 rine rail ways in this country, and agreat many me- 
 chanics obtain a living in the business of sheathing or] 
 _ re-sheathing vessels; and in the general fitting up, in 
 
 painting, repairs of upper works, spars, &c., which 
 frequently accompanies re-sheathing, whenever that is 
 done.- Hewas informed, and believed that the vari- 
 ous expenditures for labor, &c., connected with the 
 first sheathing of a ship, are generally one half of the 
 costof the new metal, and when a vessel is re- 
 sheathed the expenditures are generally, as much as 
 the net cost of the sheathing copper. And as to all our 
 vessels engaged in European trade, those who would, 
 by this duty, be driven to sheathe in England, it was a 
 question whether you shall sacrifice the conveni- 
 ence of the ship owner and the ship builder, the pro- 
 fits of the importer, and the employment of all the 
 
 ' mechanics connected with the fitting and repair of 
 
 ships, for the:sake of giving a bounty to some four or 
 five copper rolling establishments, 
 
 Buatin the second place, in another’ point of view, 
 this. would. work still more prejudicially, for there was 
 an important part of our commercial marine which 
 did not frequently or regularly visit England, viz: our 
 whaleing vessels, a most useful and important branch 
 of enterprise, and our traders to the East and West 
 Indies. and South America, to say nothing of steam- 
 boats, coasters, &c., which never leave the United 
 States. Now, upon this part of our shipping interest, 
 the.duty would fall with redoubled force. They 
 could not escape it by getting coppered in England. 
 
 Finally, the amount of revenue to be thus obtained 
 would be small, for, two-thirds of the ships which are 
 now copper sheathed in Boston and N. York, can,with- 
 out. very great inconvenience, and will, if driven to it 
 by this enormous duty, have their c oppering done in 
 England, — 
 
 oF 
 
 House or REPRESENTATIVES, Jury 15, 1842. 
 
 MANUFACTURES OF LEATHER. 
 
 Mr. Gwin having moved a duty of 15 per cent on 
 raw hides, Mr. Cusuine objected. 
 
 He said that the original proposition reported 
 by the Committee of Ways and Means, to im- 
 pose a duty of one cent per pound on raw hides, 
 whether dry or salted, was clearly wiong, not only 
 by reason of the amount of the duty, but because in 
 putting the same duty per pound upon salted hides as 
 upon dry ones, you will, in fact, drive the salted hides 
 out of the market. 
 
 Heretofore, under the act of 1832, raw hides, as a 
 material of manufacture, were free; by the present bill, 
 
 _ there is, in many. cases, a duty ef 5 per cent. on the 
 
 various classes of raw material. It would be unwise 
 and unjust, in the case of hides, to raise this to 15 per 
 cent, . - 
 
 The manufacture of boots and_ shoes, and other 
 fabrics of leather, isan immense business, scarcely se- 
 cond to any other branch of manufacture in this coun- 
 try, and there was. this of peculiar, in it, that it was 
 carried. on comparatively. little by machinery. It was 
 much more than the manufactures ofcotten and wool, 
 a business of handycraft-labor and skill, being a me- 
 On 
 this account it deserved favor, by reason cf the num- 
 ber of hands.it employed, and on’ this account it re- 
 quired protection, because foreign handycraft-labor 
 came into direct competition with it, and it was un- 
 just, therefore, to neutralize the beneficial effects of 
 the duty which this bill imposed on the manufactured 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 articles of leather, by imposing a heavy duty. on the 
 
 raw material. 
 
 Nor.was this desirable. for the benefit of the cattle 
 
 raising interest in this country. With us, no one. 
 thinks of raising cattle for the sake of the hide alone. 
 
 The hide and tallow being, to ‘say the most, and to 
 
 use a common phrase, the fifth quarter of the ox.— 
 
 Whereas, in those countries where we chiefly obtain 
 raw hides, the hide is the principal, if not the only. ob- 
 
 ject. “The cattle are kept and killed for the hide, or 
 hide and tallow, while the flesh 1s thrown away, for 
 
 the most part, and left to dry up or decay. on the earth. 
 
 No such fact exists or can existin this country. We 
 
 have no vast plains, covered with herds of cattle, 
 
 maintained for the hide alone, such as roam over the 
 
 pampas of Spanish America. 
 
 He begged, therefore, that the House would not 
 proceed without any valuable practical object to ac- ~ 
 complish by it, to impose this heavy burden on 
 manufacturers of leather. 
 
 _. PUBLIC LANDS. 
 
 Note.—Mr. Cuspinc moved to amend the bill by. 
 striking out the 25th section, which is in the words - 
 following, viz: ‘ 
 
 Sec. 25. And be it further enacted, That the pro- 
 visu to the sixth section of. the act entitled ‘ An-act 
 to appropriate the proceeds of the sales of the public 
 lands, and to grant pre-emption rights,” approved: 
 September fourth, eighteen hundred and forty-one, be, 
 and the same is hereby repealed.” 
 
 When Mr. C. made this motion, the rule of the 
 House terminating debate on the bill, had attached to 
 it. Ifotherwise, it was his intention to have given 
 his reasons for this motion; which reasons are the 
 following : Wiki 
 
 The condition of the Treasury, at the present time, 
 imperatively demands the imposition of-additional du- 
 ties, and a revision of the tariff, so as to meet the ex-. 
 isting deficit, to make the annual, revenue equal to 
 the annual expenditures, and to provide for the pay- 
 ment of the actual debt of the Government. 
 
 As at present arranged, the duties derived from cus- 
 toms are, and for many years have been, wholly in- 
 adequate to meet the annual wants of the Govern- 
 ment. In fact, the Treasury has, for several years past, 
 labored under embarrassment from this cause. 
 
 When Mr. Van Buren came into power, he en- 
 countered, at the outset, precisely this financial 
 difficulty, by reason of which it became neces- 
 sary for him, not only to expend the whole of 
 the receipts of each year, but to use in addi- 
 tion in the current expenses of the Government, 
 the intended fourth instalment of the -surplus 
 treasure, ordered in 1836 to be deposited with 
 the States, and to use also the proceeds of the sale 
 of the stock in the United States Bank held by the 
 Government. Besides which, he was compelled to 
 postpone a large amount of appropriations, and still 
 to leave a balance of indebtedness in outstanding 
 Treasury notes at the close of his administration. 
 
 When the present Administration came into power 
 it found the Treasury laboring under these same em- 
 barrassments. 
 
 The Treasury had, in the first-place, been depleted 
 of a temporary surplus by the deposite thereof with 
 the States. 
 
 After this, it was impossible with all the resources 
 of the Government, whether by the~sale of the 
 public lands, or by the revenue received: from the 
 duties on imports, to defray the expenses of each 
 
 
 
10 
 
 year, and a daily accumulation of debt was the con- 
 sequence. ; 
 
 For, the peculiar fact in the financial history of the 
 Government during the last ten years has been this, 
 namely,that while the expenditures of theGovernment 
 had during that time greatly increased, yet simulta- 
 neously with this, the revenue derivable from duties 
 on imports, the only form of taxation used at the 
 present time by the Federal Government, has been 
 undergoing a regular periodical reduction by law. 
 
 It is to be remembered that the last general revis- 
 ion of the ‘Tariff was by the act of the 14th of July, 
 1832, which, as modified by Mr. Clay’s bill of the 
 second of March, 1833, commonly called the Com- 
 promise act, fixed the rate of duties, until some mo- 
 difications therein were made by the act of Septem- 
 ber the 11th, 1841. 
 
 By the Compromise act, it is provided that in all 
 cases when the duties on foreign imports:shall by 
 any act exceed 20 per centumon the value thereof, 
 one-tenth part of such excess shall be deducted from 
 and after December 31st, 1833; another tenth part 
 thereof shall be deducted from and after December 
 31st, 1835; another tenth part thereof shall be de- 
 ducted from and after December 31st, 1837: that 
 one half of the residue of such excess shall be de- 
 ducted from and after December 31st, 1841; and 
 the other half of such residue from and after June 
 30th, 1842. 
 
 By the progress and result of these reductions,- 
 
 then, the revenues of Government, as well from cus- 
 toms as from all other sources, have come to be alto- 
 gether insufficient for the indispensable necessities of 
 the Treasury. : 
 
 And the final completion of these periodical re- 
 ductions (to say nothing of the effect of their pro- 
 gres-,) has operated most disastrously on the invest- 
 ments of capital and the pursuits of labor and indus- 
 try in various branches of business; more especially 
 the abrupt process of cutting off four-tenths of the ex- 
 cess of duties above 20 per cent. .in the short period 
 of six months, intervening between the first of Janu- 
 ary, 1842, and the first of July, 1842; for which re- 
 duction the provision in the Compromise act for the 
 payment of the duties in cash on the home valua- 
 tion, is not found to afford sufficient compensation. 
 
 Under these circumstances it became the most im- 
 portant business of this Congress, whether as regards 
 the finances of the Government, or the material inte- 
 rests of the People, to re-arrange the Tariff. 
 
 And it would be comparatively easy to do this, and 
 to arrange the Tariff upon a footing of reasonable 
 
 “~ satisfaction and stability, but for the disturbing influ- 
 
 ences which arise, from a collateral, secondary, and 
 relatively unimportant fact. ° 
 
 This fact is the question of the distribution of the 
 annual proceeds of the public lands among the sey- 
 eral States. 
 
 On the fourth of September, 1841, an act was pass- 
 ed prov.ding, among other things, for the semi-annu- 
 al distribution of the net proceeds of the sales of the 
 public lands among the several States. Such distri- 
 bution to be suspended and cease upon and during the 
 occurience of two contingencies, viz: First, war ; 
 secondly, the imposition of a duty upon any one arti- 
 cle of impor.s to an amount exceeding 20 per cent. ad 
 va.oreii. , 
 
 The last condition is contained in a proviso to thi 
 sixth section of the act, which proviso is in the words 
 following, viz: 
 
 “Tfat any time, during the existence of this act, 
 there shall be an impositiun of duties on imports in- 
 consistent with the provision of the act of March 2d, 
 1833, entitled ‘An act to modify the act of the 14th 
 of July, 1832, and all other acts imposing duties on 
 imports,’ and beyond the rate of duty fixed by that act, 
 to wit: twenty per cent. on the value of such imports 
 or any of them, then the distribution provided in this 
 act shall be suspended, and shall so continue until 
 this cause of its suspension shall be removed, and 
 when removed, if not prevented by other provisions of 
 this act, such distribution shall be resumed.” 
 
 This proviso was an amendment to the Distribu- 
 tion bill introduced in the Senate, the record history 
 of which is in the following extracts from the Journal 
 of the Senate, of August 23, 1841; 
 
 The Senate resumed the considerattion of the bill 
 (H. R. 4) to appropriate the proceeds of the sales of 
 the public lands and to grant pre-emption rights. 
 
 he amendment proposed by Mr. Berrien, the 21st 
 instant, being modified by Mr. Berrien by unanimous 
 consent, as follows: - 
 _ At the end of the sixth section insert— | 
 
 Provided, ‘That, ifat any timeduring the existence 
 of this act, there shall be an imposition of duties on 
 imports inconsistent with the provisions of the act of 
 March 2d, 1833, entitled ‘“‘ An act to modify the act 
 of the 14th of July, 1832, and all the acts imposing 
 duties on imports” and beyond the rate of duty fixed 
 by that act, to wit: twenty per centum on the value of 
 such imports, or any of them, then the distribution 
 provided in this act shall be suspended, and shall so 
 continue until this cause of its suspension shall be 
 removed, and when removed, if not prevented by, 
 other provisions of this aét, such distribution shall be 
 renewed. , . 
 
 On the question to agree thereto, those who voted 
 in the affirmative, are : 
 
 Messrs. Allen, Archer, Barrow, Bayard, Berrien, 
 Calhoun, Clay, of Alabama, Cray, of Kentucky, 
 Clayton, Fulton, Graham, Henderson, Kerr, King, 
 Mangum, Merrick, Morehead, Porter, Preston, Se- 
 vier, Simmons, Smith, of Indiana, Tallmadge, Wal- 
 ker. 
 
 Those who voted in the negative, are z 
 Messrs. Bates, Benton, Buchanan, Choate, Dixon, 
 Evans, Huntington, Linn, Miller, Prentiss, .South- 
 ard, Sturgeon, Tappan, White, Williams, Wood- 
 bridge, Wright, Young. : ih i i 
 
 This amendment was concurred in by the House 
 on the 30th of August, 1841, on the question that 
 the House do agree to the amendment, the vote being 
 yeas 107, nays 95; and thus the proviso became part 
 of the bill as it passed the two Houses and was ap- 
 proved by the President. 
 
 Those who voted in the affirmative are— 
 
 Messrs. Allen, L. W. Andrews, S. J. Andrews, /Ar- 
 nold, Arrington, ycrigg, Babcock, Barnard, Barton, 
 H. Black, Blair, Boardman, Bronson,M. Brown, W. Butler, 
 W. O. Butler, Calhoun, W.B. Campbell, T.J. Campbell, Ca- 
 ruthers, Chapman, T. C. Chittenden, J. C. Clark, S.N. Clark, 
 Coles, Cowen, Daniel, G. Davis. W.C. Dawson, Deberry, 
 Doan, Everett, Fessenden, Fillmore, 4. L. Foster, Gam- 
 ble, Gates, Gentry, Goggin, P. G. Goode, W. O. Goode, 
 Graham, Green, Greig, Halsted, Harris, Hays, Howard, 
 Hubard, Hunter, Hunt, J. D. Jones, J. P. Kennedy, . 
 King, Lewis, Lin, T. #. Marshall, S. Mason, Mathiot, 
 Mattocks, Maxwell, Maynard, Moore, Morgan, Morris, 
 Morrow, Osborne, Owsly, Payne, Pendleton, Pickens, 
 Powell, Randall, Rayner, Rencher, Ridgway, Rogers, 
 
Il 
 
 Russell, Saunders, Sargent, Sheppard, Shields, Slade, 
 T. Smith,"Stanly, Stokely, A. H. Stuart, J. T. Stuart, 
 Summers, Taliaferro, J. B. Thompson, R. W. Thompson, 
 Tomlinson, Trumbull, Wallace, Warren, Washington, 
 Watterson, E. D. White, J. L. White, T. W. Wiil- 
 liams, R. Willidms, C. H. Williams, Yorke, A. Young, 
 J. Young. 
 Those who yoted in the negative are— 
 Messrs. Adams, Atherton, Baker,Banks, Beeson, Bid- 
 ‘lack, Birdseye, Borden, Bowne, Boyd, Briggs, Brockway, A. 
 ‘V. Brown, C. Brown, Burke, Burnell, P. C. Caldwell, 
 Clifford, Clinton, J. Cooper, Cranston, Cravens, Cross, 
 Cushing, R. D. Davis, J. B. Dawson, Dean, Doig, 
 Eastman, J. Edwards, J. C. Edwards, Egbert, Ferris, 
 J. G. Floyd, C. A. Floyd, Fornance, Gerry, Gordon, 
 _ Gustine, Habersham, Hall, W. S. Hastings, J. Hast- 
 ings, Henry, Hopkins, Houk, Houston, Hudson, C. J. 
 Ingersoll, J. Irvin, W. W. Irwin, Jack, James, C. John- 
 son, Keim, A. Kennedy, Lane, Lawrence, Littlefield, 
 A. McClellan, R. McClellan, McKay, Mallory, Mar- 
 chand, A. Marshall, Mathews, Miller, Newhard, Par- 
 menter, Plumer, Pove, Ramsey, Randolph, Reynolds, 
 Riggs, Saltonstall, Sanford, Shaw, Simonton, Snyder, 
 Steenrod, Stratton, Sumpter, Sweney, Tillinghast, 
 Toland, Triplett, Turney, Underwood, Van Buren, 
 Ward, Westbrook, Winthrop, Wise, Wood. 
 By analysis of these votes, it will be seen that this 
 proviso was carried in both Houses, by the votes of a 
 majority of those friendly to the principle of Distribu- 
 tion, and thus the friends of Distribution themselve- 
 _ fixed, and laid down the limitation, that no distribu- 
 
 tion should take place during any period whenever 
 there should be occasion for duties on any articles of 
 imports exceeding the amount of 20 per cent. ad va- 
 lorem. 
 
 Now, a provision is inserted in the present Tariff 
 bill, beinc the 25th section, to repeal this proviso and 
 limitation, that is to say, the repeal of it is stuck, asa 
 rider, on the back of the Tariff bill. It is proposed, 
 by those who fixed and settled this fundamental con- 
 dition of Distribution, to repeal and unfix that funda- 
 mental condition. 
 
 This is fickie and unstable legislation. It is 
 fickle and unstable legislation in the same Con- 
 gress which prescribed and established the terms 
 and conditions of the Distribution, to undertake 
 to repeal those terms and conditions. That duties 
 exceeding 20 percent. would be needed was just as 
 well known then as now. 
 
 [t is not a fair mode of legislation. A Tariff act 
 providing revenue for the Governient, and in the ar- 
 rangement and discrimination of the duties, affording 
 protection to the industry of the People, is a primary, 
 necessary, indispensable thing. ‘I'he repeal of the es- 
 tablished terms and conditions of the Distribution act 
 is not a necessary object, but one only of secondary 
 expediency, to say the most which can be said in its 
 favor. To associate these two things together, and to 
 
 make the first depend upon the second, is not an equi 
 table or fair mode of legislation. 
 
 It is affirmed, in many of the newspapers, either ig- 
 norantly; or for the purpose of deception, that you 
 must preserve the Distribution act, that the objec: 
 of this 25th sec ion is to preseive that act, and that 
 those who go against this 25th section of the Tariff 
 act, inso doing go against the Distribution act. That 
 is false. This 25th section of the Tariff act proposes 
 torepeal a fundamental part of the Distribution act. 
 In stiiking out this section, you leave the Distribu- 
 
 a. act to stand entire, in theterms, and with the con- 
 
 ba] 
 
 ditions, which the 
 scribed. : 
 
 In addition to this, we know, since the President. 
 returned the temporary Tariff bill with his objections, 
 that, in retaining the 25th section, all we dois to fish 
 for another Veto. | 
 
 In fact, the effect of this 25th section is to enlarge and 
 extend the operation of the Distribution act, beyond 
 the conditions and limitations, which the present Con- 
 gress has itself so recently prescribed as being, in the 
 opinion of the Whig majouity, the wise and proper 
 conditions and limitations. 
 
 Is the financial condition of the Federal. Govern- 
 ment, at the present time, such as to warrant this ? 
 
 When the Treasury is exhausted—when all the 
 resources of the Government -are insufficient for its. 
 necessary expenses—when there is affeady a large 
 debt—when every day is adding to that debt—when 
 it is a matter of the mcst painful difficulty to raise 
 ways and means to carry on the Government, is it a 
 wise operation, financially speaking, to throw away. 
 any additional part of those resources, and to go on 
 and borrow more money for the purpose of distribute 
 ing the money so borrowed among the States? Sure- 
 ly not. ; 
 
 There are gentlemen who profess a readiness and a 
 determination to sacrifice the Tariff itself, rather than 
 not accomplish the object of now repealing their own 
 limitations of t'e Distribution act; that is to say, to 
 bankrupt the Government, to disband the Army, to- 
 dismantle the Navy, to stop the action of all the 
 Departments, and to keep the trade, industry and bu- 
 siness of the whole country on a stretch of distrac- 
 tion, prostration and agony, until the next- Congress 
 shall come together, or the next President be chosen, 
 rather than not now cary this proposed repeal of one: 
 of the fundamental conditions of the Distribution: 
 act. 2 
 Are the Peeple willing to submit to all this for the 
 purpose of gratifying the schemes of politicians ? 
 Are they content to be thus victimized for such an 
 an object? And is the object worth so much, that. 
 you are willing to pay all this price for the mere 
 chance of getting it? For remember, it is but a 
 chance. 
 
 The newspapers argue the point of this 25th sec- 
 tion as if the question was now of the original pas- 
 sage of the Distribution act, whereas the express ob- 
 ject of the section is to repeal a fundamental part of 
 that act. Take it, however, either way, and the 
 question recurs, What is the true value of the ob- 
 ject 2 
 ; Much learning and ingenuity have been expended, 
 in the endeavor to show that the public lands actually 
 belong, of right, to the several States, in their sepa~- 
 rate capacity, and not to the Federal Government.— 
 Supposing (which is not true) that this argument 
 were made out in any degree, still it would avail but 
 little, for it only applies to that part of the public do- 
 main which consists of gratuitous cessions made 
 
 present Congress has itself pre- 
 
 by the States. In respect even to that part, it 
 shuts out from consideration all the money 
 which the Federal Government has itself paid 
 out of the Federal ‘Treasury, and derived 
 
 from Federal taxes, to conduct the wilitary de- 
 fence of ‘hose lands, and to complete the title by buy- 
 ing out the occupation of the Indians. And making 
 the bestof the argument, it applies to but a sinall 
 part of the public lands, inasmuch as by far the largest 
 part of the existing public domain consists of territory 
 
12°. 
 
 paid for with money by the Federal Government and 
 purchased from France or Spain. ‘To no part of this 
 great division of the public domain does the argu- 
 ment attach. De 
 
 If, therefore, Distribution be put, as a right of the 
 ind.vidual States, and you could make out the right 
 upon the original Virginia and other cessions, prior 
 to the Constitution, then in proportion as you make 
 out any such right to the portion of the public domain 
 comprehended in those cessions, you do, in the same 
 breath, establish the fact that the separate States have 
 no separate interest whatever, in the residue of the 
 public domain; that is to say, in the far larger and 
 more valuable part of it, which the Federal Govern- 
 ment acquired by purchase for money since the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution.’ 
 
 _ Accordingly"Distribution, as covering the whole 
 public domain, must be justified, upon considerations 
 of expediency. % : 
 
 ’ Asa question of expediency, there has, it seems to 
 me, been extreme exaggeration in this case on both 
 sides. 
 
 It is the misfortune of political controversy in this 
 country, though, in another point of view, it is evi- 
 dence of the comparative felicity of our lot, that 
 questions like this, of mere pecuniary expediency, 
 which may be decided either way without very se- 
 riously affecting the public interests, should grow, 
 when seen through the magnifying glasses of party, 
 into imaginary greatness, and factitious consequence, 
 for a time, and come to be sincerely regarded by 
 many as questions of principle. 
 
 Look at the questions of dynasty, of form of goy- 
 ernment, of political or social revolution, which con- 
 vulse other countries, and consider, whether it be 
 not quite idle to agitate our country, and to throw 
 
 away its internal peace and order, on a question 
 relatively so unimportant as that of the disposition of 
 the net annual proceeds of the public lands. 
 
 I voted for the Distribution bill, when it passed 
 the House, for the reasons among others, that it was 
 the act of my party associates, that. there were con- 
 siderations of public convenience in favor of laying 
 out and setting aside the proceeds of the public do- 
 main from the ordinary reliable revenues of the Go- 
 vernment, and that it was desirable to dispose of and 
 settle the controversy on the subject. 
 
 T could not, nor would not, have voted for the bill 
 at the last session, if informed by its friends that it 
 was not intended by them as a permanent settlement 
 of the controversy ; that it was to be gone over again 
 and placed upon a totally new basis in the same Con- 
 gress; that the’terms and conditicns of settlement 
 then agreed upon and established, were to be repealed 
 at thé next session ; and -that this repeal was to be 
 fastened upon, and made the condition precedent of, 
 
 ‘the enactment of a wise and proper Tariff. 
 
 We are now invoked to re-open and re-adjust that 
 controversy ; to repeal the conditions and limita- 
 tions so recently agreed upon and established; and, 
 for the sake of that repeal, to sacrifice the Tariff it- 
 self, and all the vital interests of the Government 
 and the people, which the Tariff involves. 
 
 This peculiar state of facts compels me to inquire, 
 myself, and to ask the people to inquive, what is the 
 precise value of the Distribution act, and especially, 
 what is its value as compared with the Tariff? 
 
 In so far as the‘administration of the public lands 
 by the Federal Government, is the means of waste, 
 or Of pecuniary or political corruption, the Distribu- 
 
 - 
 
 tion Act accomplishes nothing, foi it leaves the ad- 
 
 ministration of the public domain to be continued per- 
 
 manently in the hands of the Federal Government. 
 
 In so far as the benefit of distribution might be to. 
 
 take the question of the public lands out of the field of 
 politics, or to secure absolutely ashare of them’to the 
 old States, the Distribution act accomplishes nothing. 
 For in the first place, the act is at all times snbject to 
 the question of repeal; and, in the second place, the 
 act, if unrepealed, is self-nullified by the following 
 clause contained init, viz: — . 
 “Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be 
 construed to the prejudice of future applications for a 
 reduction of the price of the public lands, or to the 
 prejudice of applications for the transfer of the public 
 lands on reasonable terms to the States within which 
 they lie, or to make such future disposition of the 
 public lands, or any part thereof; as Congress may 
 deem expedient.” . 
 
 The question of Distribution remains therefore a 
 mere question of dollars and.cents. 
 
 Congress has agreed, for the present, that there shall 
 be distribution in time of peace, so long as the state 
 of the ‘Treasury does..not require the imposition. of 
 duties exceeding 20 per cent..ad valorem; but that 
 whenever it becomes necessary.to subject the people 
 to such an amount of taxation, then the proceeds of 
 the public lands, instead of being distributed among. 
 the States, shall remain in the Treasury to lighten the 
 burden of taxation, imposed on the people by the 
 Federal Government. 
 
 On the other hand, it is said, that, by ceasing to re- 
 cur to the public lands for revenue, and by relying 
 wholly on duties, the question of the Federal revenue 
 is relieved from the disturbing cause of the fluctta- 
 tion and uncertainty of the element of the revenue de- 
 rived from pubiic lands, and that moreover the neces- 
 sity thus created for a higher rate of duties on imports 
 
 is beneficial to certain interests, by giving them high- 
 
 er protection. 
 
 This assumes contrary to what experience proves, 
 that the revenue from customs will be of itself alone 
 enough to carry on the Government. Whereas, 
 for aught that at present appears, unless recourse 
 be had to the public lands, it may be necessary either 
 
 to add continually to the public debt, or to provide 
 
 additional revenue ‘by means of excises, stamp du- 
 ties, or direct tax on real or personal estate. 
 
 Besides which, in the present attitude of the ques- 
 tion, if the protected interests can have adequate 
 permanent protection, without meddling with the 
 question of the public lands, is it not better for those 
 interests to make sure of, and be content with, an 
 abundantly good thing, viz. adequate permanent pro- 
 tection, rather than desperately and wantonly to 
 throw away that abundantly good thing in the chase 
 of the idle shadow of a supposed better thing? ~ 
 
 For it is to be remembered that the Distribution 
 question has become a mere watchword of parties, 
 and that, unstable as all party ascendancy is, in the 
 United States, it is unwise and not a sound caleula- 
 tion of stability and certainty, for the protected inte- 
 rests to build themselves on the sandy'foundation of 
 such an ineonsiderable point as this, and on a deci- 
 sion of the question, which decision, at any new elec- 
 tion, is subject to be revised and probably reversed 
 by another Congress. , 
 
 Then, as a consideration of money, what is the 
 amount “of money which any person in the United 
 
 ,) 
 £. 
 
 ie J 
 
~ & 
 
 Ss 
 
 13 
 
 States is to gain by the-proposed repeal of this limi- 
 tation of the Distribution act? Bes" 
 
 Under the operation of the Distribution act, a cer- 
 tain sum of money is to be paid over to the several 
 States by the Federal Governme What is the 
 profit and loss on this process to ea@ individual citi- 
 _ zen of the United States? 
 
 It would be well for every citizen of the United 
 States, before he undertakes to censure any members 
 of the present Congress for not wishing to stop the 
 wheels of Government for the sake of distribution, 
 before he makes up his mind to two or three years of 
 grinding poverty, in order to get his share of the dis- 
 tribution, to set down deliberately, with pen and pa- 
 per, and reckon up the amount of his share. 
 
 Suppose a million of dollars, a million and a half, 
 or even two millions, to be distributed, how many 
 cents, or rather how few cents, will that make to each 
 individual citizen in the United States? Let every 
 man calculate for himself. And, in order to get those 
 few cents a head, do the farmers, miners, manufactu- 
 rers, sugar planters, and mechanics, intend, or*desire, 
 to sacrifice the tariff ? 
 
 - But, suppose they get those few additional cents 
 which the repeal of the limitation will give them. 
 Suppose instead of cents it were dollars, would there 
 be any profit in the operation? Where does the mo- 
 ney they are to receive come from? Is it not their 
 own money, paid to the Government in taxes out of 
 their own pockets? For the distribution money is to 
 be taken ont ofa deficient, not an overflowing Trea- 
 sury. Every dollar withdrawn fromthe Treasury for 
 distribution leaves a vacuum which has got to be'filled 
 by additional taxes; and it is a very losing 
 operation for you to pay taxes to the Government in 
 order to have the Government pay back the net pro- 
 ceeds to you; because you do not get all your own mo- 
 ney back again. It would have been much better to 
 have kept it in your own pocket the whole time; for 
 you receive it back subject to the deduction of the 
 loss ahd expenses incurred in the process of its being 
 collected from you, kept awhile, and then returned to 
 you by the Federal Government. 
 
 Butit is said the distribution is for the benefit of the 
 States, some of which are very much in debt. But, 
 what then? -Whatisa State? The argument im- 
 plies that a State is a something totally indepen- 
 dent of, and disconnected from the People of the 
 State. The Federal Government is to impose taxes 
 on the people of all the States united; collect the mo- 
 ney into the Federal Treasury, and then pay it over 
 to the State Governments. Would it not be more 
 direct, cheaper, and better for the people of the States 
 to pay these taxes at once into their own State Trea- 
 sury ? Or, ‘on the other hand, what’reason is there 
 for employing the agency of the Federal Government 
 to collect a part of the money needed to conduct the 
 State Governments, which does not apply to the 
 whole? Why not give up State. taxes. altogether, 
 and centralize the Goverument at once, by having 
 an uniform system of taxation, and collection, and 
 disbursement for all objects whatever, within the limits 
 of the Union, relinquishing the present system of tax- 
 ation, collection and disbursement for any object under 
 the separate authority of the individual States ? Cer- 
 tain it is that no citizen of an individual State can 
 save any thing in taxes by this round ‘about process 
 of paying tothe [federal Government, and through 
 the Federal Government back to his own State, the 
 taxes necessary to carry on his own State Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 So that neither to any individual citizen of the 
 United States, nor to the citizen ‘of any one of the 
 indebted ‘States, and still. less to any citizen of either 
 of the unindebted States, is it easy to, see how-any pe 
 cuniary profit should accrue by the distribution of the 
 proceeds of the sales of the public lands, whilst the 
 Federal Treasury ts in a deficient and impoverished 
 condition. ® 
 
 Tables are published in the newspapers showing 
 how much money each county and each State, &c., 
 would be entitled to receive under the Distribution 
 act. Witha surplus treasure on hand to distribute, this 
 is very well; but with a deficient and impoverished Trea- 
 sury, the table of what each State would receive 
 under the act ought to be accompanied with a table 
 of what each State had to contribute in taxes in or- 
 der to make upthe sum distributed:; and it would 
 then be seen, that Massachusetts, for instance, must 
 pay two dollars in taxes for every one dollar she re- 
 ceives in distribution. 
 
 Nor, independently of this, can the distribution, as 
 such, of the proceeds of the public lands be of essen- 
 tial service to any of the indebted States. For the 
 amount to be received by each is so inconsiderable, 
 that if the State of Pennsylvania, or the State of [li- 
 nois, cannot provide means to pay her public debt 
 without this pittance, she can not with it. 
 
 ‘It may be that the State Governments are wholly 
 unable to carry on their own financial affairs—that 
 they have not strength, or courage, er virtue to face 
 their pecuniary difficulties, to raise money to pay 
 their debts, or to tax their people for the pecuniary 
 obligations they have incurred ; and that it will be- 
 come necessary for them to have recourse in this 
 emergency to the tax machinery of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment. It may be that the indebted States expect 
 and intend to call on the unindebted States to con- 
 tribute for their relief from their financial embarrass- 
 ments. If so, then the existing theory of the Con- 
 stitution, and of the relation of the Federal Goy- 
 ernment to the States, has failed, and it is neces> 
 sary to reconstruct the fabric of the Union. 
 
 But if this is to be done, if the Federal Govern- 
 ment is to assume the debts of the States, it will prove a 
 very serious affair, and it will require much time, re- 
 flection and arrangement, to accomplish the plan. 
 And it. would seem to be hardly wise to say you will 
 not have any Tariff until this be done. On the con- 
 trary, by sacrificing the Tariff, for the sake of Distri- 
 bution, or its kindred object, that object without 
 which it is no object at all, viz: the assumption of 
 the debts of the S:ates,—in other words, by bank- 
 rupting the Federal Government,—you do but aggra- 
 vate intolerably the present deplorable condition of 
 some of the State Governments. 
 
 And assuming the few cents per head, which the 
 repeal of the limitation of the Distribution act would 
 give to the citizens of the United States, to be all pure 
 gain‘to them, or their respective States, and assuming 
 the act itself te be all. which its warmest advocates 
 can claim for it, has that act such ‘a frospect» of long 
 hfe that 1t is worth while to stake the Tariff upon 
 that life? On the contrary, is not the total repeal of 
 the act itself, by the next Congress, quite a possible 
 event, considering the existing relations of political 
 pasties ? 
 
 Finally, by striking out this 25th section, by separa- 
 ting the Tariff question from the Distribution question, 
 you render the Tariff bill simply a measure of business, 
 You withdraw it from all the bad influences of politi- 
 

 
 hs 
 
 cal passion. Distribution is a political question; the 
 
 Tariff is not. If there is a majority for repealing 
 the contingent suspension of the Distribution act, be 
 it so; but let there be separate legislation on 
 the subject. Let not this repeal be fastened to 
 the Tariff. What the industrial interests of the 
 country most_of all need, is tranquillity, certainty, sta- 
 bility ; to be delivered fromthe factious agitations of 
 intolerant party spirit and aspiring personal ambitions. 
 This the tariff interest can attain, by cutting adrift 
 from the question of Distribution. ‘Chat done, the 
 
 14 
 
 present becomes a most auspicious moment, for adjuat- 
 ing the Tariff on a durable basis. - For the necessi- 
 ties of the Government require high duties. If this 
 adjustment be made a political question, it cannot 
 stand; but, if gt be stripped of all collateral matters, 
 if it be separated from this political question of the 
 public lands, and be arranged purely as a business 
 question, it may be so adjusted as to defy political 
 change and secure the support or acquiescence of a 
 great majority of the people of the United States. 
 

 
 
 
ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 FINI 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 301121 15837525