IIY Of 
 
 I3RARY 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/whatisrevenuestaOOappl 
 
REVENUE STANDARD? 
 
 
 ^aA^EYIEW 
 
 SECRETARY WALKER'S 
 
 REPORT ON THE TARIFF. 
 
 BY NATHAN APPLETON. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 1846 . 
 
 EASTBURN'S PRESS 
 
 LIBRARY U. OF I. ORBANA-CHAMPAIKfi 
 

 
 
THE REVENUE STANDARD. 
 
 [FROM THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AUGUST, 1845.] 
 
 We have seen it announced under the hand of Mr. Secre- 
 tary Walker, that “ the tariff must be reduced to the revenue 
 standard,” and that his chief occupation, at present, is with 
 the details of this measure. It becomes important then, to 
 know what is to be understood by the expression, “ revenue 
 standard which is about as definite as that of “ a judicious 
 tariff” 
 
 The process of reduction would imply that the present 
 tariff produces too much revenue, but it is difficult to believe 
 that the Secretary is much troubled on this score. The 
 amount of nett revenue from customs for the year ending 
 30th June, 1844, was twenty-six millions one hundred and 
 eighty-three thousand dollars. We are not advised what has 
 been the precise amount for the year which has just expired, 
 but as we have the amount in the Treasury on the 1st day 
 of July, 1845, something below that on hand a year ago, it 
 is evident there has been no excess of revenue during the 
 fiscal year which ended on that day. With the various con- 
 tingencies connected with the annexation of Texas before 
 us, it would seem to be altogether premature to decide that 
 we shall have any excess of revenue for the year to come ; 
 especially, whilst we have a debt of fifteen millions, to the 
 extinction of which any surplus may be applied. It is prob- 
 able that twenty-six millions may be taken as the fair aver- 
 age revenue to be derived from the present tariff, and it 
 would seem to be quite time enough to reduce it when we 
 find ourselves troubled with an actual excess. 
 
 It is true, a certain set of politicians denounced the tariff 
 in advance, as too high to produce revenue, and prophesied 
 most emphatically that it must be reduced in order to in- 
 
 fZ-cial 
 
4 
 
 , , i crease the revenue We do not suppose, after our actual ex- 
 pesri^nee, that' th, is can be the meaning of the Secretary. 
 The experiment would seem too hazardous, for the head of 
 the Treasury to be willing to try it. Every one knows that 
 any considerable increase of our imports, would produce a 
 crisis in the money market, by causing an export of specie. 
 For the last six months, the exchanges have been constantly 
 on the very verge of the turning point which would induce 
 the shipment of specie, occasionally going beyond it ; so that, 
 in fact, the banks in the Atlantic cities have actually parted 
 with that portion of their specie which may have been con- 
 sidered somewhat superfluous. Any further export, to the 
 extent of a few millions, would produce an immediate sensa- 
 tion. The probability of this is quite sufficient, without the 
 stimulus of a reduction of duties in any of the leading articles 
 of our consumption. We give Mr. Secretary Walker credit 
 for too much sagacity, to be willing, voluntarily, to invite 
 a money pressure, with its accompanying paralysis of indus- 
 try, and the eventual poverty of the exchequer. 
 
 What then can he mean by the cabalistic phrase, “ reduction 
 to the revenue standard ?” The tariff of 1842, was emphat- 
 ically a revenue measure. Its immediate object was revenue — 
 revenue sufficient to restore the means and credit of a bank- 
 rupt Treasury. And admirably has it answered its purpose. 
 It undertook to do this with discrimination in favor of the in- 
 dustry of the country, and its friends think that it has ac- 
 complished this object, also, most happily. All must admit 
 that, under its operation, the whole country has enjoyed the 
 highest degree of prosperity. What, then, can be the motive 
 for change ? None can be imagined but the requisitions of 
 the fell spirit of party. A demonstration at least must be 
 made, in order to satisfy the pledges made to the South on 
 this subject. Mr. Secretary Walker is called on, as a matter 
 of course, to show up the deformities of this monster of a 
 tariff, which has been so often denounced from the stump, as 
 a cunning device to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. 
 We wish him joy of the task. 
 
 Fortunately, an analysis of the operation of the tariff is 
 
 
5 
 
 not difficult. It has, in fact, been made by the late Secre- 
 retary Bibb, in a document prepared and published by order 
 of the Senate, on the 1st of February, 1845. ( Senate Doc. 
 
 No. 109, 2c? session, 28 th Congress.) It gives a table of 
 every article of import during the year ending 30th June, 
 1844, with the amount of duty accruing from it, with the 
 actual rate of duty on each article, whether laid ad valorem 
 or specifically. 
 
 As this document is not very generally known, we propose 
 making some extracts from it for the benefit of the public. 
 It is, in fact, a document of the greatest interest in reference 
 to the whole question. The average rate on goods paying 
 duty is 34.64 per cent. The article paying the highest rate 
 of duty, imported in any considerable quantity, is that of 
 spirits , the rate varying on brandy, rum, and gin, from 129 
 to 167 per cent., and producing one million one hundred and 
 twenty-two thousand dollars of revenue. We shall be curi- 
 ous to see what reduction shall be made on these, the very 
 highest rates of duty in the tariff, in order to bring them to 
 the revenue standard , instead of the moral standard under 
 which they were established. 
 
 The most important article in the whole tariff, is that of 
 brown sugar , which pays a duty of 66 per cent., producing 
 four and a half million dollars revenue, to which may be 
 added molasses, which adds upwards of another million, with 
 a duty between 39 and 40 per cent. These high duties on 
 two of the necessaries of life, are cheerfully paid by the 
 North, for the purpose of affording protection to the great 
 Southern staple of sugar, withdrawing a great mass of slave 
 labor from the overdone production of cotton ; and thus, in 
 fact, acting directly for the benefit of the whole slave region 
 of the South. We are also curious to see how Mr. Secretary 
 Walker will treat this matter of sugar and molasses. 
 
 With the new sugar region of his darling Texas coming 
 into the Union, will he take two or three millions off these 
 articles and put them on tea and coffee, now free of duty ? 
 To the consumer, it has been well said, to be all the same 
 whether the duty on a dish of tea or coffee, be divided be- 
 
6 
 
 v 
 
 tween them and the sweetening, or laid wholly on the latter. 
 But it is a test question of principle, and we apprehend will 
 call into action all the ingenuity of the Secretary. 
 
 Next in importance comes the article of iron, in its various 
 forms. Pig iron pays a duty of 67 per cent., rolled bar iron, 88. 
 These two articles produced a revenue of upwards of a mil- 
 lion of dollars under these high rates of duty ; with those on 
 their kindred manufactures the highest in the tariff. No doubt 
 a reduction of the duty on iron to 20 or 25 per cent., (sup- 
 posed to be about the revenue standard,) would immensely 
 increase the importation, and perhaps increase the revenue. 
 But it would, in the same degree, put out the furnaces of 
 Pennsylvania; it would arrest the present rush of capital 
 into the iron business. Iron and its coarser manufactures 
 consist of direct abstract labor. A high duty upon iron, can 
 only be defended on the principle of direct positive protec- 
 tion to our own labor. Cheap iron and cheap labor are 
 synonymous terms ; they must go together. This article 
 presents another test question, and we have equal curiosity to 
 see how the Secretary will present it to the electors of Penn- 
 sylvania, who voted for Mr. Polk, as a better friend to the 
 tariff than Mr. Clay. The coal of Pennsylvania is another 
 article protected with a duty of 64 per cent., producing a 
 revenue of one hundred and fifty-two thousand dollars, the 
 greater part paid by Massachusetts, the chief consumer of 
 Nova Scotia coal. Salt pays a duty of 72 per cent., and 
 produces a revenue of six hundred and fifty-nine thousand 
 dollars. Such is the operation of this tariff on the leading 
 articles of our consumption in the cruder productions of the 
 country. 
 
 We now come to those requiring higher skill in the manu- 
 facture, and more capital for their establishment. 
 
 Woollen manufactures pay an ad valorem duty of 40 per 
 cent., and produce a revenue of upwards of two millions of 
 dollars. This manufacture has always given rise to the most 
 difficult questions in the arrangement of the tariff, owing to 
 the difficulty of adjusting the duty on wool to the satisfac- 
 tion of both wool-growers and the manufacturers, whilst our 
 
7 
 
 own production of wool was much below our consumption. 
 This difficulty is fast disappearing. The increase in the 
 production of wool, more especially in the Western States, is 
 furnishing us a full supply, except of the very coarsest sorts, 
 costing under seven cents a pound. In this state of things, 
 any considerable reduction of the duty, which will materially 
 increase the importation of woollen manufactures, will act 
 directly upon the price of the raw material, reducing it in 
 proportion. The duty of 40 per cent, is sufficiently reasona- 
 ble as a mere revenue duty, and falls chiefly on the higher 
 branches of the manufacture, worn by the richer portions of 
 the community; whilst the coarser articles, for common 
 clothing and the common carpetings, are furnished by our 
 own manufacture, under our improved machinery, at prices 
 so low as to leave no reasonable ground of complaint as to 
 prices, and effectually to shut out foreign competition. 
 
 We come now to the most important of our manufactures, 
 that of cotton — w hich exhibits the greatest triumph of the 
 protective policy, which has attracted to it the greatest 
 amount of capital, at the same time that its fabrics have been 
 in the greatest degree reduced in price. It is not, perhaps, 
 surprising that its success should have made it the object of 
 the especial hatred and abuse of the enemies of all protection. 
 Mr. Secretary Walker may, therefore, very probably feel him- 
 self called on to exercise all his ingenuity in finding grounds 
 of attack upon this manufacture. We challenge him to the 
 strictest scrutiny — to the fullest collection of facts. 
 
 It is well known that this manufacture has grown up un- 
 der the protection of a specific duty, in the form of a minimum 
 valuation, introduced by South Carolina in 1816, but which 
 has been since repudiated by that State in terms of the 
 grossest billingsgate. The present tariff levies a duty of six 
 cents, at least, the square yard, on ail manufactures of which 
 cotton is a component part, and when printed or colored, of 
 nine cents. The table informs us that the whole amount of 
 revenue derived from goods to which the minimum principle 
 is applied, was $4,273,000, averaging 38 per cent, on the 
 whole cost, and which is thus classified : 
 
8 
 
 Rates of duty. 
 
 $1,121,000 from goods costing above the minimum, 30 per cent. 
 
 2,574,000 from printed and col’d goods, at 9c. s. q. 43 do. 
 
 544,000 from plain goods, at 6 cents square yard, 45£ do. 
 
 34,000 from velvets, &e. at 10^ cents sq. yard, 35 do. 
 
 We trust the Secretary will give this subject of the cotton 
 manufacture, a thorough examination in all its bearings ; that 
 he will ascertain what description of articles we manufacture, 
 what we import, what we export, and what we consume, 
 with . the comparative prices. We will venture to predict 
 what will be the result of such an examination. He will find 
 that in all the lower branches of the manufacture, in all those 
 goods in most common use, and which constitute the con- 
 sumption of the masses, our own manufacture furnishes not 
 only an abundant supply for our own consumption, but a 
 constant and increasing export in competition with other na- 
 tions. He will find, on obtaining samples of the goods actu- 
 ally imported, that they consist, in a very great measure, of 
 the higher-priced fanciful articles, mostly mixtures of cotton 
 with wool and silk, worn by the rich, and that, in this article 
 especially, this large amount of revenue is derived from what 
 may be termed luxuries. He will learn that the clamor of 
 certain papers, like the New York Evening Post, of the cot- 
 ton minimum being a severe tax on the clothing of the poor, 
 is the merest humbuggery ; and that the effect of the mini- 
 mum is, in fact, most admirable as a mere revenue measure, 
 not only as a security against fraud, but as levying the high- 
 est duty on those productions of fancy, where it is most 
 readily paid by the consumers who choose to indulge them- 
 selves in such luxuries. 
 
 He will learn, it is true, that the manufacture is at this 
 moment in a state of great prosperity, and that the profits 
 have never been greater; but he will learn that the most 
 profitable branch of the manufacture is that of making goods 
 for the export trade, especially for the China market. And 
 he will learn, in this connexion, that since the opening of 
 the China trade, cotton manufactures have also greatly ad- 
 vanced in price in England; and that the profits of their 
 manufacturers are probably even greater than our own. He 
 
9 
 
 will also learn that a greater amount of capital is now going 
 into this manufacture, in all its branches, than at any former 
 period ; that, throughout the whole country, every establish- 
 ment for making machinery is in full employment, and con- 
 stantly increasing their means of operation. 
 
 We will not anticipate the conclusions to which these dif- 
 ferent facts shall bring the mind of the Secretary, with a 
 single exception. When he shall have learned, as he will 
 learn, that the heavy cottons, combining much of the raw 
 material with a small quantity of labor, which we are now 
 exporting in such quantities along the coast of China, and 
 even to Japan, to say nothing of other parts of the world, are 
 wholly of American origin as a manufacture, he cannot fail 
 to perceive that the whole cotton-growing region of the 
 South is deeply interested in the extension of this manufac- 
 ture, which carries their staple into a new and extensive 
 market, which has heretofore been wholly supplied from cot- 
 ton grown in the East. He cannot fail to perceive that 
 South Carolina, in establishing the cotton minimum in 1816, 
 was laying the foundation of the most extraordinary revolu- 
 tion in commerce which the world has ever seen — the turning 
 back upon Asia her own essential production, the manufac- 
 ture to which her own province of Calicut had, for centuries, 
 given a name throughout the world ; a revolution, perhaps, 
 more extraordinary than that which has taken place in the 
 opinions of South Carolina herself. He cannot fail to per- 
 ceive that there is good ground for the late movement of the 
 South in throwing off the delusion of the forty-bale theory, 
 and in ranging themselves on the side of the protective sys- 
 tem, of which they share a full portion of the benefits. 
 
 One of the greatest innovations of the tariff of 1842, is the 
 change on manufactures of silk, from an ad valorem to a 
 specific duty of two and a half dollars the pound weight. 
 The table informs us that the duty has amounted to 25J per 
 cent, on the cost, producing a revenue of $1,586,000. This 
 change was made at the request of the American importers 
 of silks, in order to counteract the frauds committed by the 
 foreign importers. The result is believed to be satisfactory 
 
10 
 
 to those best acquainted with, its operation. Some descrip- 
 tions of silk goods, doubtless, pay a higher rate of duty than 
 others, but the whole effect is, probably, as equal as any 
 other arrangement. It has the advantage of great simplicity : 
 at any rate, it is wholly a revenhe measure. Leghorn hats 
 produce a revenue of a quarter of a million dollars, at a duty 
 of 35 per cent. The cotton bagging, known by the name of 
 gunny-cloth, pays a duty of five cents the square yard, 
 amounting to 113 per cent, on the cost; yet such is the fa- 
 cility and cheapness with which it is produced in India, that 
 it continues to be imported in small quantities, a revenue of 
 6,400 dollars having been derived from it. At a duty of 25 
 per cent., this cheap bagging would doubtless break down all 
 the factories making hemp bagging in Kentucky and Ten- 
 nessee ; at the same time, it would furnish freight for some 
 thirty or forty ships from Calcutta. 
 
 The table shows that the duty on agricultural produce is 
 not wholly nominal, as is sometimes contended. Potatoes 
 produce upwards of ten thousand dollars revenue, at a rate 
 of duty amounting to thirty per cent. ; cheese , upwards of 
 $5,000, at a duty of 67 per cent. The table gives a revenue 
 of upwards of 300,000 dollars on raw cotton, at a rate of 50 
 per cent, duty : but this was, doubtless, drawn back on ex- 
 port. The same is doubtless true of many descriptions of 
 manufactures paying a high rate of duty, being imported ex- 
 pressly for exportation. 
 
 The most unequal duty of the tariff is that on wines , 
 especially under the construction put upon our reciprocity 
 treaties by Mr. Secretary Bibb. He has decided that Madeira 
 wine, costing two dollars the gallon, is a “ like article ” with 
 the white wine of France, costing less than twenty-five 
 cents ; and so of others. The consequence is, that Madeira 
 wine pays a duty of 4 1-10 per cent. ; Port, 8J ; whilst the 
 duty on other wines ranges from 30 to 50 per cent. Nothing 
 can put the folly of arranging # our tariff by treaty, in a 
 stronger light. An extension of it, as proposed by the Zoll- 
 verein treaty, besides the folly of tying up our own hands, 
 would be opening a door to the worst system of intrigue and 
 
11 
 
 corruption. It would lead to a conotan •; sectional struggle* 
 for sectional treaty favors, at whatever sacrifice of other Coi- 
 tions of the country. 
 
 We have thus seen the operation of the much abused tariff 
 of 1842, in all the leading articles of consumption. We have 
 seen its protection diffused, as equally as possible, over every 
 part of the country. We think it will puzzle a wise man to 
 find much to object to, either in its principles or its details. 
 On the contrary, we think the country owes a debt of grati- 
 tude to its authors, for their skill and care in its construction. 
 Its adoption was one of those events which stamp a decided 
 character on the period in which they occur. It may be said 
 to be the pivot on which turned the fate of the country. 
 The currency had been long deranged ; with a deficient 
 revenue, the credit of the General Government had been re- 
 duced to the lowest ebb ; trade was prostrate ; industry 
 paralyzed ; the public mind was filled with apprehension 
 and dismay at the portentous indications of the future, when 
 this measure, adopted with the greatest difficulty, carried 
 almost by miracle, changed, as if by enchantment, the whole 
 scene. In the short space of a year, the whole country 
 passed from the depth of suffering, idleness, and depression, 
 to a state of the most active prosperity, and the fullest confi- 
 dence. No one capable of tracing cause and effect, can doubt 
 that this change was the direct and immediate result of the 
 tariff. This state of full prosperity has met with no check 
 to the present time. Under the present system, we have 
 nothing to fear but over-action. We may possibly go ahead 
 too fast : there is no other fear. We think he must be a 
 bold man, and that must be a bold party, which will seri- 
 ously, and in earnest, set about any radical change in this 
 system — a system abundantly showering its benefits over the 
 whole country, and which has fully approved itself to our 
 whole experience. 
 

 
 ' 
 
 
 
REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REPORT OF SECRETARY WALKER 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TARIFF, 
 
 The report of this officer is always read with a good deal of inter- 
 est. It relates to one of the most important departments of the Gov- 
 ernment; to that Department, at any rate, which sustains all the 
 others. It is, besides, made the duty of the Secretary, in his annual 
 Report, in addition to the estimates of the public revenue and publi c 
 expenditures, to lay before Congress “ plans for improving or increas- 
 ing the revenues from time to time,” being, as expressed, “for the 
 purpose of giving information to Congress.” 
 
 The theory of our Government is, that it is a Government of the 
 People. The early practice under it was for the people, by their 
 delegates in the two Houses of Congress, to originate the laws intended 
 for their own government, leaving the Executive branches to their 
 appropriate duty of carrying them into execution. The theory of 
 monarchy is, that all laws emanate from the Sovereign, and his Min- 
 isters only have the initiative of them. General Jackson was the first 
 President who undertook to practice upon the monarchical theory. 
 His successors of the same dynasty follow his example ; and we are 
 here, in this Secretary’s Report, presented, not with a plan, but argu- 
 ments in favor of a plan, to change entirely the system by which our 
 revenue has been collected since the establishment of the Government. 
 This system, more especially adopted in 1816, and sustained for thirty 
 years by all our subsequent legislation, is pronounced by this modest 
 servant of the people as “ unequal , unjust , exorbitant , and oppressive” 
 This system he proposes to change in favor of one of which he gives 
 us, in many words, a confused outline. 
 
 We propose to examine, with all the respect due to a high officer of 
 the Government, some of the assertions, theories, and speculations 
 contained in this very extraordinary Report. 
 
14 
 
 His object, as we were long since informed by a letter under his 
 hand, published in the newspapers, was to bring the tariff down to the 
 “ revenue standard” Of course, much curiosity existed to learn what 
 he understood or intended by this cabalistic phrase. Without finding 
 any very precise definition of the term, we have no difficulty in getting 
 at his meaning, especially after comparing it with the President’s 
 Message, in which the theory is more plainly staled. 
 
 A revenue duty is one not only producing revenue, but must be so 
 constructed as to avoid in the slightest possible degree becoming pro- 
 tective. A revenue duty is antagonistical to a protective duty. A duty 
 which, by design or accident, causes similar articles to those on which 
 it is levied to be produced at home, so as to lessen the revenue, be- 
 comes thereby protective, and must be reduced. Discrimination may 
 be made for revenue, but not for protection. A duty laid on articles 
 of which none are imported cannot be collected , and is therefore clearly 
 unconstitutional. These are the fundamental principles on which the 
 new system is to be established. He thus states the object of the pro- 
 tective system : 
 
 “ A protective tariff is a question regarding the enhancement of the 
 profits of capital ; that is its object, and not to augment the wages of 
 labor, which would reduce those profits. It is a question of per cent- 
 age, and is to decide whether money vested in our manufactures 
 should, by special legislation, yield a profit of ten, twenty, or thirty 
 per cent., or whether it shall remain satisfied with a dividend equal to 
 that accruing from the same capital when invested in agriculture, 
 commerce, or navigation.” 
 
 It is difficult to say whether the above paragraph betrays a greater 
 ignorance of the objects and grounds on which the protective principle 
 was adopted and engrafted into our revenue system, or of the most 
 common and universally admitted principles of political economy. 
 The protective system was not introduced or advocated by the pos- 
 sessors of capital, nor for their benefit. It is a well known fact that 
 they were, with few, if any exceptions, opposed to it. It was the 
 patriotic democracy of the country which advocated and introduced 
 the system. What was the argument? The country is wholly agri- 
 cultural and commercial. In the existing policy of the world, we 
 produce more than we can sell, except at prices miserably low. We 
 have to buy our clothing, and other foreign productions, from abroad, 
 at their own prices, in payment of which we are constantly being 
 drained of our specie, to the derangement of our circulating medium, 
 and paralysis of all business. The proposition is to hold out induce- 
 
15 
 
 ments to the merchants to withdraw a portion of their capital from 
 foreign trade, and employ it in manufactures and the domestic trade of 
 their distribution. We shall thus withdraw a portion of our labor from 
 agriculture, and convert producers into consumers. We shall thus fur- 
 nish ourselves with at least a portion of the manufactures which we 
 require, by the labor of our own citizens, and pay for them with those 
 productions for which we find no market, or a poor one. We apprehend 
 the question was never started* in these discussions, whether there 
 was not danger that those who should be drawn into the new occupa- 
 tions would make too much money ; because in those days it was 
 considered a settled principle, confirmed by all experience, that any 
 business yielding profits above the average rates is sure to attract 
 capital and labor into it, until the profits fall to the general level, or 
 more usually for a time below it. 
 
 At any rate, the protective policy was adopted, and men of busi- 
 ness employed their earnings in the new occupations to which they 
 were invited by the policy and laws of the country, doubtingly and 
 hesitatingly at first, but afterwards more freely and confidently. The 
 most successful branch, and the one which has absorbed the greatest 
 amount of capital, is the manufacture of cotton. The possession of 
 the raw material on the spot, and the peculiar adaptation ^ of ma- 
 chinery to produce great results in this manufacture, soon made it 
 evident that the cotton manufacture was rapidly to become one of the 
 leading interests of the country. Capital went into it freely and con- 
 fidently. Its rapid extension has no parallel, and is only equalled in 
 the corresponding reduction in the price of its fabrics. Its success 
 furnishes the only ground of its denunciation. The manufacturers are 
 growing too rich. That is the whole burden of the report. “ Special 
 legislation ” in their favor. u Another form of privileged orders” We 
 regret to see a high officer of the Government descending to use the 
 stereotyped slang of the party newspapers. But what we pass by in 
 silence in the Evening Post, or in the ramblings of the laborious 
 Bundelcund, ought not to pass without censure when coming from a 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 In carrying out his views, we find some very extraordinary asser- 
 tions. For instance, “ Experience proves that, as a general rule, a 
 duty of twenty per cent, ad valorem will yield the largest revenue.” 
 We should be glad to know, what experience ? Is it that of Great 
 Britain, whose necessities require her to push her duties up or 
 down to what she finds by experience to be the highest revenue 
 standard? Her duty on tea is 2s. Id., or 50 cents the pound, on all 
 
16 
 
 teas without discrimination, being at least 200 per cent, on the cost, 
 producing, for the year ending January, 1842, the comfortable sum of 
 £3,978,000 as revenue. Her lowest duty on sugar that year was 24s. 
 the cwt., or 5J cents the pound, producing a revenue of £5,120,000, 
 upwards of twenty-four and a half millions of dollars. It is true this 
 duty on sugar has since been reduced, but for relief, not for revenue. 
 Her duties on wines are os 6d. the gallon, rum 9s. 4d., brandy 22s. 6d., 
 tobacco 3s. the pound, producing together eight millions of pounds, or 
 about forty millions of dollars, at rates varying from 300 to 900 per 
 cent, on the value. So much for the experience of England. What 
 is our own? Our highest tariff was that of 1828. Our greatest 
 revenue was under it, for the year 1831, being $30,312,851 nett, at 
 rates of duty averaging 41 per cent, on imports subject to duty. 
 
 ' (See Doc. No. 3, 28th Congress.) Our lowest tariff was in operation 
 in 1842, being less than 24 per cent, on the dutiable imports, and 
 produced a nett revenue for the year of $12,780,173! So much 
 for our own experience. We think it would puzzle Mr. Secretary 
 Walker to furnish the evidence of what he pronounces to be so 
 clearly proved. 
 
 Another assertion of Mr. Walker is, that the wages of labor have 
 not augmented since the tariff of 1842, but that they have in some 
 cases diminished. Now, we find on inquiry of the different agencies 
 at Lowell, that the average earnings of the operatives have increased 
 full one-third since the disastrous year 1842, or from $1,50 to full 
 $2 per week for females, exclusive of board. But even this does not 
 present a fair view of the full effect to the tariff of 1842, upon labor. 
 At that time the proprietors were receiving no dividends, and wait- 
 ing the action of Congress before deciding to stop the mills. Had 
 Congress adjourned without the tariff, more than one-half the mills 
 in New England would have stopped work at once. The reason as- 
 signed by the Secretary for his supposed fact, is entitled to some no- 
 tice. “ As the capital invested in manufactures is augmented by the 
 protective tariff, there is a corresponding increase of power, until the 
 control of such capital over the wages of labor becomes irresistible.” 
 That is to say, the greater the inducement to build mills, and the 
 greater the amount invested in works which are wholly unproductive 
 without hands to work them, the greater is the power of the mill- 
 owners to drive hands into them ; in other words, the power of labor 
 to get high wages diminishes in proportion as the demand for it is 
 increased. If a greater solecism was ever put upon paper, we should 
 be glad to see it. 
 
17 
 
 The whole force of the report is levelled against the tariff of 1842, 
 as if that were some new abomination. It is pronounced “ unequal, 
 unjust, exorbitant, and oppressive.” 
 
 Now, the fact is, the tariff of 1842 was modelled upon the tariff of 
 1832. That was adopted as the groundwork; the principle was the 
 same, as a comparison will show in the following table : 
 
 Duties per tariff of 1832. Of 1842. 
 
 Woollens, 50 per cent., 40 per cent. 
 
 Flannels, 16 cts. square yard, . 14 cts. square yard. 
 
 Pig iron, 10 dols. per ton, ... 9 dols. per ton. 
 
 Rolled iron, 30 dols. per ton, ... 25 dols. per ton. 
 
 Other bar iron, 18 do. ... 17 do. 
 
 Salt, 20 cts. per bushel, . . 8 cts. per bushel. 
 
 Brown sugar, 2£ cts. per pound, . 2£ cts. per pound 
 
 Cotton bagging, 3^ cts. sq. yard, . . 4 and 5 cts. sq. yd. 
 
 Cotton minimum white goods, . . 30 do. . . 20 do. 
 
 Cotton minimum dyed & printed, 35 do. . . 30 do. 
 
 It will be seen that there was a general reduction on the highest 
 rates of duty. That is to say, the tariff of 1842 is less protective than 
 than that of 1832. The only exceptions are in the articles of sugar 
 and cotton bagging, which cannot certainly be laid at the door of the 
 Northern manufacturers. It is true, the general rate of ad valorem 
 duties was raised from 25 to 30 per cent., but this was done wholly 
 for the purpose of increasing the revenue. 
 
 It becomes, then, a matter of some interest, to inquire under what 
 circumstances the tariff of 1832 was passed. The national debt had 
 been paid off, and a great reduction of the revenue was necessary. 
 The Jackson party had decided majorities in both Houses of Congress ; 
 in the House of Representatives consisting of upwards of thirty. The 
 tariff of 1832 was prepared with great care, on the principle of raising 
 the necessary revenue, so disposed as to afford protection to our own 
 industry in all its branches. Many of the protectionists, however, were 
 not satisfied with the duty on woollen manufactures, high as it was, as 
 not corresponding with the high duty on wool. The bill passed the 
 House of Representatives by a vote of 132 to 65. It is somewhat 
 curious to find among the yeas the names of James K. Polk and Cave 
 Johnson. Of the nays, more than one-half consisted of those who 
 voted against the bill as not high enough on woollens, leaving not more 
 than thirty who voted against the bill on principle, consisting of Mr. 
 McDuffie, and his converts to the forty-bale theory. In the Senate, the 
 same bill, fortified in the article of woollens, by an addition of seven per 
 
18 
 
 cent., passed by a vote of 32 to 16 — Mr. Dallas being among those 
 voting in the affirmative. Such was the position of the Democracy 
 of the country, on the principle of discrimination in favor of protection 
 in 1832. None of its deformities were then discovered. But South 
 Carolina did not like this bill. She adopted the theory that it im- 
 posed a tax of 40 per cent, on her exports. She threatened nullifica- 
 tion and rebellion. General Jackson, at the next session of the same 
 Congress, proposed a reduction of the tariff, in order to appease this 
 froward State. He admitted that “it would seem a violation of pub- 
 lic faith, suddenly to abandon the large interests which had grown up 
 under the implied pledge of bur legislation,” and added “ that nothing 
 could justify it but the public safety, which is the supreme law.” 
 
 The pretext for reduction was, that the tariff would produce too 
 much revenue — that Congress had not carried out the reduction pro- 
 posed by the Secretary of the Treasury, in a bill which he had at the 
 previous session furnished to the House of Representatives, at their 
 request. There was no foundation for this pretext, as was afterwards 
 admitted by the Secretary himself, in a document which he was called 
 on to furnish, (Doc. 97, 2d sess., 22d Cong.,) showing that the tariff 
 of 1832 actually made greater reductions than those proposed in his 
 own bill. 
 
 But under this pretext, what was called Verplanck’s bill was brought 
 forward, and the Jackson party were most of them drilled up to the 
 mark of undoing their own work of the preceding session. But with- 
 out success ; for, after a violent effort, Verplanck’s bill was abandon- 
 ed. It was in this state of things, that Mr. Clay’s Compromise bill 
 was taken up by the defeated party and carried through the House, 
 against the votes of the warmest friends of the protective system. 
 Mr. Clay acted under the mistaken idea, put forward by the adminis- 
 tration, that the tariff of 1832 would produce more revenue than was 
 required for the administration of the Government. Experience, arid 
 our present debt, have proved the contrary. 
 
 But with what face can the party, nay, the very men by whose 
 agency the tariff of 1832 was passed, now come forward denouncing 
 the tariff of 1842— the same in principle, but milder and more mode- 
 rate in all respects than that of 1832 — as the abomination of abomi- 
 nations — as a new concoction of concentrated Whiggery ? Such is 
 the spirit of party. The Baltimore Convention considered the vote 
 of South Carolina necessary to secure the election of Mr. Polk, and 
 the word went forth, down with the tariff. The affiliated presses of 
 the party take up the note, and down with the accursed, the Whig 
 
19 
 
 tariff of 1842, is responded from the same throats which cried ay, in 
 favor of a similar tariff in 1832. Thus are the great interests of the 
 country made the sport and football of selfish politicians, in their eager 
 pursuit of office. It is this action of our system which makes so many 
 of the statesmen of Europe, and some amongst ourselves, pronounce 
 it a failure. We do not agree with them. With so much of good 
 we must expect some evil. We believe in a recuperative power, 
 which will eventually set things right. We must expect wrong meas- 
 ures, but they will work their own cure. It is possible to sound the 
 depths of Democracy too low. 
 
 Mr. Walker expresses particular dislike to specific duties, includ- 
 ing the cotton minimums, which are, in fact, merely specific duties. 
 In this he goes against the experience of the whole world. He will 
 not find a mercantile man in the whole country to agree with him. 
 The difficulty of guarding against fraudulent invoices has increased 
 with the increase of our trade, and its tendency to fall into the hands 
 of unscrupulous foreigners, with whom the custom of double invoices 
 is notorious. 
 
 The carrying out of Mr. Walker’s views in this particular, would 
 not only put our whole system of revenue in peril, but introduce the 
 widest system of fraud and perjury which the world has ever seen. 
 Many of the continental tariffs, and the famous Zoll-Verein in particu- 
 lar, are wholly specific, manufactures of cotton, wool, and silk, being 
 rated by weight. The British tariff admits ad valorem duties in the 
 fewest possible cases, and then subject to a home valuation, at which 
 the Government officers are at liberty to take the goods, on paying an 
 addition of ten per cent. Mr. Walker’s objection that specific duties, 
 and especially the cotton minimum, throw unequal burdens on the la- 
 boring classes and poor, compared to the rich, has hardly the shadow of 
 truth to support it; so far as respects the cotton manufacture, not even 
 the shadow. It is a fact, which must be admitted by all who look into 
 the matter, that all the coarser manufactures of cotton — all which pos- 
 sess substance, and are most profitable in use by the laboring classes, 
 are furnished by the American manufacturer on better terms than they 
 can be had in any other part of the world. In this they challenge 
 inquiry. The constantly increasing demand for export for this de- 
 scription of goods, to markets in which they meet the British in full 
 competition, would seem to be sufficient evidence of this fact ; unless, 
 indeed, one would adopt the discovery of the sagacious Bundelcund, that 
 the manufacturers sell their goods abroad at one htdf the 'prices which 
 they obtain at home. 
 
 The Secretary quotes from Document 306, 1st session, 28th Con- 
 
20 
 
 gress, (Mr. McKay’s Report,) to show the high duties payable on 
 certain manufactures of cotton, adding : “ This difference is founded 
 on actual importation , and shows an average discrimination against 
 the poor on cotton imports of 82 per cent, beyond what the tax 
 would be if assessed upon the actual value.” Now, v ith all due 
 respect for Mr. Walker, we must say, there is no such thing. He 
 is utterly mistaken. No such importations have been made. No 
 such horrid exaction has been practised upon the poor. His authority 
 is the sixth column of table C, appended to that Report, 306, stated 
 in the table itself to be, “ The rates ad valorem of the duties under 
 the present law, as estimated in statements made to the committee, 
 upon the authority of known and respectable merchants and import- 
 ers in several of the large commercial cities.” We find the expla- 
 nation on page 72 of said Report, in the “Price Current issued by 
 Stewart, Thompson & Lay, Manchester, January 31, 1843 ; with the 
 rate of duty under the present American tariff added.” Here we find 
 precisely the same rates of duty, being those which would he charged , 
 on certain goods, if imported , as those given previously in the sixth 
 column, very kindly estimated, no doubt, by some Manchester agent. 
 Amongst them we find “ stouts or domestics,” (imitations of ours,) esti- 
 mated to pay upwards of 100 per cent, duty, whilst they were actu- 
 ally selling lower in Boston and New York than the prices quoted in 
 this very Manchester price current. This gross mistake of Mr. 
 Walker is the more extraordinary, since the second column of this 
 same table C gives the actual rates ad valorem on goods coming un- 
 der the cotton minimums, as made up at the Treasury , upon the actual 
 imports, being on the 20 t cent minimum 49 per cent., and on the 30 . 
 cent minimum 43 per cent. Thus vanishes this grievance of the 
 poor into thin air. But why, then, this heavy minimum duty on 
 goods which require no such protection ? The whole matter is fully 
 explained in the memorial of the citizens of Boston interested in the 
 cotton manufacture, (Document 461, 2d session, 27th Congress,) from 
 which we make the following extract from page 48 : 
 
 “ The foregoing analysis will have shown that the question of a 
 protective tariff bears very differently on different branches of the 
 cotton manufacture. The coarser fabrics, with which we supply for- 
 eign nations at the rate of about three millions of dollars per annum, 
 in free competition with the British, it is quite obvious, are very little 
 if any way affected , by any tariff whatever. The only effect of open- 
 ing our ports to this description of goods at a very low duty, or no 
 duty at all, would be the influx of inferior British imitations made 
 from Bengal cotton, but which would prove to the consumer, intrinsi- 
 
21 
 
 cally dearer than our own manufacture made from American cotton. 
 So far as relates to the finer qualities of plain cottons, a very moder- 
 rate square yard duty will protect the manufactures now in existence. 
 It is in reference to the article of printed calicoes, and other fancy 
 goods, that the question of the tariff assumes its chief importance.” 
 
 The greatest importance of the minimum consists in its tendency 
 in constantly carrying the manufacture up into the finer and higher 
 branches. In this particular it was never more effective than at the 
 present moment. We agree to Mr. Walker’s discrimination of “ max- 
 imum revenue duties upon luxuries.” It is not easy perhaps to say 
 what are luxuries in this country, where labor has its luxuries as well 
 as the rich ; but we aver, so far as the cotton manufacture is concern- 
 ed, that the effect of the minimum is to collect a high duty on the 
 finer and more costly branches of the manufacture, without affecting 
 the lower branches at all ; so that, as a revenue duty merely, acting 
 upon luxuries, it is the most efficient mode which can be adopted. 
 
 The chief argument, however, which is expected to overthrow the 
 tariff, lies in the fact that the manufacturers are just now sharing large 
 dividends — that the business is, in fact, too profitable. This is accom- 
 panied in the report by the allegation that the principle of protection 
 is legislating for the rich, for classes, for the benefit of capital , for the 
 few instead of the many. However false and absurd, this is the cry 
 which is expected to break down the tariff, and there is little doubt it 
 will succed ; for the party have set up the cry, and they have decided 
 majorities in both branches of Congress. Against such a cry, what 
 will it avail to state that this prosperity is but the reflux of that tide 
 whose long ebb in 1842-3 filled the hearts of the manufacturers with 
 dismay ? that action and reaction are as constant in the world of trade 
 as in that of nature ? that, at all events the regulating power is in full 
 action, by which all profits in different occupations are soon brought 
 to the same level by the unfailing laws of competition ? It is true 
 that manufactures have shared fully in the general prosperity, and 
 there are instances in which the profits of the last year have reached 
 twenty per cent. There are at Lowell nine companies manufacturing 
 cotton, employing a capital of nine and a half millions. Of these, five 
 made no dividends during the entire year 1842. The dividends for 
 the four years 1842, 1843, 1844, and 1845, average eleven and a 
 quarter per cent, per annum on the capital, from which should be de- 
 ducted about three-fourths per cent, for the risk of fire, leaving the 
 actual nett earnings not over ten and a half per cent, per annum. 
 This is something more than the same establishments will average 
 since they have been in operation ; and these are undoubtedly the 
 
22 
 
 most successful concerns in the country, far above the average. 
 Another important fact : the greatest profits have been made by those 
 mills making goods for foreign markets, on which, of course, the tariff 
 has no bearing. About one-third of this profit has been in the advance 
 of the raw material during the year, the most successful establishments 
 having laid in their entire stocks before the advance, equal to about 
 two cents the pound. 
 
 There is also abundant evidence that the cotton manufacture has 
 been favorably affected in an equal or greater degree in Great Britain, 
 and that their spinners have realized greater profits on their capital 
 than any of our establishments whatever. What a bugbear is this 
 clamor about enormous profits, special legislation for classes, and for 
 the rich, when analyzed. 
 
 So far as there is any tangible argument in the report, it is the argu- 
 ment of the forty-bale theory, that a tariff of duties upon imports is in 
 fact a tax upon exports. F or instance, “ the true question is whether 
 the farmer and planter shall, to a great extent, supply our people with 
 cheap manufactures purchased abroad with their agricultural products, 
 or whether this exchange shall be forbidden by high duties on such 
 manufactures, and their supply thrown as a monopoly, at large prices, 
 by high tariffs, into the hands of our own manufacturers.” This is 
 precisely the language used by Mr. McDuffie in nullification times. 
 He follows him in saying that we demand specie from all the world to 
 an extent which they cannot supply ; at the same time, with singular 
 inconsistency, he advocates the Sub-Treasury, on the ground that it 
 will facilitate a larger supply of American gold coin, and thus give 
 greater security to all the business of the country. It is singular that 
 the Secretary should have adopted this exploded forty-bale theory at a 
 time when the South is so decidedly repudiating it ; and that he should 
 use this argument in order to carry Northern votes, whilst the theory, as 
 expounded by Mr. McDuffie, attributed the peculiar prosperity of the 
 North to the very system of protection, only to be accounted for on 
 the ground of its being a robbery committed on the South. 
 
 The Secretary complains that the manufacturers have not generally 
 answered his circulars. Is that surprising? We know that some 
 answers were prepared, which were kept back on the ground that it 
 was due to a proper self-respect. Mr. Walker had given public 
 notice that his mind was made np to a reduction of the tariff according 
 to a scale established in his own mind. His object, therefore, was not 
 to collect information in order to form an opinion, but apparently to 
 find evidence against the manufacturers. They thought, besides, that 
 the proper tribunal for such an investigation is a committee of Con- 
 
23 
 
 gress. To such a committee they will readily exhibit everything con- 
 nected with the subject. 
 
 It would occupy too much space to notice all the curiosities of this 
 Report. The Secretary is utterly opposed to countervailing restric- 
 tions, as inefficacious — differing in this from the high authority of 
 General Jackson, and in opposition to the testimony of Mr. Huskisson, 
 who justified himself for his relaxations of the navigation laws on this 
 ground solely. He quotes the repeal of the duty on cotton in Great 
 Britain as a voluntary concession, when the fact is notorious that it 
 was only owing to the representations of the Manchester Chamber 
 of Commerce, that the Americans were supplanting them in foreign 
 markets in heavy goods, and that the small duty of 2s. lid. the hun- 
 dred weight operated to that extent as a bounty to th^ir rivals. 
 What was the British duty on cotton before the establishment of our 
 tariff? From 1809 to 1814, 25s. 6d. the hundred weight, or of cents 
 the pound. From 1815 to 1819, 8s. 6d. the hundred weight, or 
 nearly 2 cents the pound. 
 
 He greatly over-estimates the value added to the cotton crop by man- 
 ufacture ; he supposes it increased in value sevenfold, which is nearly 
 double the fact. He recommends, in case of war, a reduction of duties 
 in order to increase the revenue. Mr. Gallatin, when Secretary 
 during the war of 1812, recommended that the duties should be doubled, 
 which advice was adopted. In fact, Mr. Walker seems to be acting 
 under the spirit of contrariety to everything tried and established. 
 
 We pass by his proposition of carrying on the whole trade of Can- 
 ada through the United States ; his drawback of one half the duties 
 where American exports would be taken in exchange ; “ his population 
 of eight hundred millions disabled from purchasing our products, by 
 our high duties on all they would sell in exchange “ the unfettered 
 power of agriculture to break down all restrictions his inflated cur- 
 rency repealing the operation of the tariff, &c. 
 
 In all honesty and sobriety we feel bound to say, that such a number 
 of unwarrantable assumptions, and such a medley of puerile crudities, 
 never before issued from any department of our Government. But 
 what of that ? It is lauded to the skies in the organs of the party, as 
 a new revelation in political science. The policy is to be carried out. 
 So be it. If New York and Pennsylvania are sick of their prosperity 
 under the protective system which they established, so be it. But let 
 the additional imports of twenty or thirty millions per annum come in, 
 in accordance with the object of the policy. Before the second year 
 shall come round, the currency will feel it, the labor of the country will 
 feel it, the party in power will feel it, or we are no true prophet.