H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

[JUNE 6, 1832.

answer other than soft. He would hope that, in the dis- The bill proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania cussion which the subject in future underwent, there would not only proposed the continuance and support of this sysbe on both sides of this great argument a constant and at- tem, but it proposed an aggravation of it. It dropped the tentive regard to the reasoning of the mind, and not to one dollar minimum entirely, and provided that all manuthe feelings of the heart. With respect to the chairman factures of wool which had cost more than fifty cents of the Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. A. had always should be deemed and held to have cost two dollars and shared (and never more than now) in that admiration of fifty cents. What the effect of such a scheme would be, his talents which was felt by all persons in that House, had been exhibited to the Senate by a document submitand, he might add, by all in our country; and he had had ted to that body, and now on the tables of gentlemen. It a very recent occasion to form an estimate of something exhibited a comparison of the effect, in practice, of the in that gentleman that was infinitely more valuable than bill proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and the talent! In saying this, he again congratulated himself bill reported to the Senate by the Committee on Manufacthat he was under the necessity of replying to scarcely any tures in that body, which bill was, in substance, very simipart of the gentleman's speech. lar to that proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. But the question before the committee was not now be. Here it was stated that manufactures of wool, whose cost tween the bill reported by the Committee on Manufac- did not exceed fifty cents per square yard, should be hekl tures and that from the Committee of Ways and Means: and deemed to have cost fifty cents. And a graduated that question had been already disposed of. The ques- scale of duties from forty-five to sixty per cent, should tion now was between the bill reported by the Committee be paid therein; but if the cost was over fifty cents, then on Manufactures and the amendment offered by the gen- the bill imposed a range of duties from forty-five to two tleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEWART,] which was of hundred and twenty-five per cent. This was the propoitself a separate bill. He would observe, with respect to a large portion of either of the bills, that a majority of the committee might, if they thought proper, engraft it upon the other bill. Many parts of the bill proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would admit of being engrafted upon the committee's bill, should that bill be retained as a text upon which to proceed in the discussion of the general subject. On the other hand, there were many parts of the bill reported by the Committee on Manufactures which might be engrafted on that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

sition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. A square yard of cloth, costing fifty-one cents, was to be deemed to have cost two dollars and fifty cents, and a duty was to be laid upon it at the rate of two hundred and twenty-five per cent. on that assumed value. But to this rate of duty, still further additions were to be made; inasmuch as the bill did not take off the ten per cent. additional duty; adding that ten per cent., it would amount to ten per cent. more, which would raise the duty to two hundred and fifty per cent. And then, if the exchange value of the pound sterling was to be altered from four dollars and forty-four He now wished to present to the committee what he cents to four dollars and eighty cents, this would increase considered as the essential distinction between the two the tax twenty per cent. more. So that the result would bills--what might be denominated the heart of each of be, that the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania subthem. The committee having decided which of the ge-jected all articles which had cost over fifty cents the square neral principles they would assume, the details of either yard to a duty of two hundred and seventy per cent. Now, bill might be afterwards arranged. The essentially differ- it appeared from the annual statement of the commerce ent parts of the two bills were the second section of the of the United States, furnished by the Secretary of the bill from the Committee on Manufactures, and the third Treasury, that of all the manufactures of wool which would section of the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. be affected by the change and aggravation of duty, there Both articles had respect to wool, and to manufactures of had been imported last year to the value of upwards of woollen. So far as Mr. A. had formed any opinion as to six millions, viz. $2,405,770 of goods under the eightythe state of feeling in the Union on the subject of the tariff, one cent minimum; $2,303,511 of goods under the two this was the great question of difference between the two dollars and fifty cent minimum; and $1,317,645 of goods great sections of the country. The bill from the Com- under the fifty cent minimum; amounting, in all, to upwards mittee on Manufactures assumed the principle that, with of six millions. Now, on this amount, the duties, instead respect to the duties hereafter to be levied on woollen of ranging, as at present, from forty-five to one hundred manufactures, the present system of graduated minimums and twelve per cent., would, under the gentleman's bill, was to be abandoned, and its place supplied by a scheme range from forty-five to two hundred and sixty or two of ad valorem duties, accompanied, in some cases, with hundred and seventy per cent. specific duties also. But, in the bill proposed by the gen- This, Mr. A. confessed, did not seem to him to look tleman from Pennsylvania, the system of minimums was very much like concession to the South. retained; and he might add that by that bill the proposed Mr. A. said he ought, in justice, to observe that, since system was reinforced. According to the present system the bill proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury had of minimums, there was imposed the duty of fourteen cents been made public, and also that proposed by the Commitper square yard on all manufactures of wool, the cost of tee on Manufactures, there had been much evidence rewhich at the place whence imported is thirty-three and a ceived from that part of the Union most interested in the third cents. All others, of a cost exceeding thirty-three cloth manufacture, that they would greatly prefer an adand a third cents, were taken and deemed to have cost herence to the system of minimums. The Committee on fifty cents; the next minimum was a dollar, then two dol- Manufactures were not aware of this. But they had, lars and fifty cents, then four dollars; and, lastly, all cloths nevertheless, determined on the propriety of abandoning it, over four dollars. So that any woollen manufacture whose It was now for the House to determine which of these two cost per square yard should exceed, though by one cent, principles they would sanction. The reasons for which any of these minimum values, was to be taken as worth the the abandonment of the minimum system had been prosum in the next minimum above it. Thus, cloth worth posed by the Secretary of the Treasury were contained in one dollar and one cent was, by the present law, deemed his report, and the bill which accompanied it. The reaand taken to be worth two dollars and fifty cents, and a sons which had induced the Committee on Manufactures duty of forty-five per cent. was laid on that fictitious value. to concur in the measure, were set forth in the report This was considered by the Committee on Manufactures they had submitted to the House. The principal of these as one of the greatest grievances inflicted by the tariff sys- reasons was, that the greatest of all the objections against tem, and it was that of which the citizens of the Southern the protective system were directed to that single point. States most loudly complained. In other respects, the bill from the Committee on Ma

JUNE 6, 1832.]

The Tariff.

[H. of R.

nufactures proposed a reduction of duties not quite equal Pennsylvania, that it abolished the duty on tea and to that which was provided by the bill of the gentleman coffee.

from Pennsylvania. The committee proposed to reduce He then proceeded to reply to the speech of Mr. BoU Lthem not more than ten or twelve per cent. from the pre-DIN. They both represented a country producing tobacsent rates. But the other bill proposed to reduce them co, wheat, and corn, and he was of a diametrically twenty per cent., though by two successive operations--opposite opinion as to the operation of the tariff system ten per cent. in January next, and ten per cent. the Jan-on these interests. It took a great many hands from uary following. The Committee on Manufactures, on the agricultural labor. If it was abolished, these would all contrary, preferred making such a reduction as they be converted from consumers into producers, and would thought the manufacturers could bear all at once. Their become competitors in the market with his constituents. object was to make such a reduction as might satisfy that Without pretending to explain the modus operandi, he portion of the Union who complained of the tariff, without could not shut his eyes to the fact, that since the imposition essentially impairing the protection of the internal indus- of the tariff, the prices of all protected articles had fallen. try of the country. If gentlemen denied that this was the effect of the tariff, it There was one other point on which the Committee on was for them to show some adequate cause. He compliManufactures had hoped that there would be a conces-mented the candor of Mr. DRAYTON, and laid much stress sion, on the part of the manufacturing interest, to the on the very great authorities which that gentleman had wishes and interests of the South, that might be accepta- admitted to exist in favor of the constitutionality of the ble to that portion of the Union. He referred to a total re-system. He concluded by moving his first amendment, mission of the duties on coarse wool and coarse woollens. on the subject of plains. [See above.] That kind of goods peculiarly used at the South was one on which the duties might most easily be remitted.

Mr. STEWART said that he could not accept this amendment as a modification. To introduce forty cents, It would now be for the committee to determine which instead of thirty, would, in practice, destroy entirely the of the two systems they would adopt. That which re- whole manufacture of satinets. And to commence the tained the minimum scheme, in an aggravated form, but operation of the bill in 1833, instead of 1834, would ruin which proposed at the same time a general remission of those who had made large investments in coarse wool for other duties to the amount of twenty per cent. in two the manufacture of plains, and who had large quantities years; or that which abandoned the minimum system alto- of that species of goods on hand. In reply to Mr. ADAMS, gether, but which proposed a smaller reduction on all articles, especially those peculiarly adapted to the markets of the South.

Mr. JENIFER, after expressing his gratification at the clear explanation now given of the respective plans of the two bills, said that he had still one strong objection against the bill proposed by the Committee on Manufactures, which was, that, although it abolished the system of minimums with respect to woollens, it retained the principle of that system as applied to cottons, as it declared that articles which might have cost but ten cents should be valued at thirty and thirty-five cents. Mr. J. considered the bill proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury as containing no fixed principle. It was neither a bill for revenue, for protection, nor for the reduction of revenue. He preferred the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania as a basis. But if the gentleman from Massachusetts would strike out the objectionable features as to cottons, he should have no objection to proceed on his bill. He had, however, several other amendments, which he should offer at the proper time.

after expressing his high respect for that gentleman, he must still consider him and other intelligent gentlemen as laboring under a most extraordinary delusion in relation to the system of minimums. The gentleman had taken pains to show that coarse cloths costing but fifty-one cents per square yard, would, by the bill he had propos ed, be deemed to have cost two dollars and fifty cents, and be charged with a duty amounting to one hundred and seventy per cent. And it appeared very unjust and oppressive to compel an importer to pay such a duty. But did gentlemen really suppose that any man would, in practice, be such a fool as to import a yard of cloth which he must sell at fifty-six cents, after he had paid upon it a duty of one dollar and twelve cents? Surely not. And the only consequence of the minimum system would be that cloth of that description would not be imported. Just so the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] had, by the force of figures, demonstrated to the House that a man who sold cotton at sixpence a yard had paid a duty of eight cents upon it. But figures were one thing, and facts were another. On the gentleman's principle, the Here Mr. J. stated four amendments in succession; the duty ran up as the price ran down. When the value of first of which had reference to the following proviso, viz. the cloth was but twenty-five cents, the duty would be "Provided, That from and after the first day of Janua- doubled. If it was but twelve and a half cents, the duty ry, 1834, the duties upon all milled and fulled cloths, would be quadrupled. If it was worth but sixpence, the known by the names of plains or kerseys, of which wool is duty would be eight times as much. And so if the cloth the only material, the actual value of which at the place cost him but a penny a yard, then the price would be all whence imported shall not exceed thirty cents the square duty; and cloth worth one cent would pay a duty of one yard, shall be five per centum ad valorem, and no more. "dollar and thirteen cents. This was undoubtedly true, Mr. J. proposed to amend this clause by substituting provided any importer would import under such circumthe year 1833 instead of 1834, and inserting forty cents instead of thirty cents.

stances, and provided the consumer would pay one dollar and thirteen cents for cloth which he could get at a penny a yard. In that case, Mr. S. was free to confess that, according to the Southern doctrine, the consumer would pay the duty.

Mr. HOFFMAN now said he wished to amend that part of the bill of the Committee on Manufactures, which the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania proposed to strike out, and inquired of the Chair whether it would be in order to do so.

The next amendment proposed on all manufactures of cotton not exceeding the value of twenty-five cents per yard, a duty of twenty per cent. ad valorem. Another proposed that after the 3d of March, 1833, the duty on salt should be five cents for fifty-six pounds, and no more. And the last was to retain the present duty on sugar, but to strike out the duty of five cents a gallon on molasses. Mr. J. professed his conviction that the protecting system was for the good of the country, but thought it The CHAIR replying in the affirmative, ought to be so modified as to make it as acceptable as Mr. STEWART took an appeal from its decision, and possible. He commented upon the several amendments a long discussion on the point of order ensued, in which he had proposed, and expressed it as one reason of his Messrs. STEWART, HUNTINGTON, CLAY, VINTON, preference for the bill proposed by the gentleman from and McDUFFIE took part.

Mr. SEMMES, of Md., moved to reconsider the vote. Whereupon, the discussion was opened anew, and the question of order further debated by Messrs. TAYLOR, MERCER, IRVIN, MARSHALL, EVANS, of Maine, STEVENSON, and DANIEL.

But the CHAIR, having now discovered that Mr. JENIFER, instead of only adverting to his amendments, had actually moved the first of them, decided that Mr. JENIFER's motion would take precedence of Mr. HOFFMAN'S. Mr. HOFFMAN thereupon withdrew his amendment, and addressed the committee for some time in opposition to Mr. STEWART'S amendment. He insisted that the proper course would be to make the bill from the Committee on Manufactures the basis of proceeding.

[JUNE 6, 1832.

section of the bill from the Committee on Manufactures as has relation to woollen goods.

Mr. ADAMS observed that this amendment brought up the question between the two bills; as it went to abandon the minimum principle, and substitute an ad valorem duty, he must, of course, vote for it, though nothing would be gained, since the section was already in the other bill. But if the gentleman changed the duty on manufactured woollens, he ought, of course, to change the duty on wool. The two were inseparably connected in principle. He thought that the better course would be to allow the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsyl vania to be withdrawn, and then to offer such amendments as gentlemen desired to the original bill from the Committee on Manufactures.

The question was now put on Mr. JENIFER'S amendment, and it was rejected.

The question now recurring on Mr. STEWART's amendment, being the bill he offered as a substitute,

The question recurring on Mr. JENIFER'S amendment, Mr. STEWART observed that he had added several Mr. DEARBORN spoke in opposition to it; assuring sections to that bill, which had not been printed, or subthe gentleman from Maryland that plains did not cost, in mitted to the members of the House. In order to give England, more than from ten pence to thirteen pence time for this, he moved that the committee rise. But the sterling, and in this country from twenty to twenty-six motion was negatived without a count. cents per yard. Raising the minimum from thirty to forty Mr. ALLAN, of Kentucky, moved to amend the amend cents, instead of benefiting the South, would have a di-ment, by striking out the ninth section, and inserting the rectly opposite tendency. This kind of goods consumed following in lieu thereof; at present three-fourths of all the wool manufactured in And be it further enacted, That the duty on cotton bagthe United States. If the minimum should be raised to ging shall be five cents the square yard, without regard forty cents, a coarse fabric might be introduced which to the weight or width of the article, or the material of would completely break down all the establishments now which it is composed; and whether imported under the in successful operation. There were some of this de-denominations of burlaps, Hessians, or known or called scription in his own district, which were able to compete by any other name. with the plains of England. They had vested several Mr. A. proceeded to remark that the amendment hundred thousand dollars in coarse wool. The amend- which he had the honor to offer was intended to prevent ment would ruin them without effecting the object the an evasion of the duty on cotton bagging; but while it gentleman had in view. His amendment would also go to seemed to have relation to one article only, it contained destroy the manufacture of satinets, which formed one of a highly important principle applicable to every article the most extensive and valuable branches of our manu-on which a specific duty is levied, and which is suscepfacturing interest. tible of alterations in the process of manufacture. If, by Mr. CRAIG considered it as perfectly inexplicable why a slight change in any article and a new name, it can the gentleman should move to reduce the duty on articles thereby acquire a new character, it is easy to see how used in this country, with a view to get those articles the ingenuity of foreign artificers will be able to throw cheaper, while he held the doctrine that high duties pro- themselves out of the letter of your statutes, and evade duced low prices. Did he, by lowering the duty, want to the constructions of the Treasury Department. When raise the price? But if lowering the duty would lower your law substituted a specific for an ad valorem duty on the price of negro clothing, salt, and molasses, why would cotton bagging, as there were many kinds of coarse linens it not lower the price of all other articles on the same imported, it became a question for the decision of the principle? Mr. C. pressed this argument in a speech of Treasury Department, which of them came under the some length, in which he professed himself to be in favor denomination of cotton bagging. To procure the requiof the protecting system within certain moderate limits; site information on the subject, a circular letter from that but he was not disposed to yield to a spirit of voracity. department was addressed to the public appraisers at the The question was now put on Mr. JENIFER'S amend-different custom-houses, on the 5th September, 1828. ment, and decided in the negative.

Among other answers to this circular, there is one from He now proposed to strike out the eleventh section of the public appraisers at New York, of the 18th of Sep Mr. STEWART's bill, (which contains the scale of mini-tember, 1828, in which they enclosed a schedule of patmums,) and to insert in lieu thereof so much of the second terns, which Mr. A. read as follows:

"Copy of Comptroller's circular to the collectors at Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, and New Or

[H. OF R.

In relation to these patterns, it was decided by the trea- the committee would agree to. It may be urged that, as it sury, that Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, should be considered cot- is intended to reduce the tariff, there should be a reton bagging, and subject to duty within the meaning of duction on the hemp interest as well as any other. To the law, and that Nos. 1 and 2 should not be so considered. this we will agree in the spirit of compromise. There are The final decision of the question was communicated to none more anxious for a restoration of the general tranthe collectors from the treasury, in a letter dated 13th quillity than the people of Kentucky; none who would be October, 1828, in these words: more ready to make any proper sacrifice for the general good. They will agree to a reduction of the duty on the hemp interest; but, sir, let that reduction take place on the unwrought hemp, and not on the manufactured article. The present duty on raw hemp is sixty dollars per ton; if nothing less will satisfy you, bring down this duty to forty dollars. Cotton bagging is the point where your tariff touches Kentucky. Mr. A. said he would conclude by expressing the hope that this compromise would be received as acceptable; that the advocates of reduction would take it on the unwrought hemp, and leave it where it was on bagging.

leans.

"TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 'Comptroller's Office, October 13, 1828. "SIR: Upon due investigation, it has been concluded that all coarse linens, wholly or in part of hemp, flax, or tow, thirty-nine inches or more in width, weighing sixteen ounces or more, avoirdupois weight, the square yard, shall be considered cotton bagging, within the meaning of the law. You will be pleased to adopt this standard in relation to all subsequent importations.

"Respectfully,

JOS. ANDERSON, Comptroller."

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, wished to add a few words to show the effect of a specific duty on cotton bagging. There was no item in the whole range of protected articles which exhibited in a more striking and In this decision, a precise description having been given impressive manner the beneficial effect of the protecting of such coarse linens as shall be called cotton bagging, and system. He had a statement which went to show what the foreign manufacturer having been furnished with this had been the condition of this branch of manufacture decision, all he had to do to evade the laws of this country previous to the tariff of 1824. It had then employed was, to make his bagging either less than nine inches in ten looms, which consumed one hundred tons of hemp, width, or to weigh less than sixteen ounces the square and made one hundred thousand yards of bagging. yard; the slightest variation in either of these particulars The bagging was consumed chiefly in Alabama, where would accomplish the purpose of evasion completely. it sold for forty cents a yard. The hemp out of which There are many facts to prove that the foreign manu- it was made could then be purchased at three dolfacturers of cotton bagging have, since the foregoing lars a hundred. There had also been made twenty tons decision, made the article with the view to evade our laws, of rope, which then sold at fifteen cents a pound. With and have succeeded in introducing it into our markets this state of things, he wished the committee to compare under the denominations of Hessians, burlaps, &c. In that which was exhibited in 1831, when the manufacture the year 1807-'8, there was imported into the United employed forty looms, consumed four hundred tons of States 4,300,000 square yards of cotton bagging, and the hemp, made four hundred thousand yards of bagging, duty amounted to $163,000. In 1830-'1, there was only which sold at twenty cents, and was made out of hemp 207,906. The whole value of which was $18,901. So which cost six dollars a hundred. There had also been that the duties have fallen, from 1807 to 1830, from $163,000 to less than $10,000; yet it is an ascertained fact that at least two-fifths of the cotton bagging used in the United States is imported; and that it ought to yield duties to the amount of over $100,000.

Thus sir, you see how your laws have been violated, how your treasury has been defrauded of revenue, and how the domestic manufacturer has been deprived of the benefit of protection.

Mr. A. said, the amendment which he had offered would prevent these evasions, by making the use, and not the width or weight of the article, establish its character. So long as a minimum width and weight was the criterion, it would be impossible to prevent fraud. When the use of the manufacture is the standard of judgment, there can be no inconvenience in practice. "To those who are acquainted with the various kinds of coarse linens suitable for this purpose, there can be no difficulty in designating it, call it by what name you please."

made one hundred tons of rope, which sold at eight cents a pound. Here was exhibited the double operation of the tariff. It reduced the manufactured article to half the price, while it doubled the price of the raw material. When such had been the consequence of imposing a duty of five cents, he should suppose the House would be loath to make the experiment of reducing it. He abstained from entering on the general subject, though no stronger illustration could be produced than that furnished by the present article.

Mr. DAVIS, of South Carolina, inquired how much of the article was consumed in Kentucky. Was there a pound of cotton raised there?

Mr. MARSHALL replied that it had been consumed in Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi. The consumption had not, he believed, yet reached South Carolina.

Mr. MARDIS said that one fact was a sufficient answer to the gentleman from Kentucky. The price of cotton bagging was always regulated by the price of cotMr. A. said that his immediate constituents had a deeper ton. The bagging was given with the cotton. When interest in this manufacture than any to which the protec- they got twenty and thirty cents a pound for their cotton, tive principle had been applied. In the smallest county, bagging sold for the same price. But now cotton was in point of territory, in his district, there were seventeen at eight, seven, and six cents, they could not afford to give hemp factories in operation. He therefore felt much so- as much as they formerly had done.

licitude that, in the arrangement about to be made, this The question being put on Mr. ALLAN's amendment, particular interest should not suffer. The bill reported it was rejected.

by the Committee on Manufactures, and which is now Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, then rose, and said he under consideration, proposes to reduce the duty on cot- understood the chairman had just decided that it was in ton bagging to three and a half cents the square yard; the order to amend the bill, and make it as perfect as the amendment offered as a substitute for that bill, by the friends of it were able, before the vote on the substigentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEWART,] proposes tute was taken. This presents a question of interest, Mr. A. said, if the amendment which he had and it is the first time since the matter was brought under offered should be adopted, it would leave the duty where consideration, that it has taken a form that could elicit a it now was, at five cents the square yard, which he trusted discussion of the general merits. The committee has from

four cents.

VOL. VIII.-207

H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

[JUNE 6, 1832.

the beginning been greatly embarrassed; and without in-citing interests, and, as some affirm, the existence of the tending offence, or to take exception to the conduct of Union itself. And are we to decide by ay and no such a any one, I will state the reason why. question, without expressing our sentiments? Are we to This subject was committed six months ago to the be told it is wasting time? What estimate can those have Committee on Manufactures. We have been informed of this matter who tell us to vote without uttering our they have been laboriously engaged with it; and after opinions? They are blind guides, or give utterance to availing themselves of all the information they could col- heedless thoughts. What is the time of the members, lect during that time, they have made a report. This re- what the per diem allowance of this House, compared with port, which purports to emanate from the distinguished the vast property which bangs upon our legislation? It chairman of that committee, does not enter at all into the is as the grain of sand to the mountain; as a drop of water details of the subject. It is a treatise upon the protective to the ocean. But I need not urge these considerations, policy generally, and is silent as to the testimony of the for few men will dare to vote on such a subject without diswitnesses who have been examined, the facts which have cussion, and a most attentive examination. I shall, then, beer. collected, and the information which is said to have regardless of the admonitions of those who wish to act, been amassed by the Secretary of the Treasury. All this and deliberate afterwards, proceed to a discussion of such was before the committee, yet on these topics of vital in-matters as seem to me important. terest the report is silent, and they are silent. Not one of I have quietly maintained my seat hitherto, and never them has condescended to state to us the reasons or the rose with greater reluctance. I should have been glad facts which guided him to the results exhibited by the to escape this duty, but I owe it to a portion of the counbill. Not a word of the evidence has been published, try, and should stand inexcusable before that portion of the and we are called on to vote for the bill on faith. Sir, I American people whom I represent, if I had avoided it. did hope these matters would be laid before us, to en- The history of past legislation bears me out when I say lighten our minds; and I have waited anxiously for ex-I know this question is not to be settled by the wishes or planation, in hopes that difficulties which have rested on the political power of that portion of the United States my mind would be removed; but I lament to say I have waited in vain. The course is certainly unusual, though I impute blame to no one, for the committee have a right to hold all this information in their own minds, and leave the rest of us to find our way to correct results as we may. I shall, therefore, proceed by such feeble lights as illumine my own understanding.

from which I come. New England has been much and often abused on this topic; and those who reflect upon her conduct, who reprobate her course, know it is not she who regulates the policy of this country; they know she holds no influence here to carry despotic measures. No: they know that in political power she is poor indeed; being often the victim of sectional intrigue and individual Two propositions are now before us. One presented ambition: they know the protective policy is no child of by the member from Pennsylvania, which is in truth sub-hers, but was created and settled by the great central stantially a bill reported by a committee of the Senate to power of the Union-the great agricultural interest--the that body, and is therefore the result of the deliberations middle States. It is their measure, as the record will of that committee. The other is our own bill. We have, show; brought into existence not for our benefit, but to therefore, before us the labors of two distinct committees, create markets for their produce; and if there be any thing one from each House of the Legislature. Hence it is censurable in this legislation, I entreat gentlemen who are said we have arrived at an important point, because these unsparing in their anathemas to let a portion of their retwo committees have long had the subject under consi- probation fall on them. The middle States decreed that deration; and each having ample means of intelligence, we should manufacture, and should consume their flour, has arrived at results different from the other. The posi- wool, and other produce; and we have been obliged to tion is important in another point of view. If the propo- obey the decree. The question now will be settled by sition of our committee can be made acceptable, there is them. New England has been made what she is by the great opportunity so to do, as it is open to amendment, votes of others, and all we aim at now is to maintain a and may be so altered as to command more strength than consistent and permanent policy, that we may not, by conthe Senate's. If it fails to do this, it behooves us then to stant vacillation, be ground into the dust. We should have resort to the measure which seems to have favor in that been content with the old policy, but you drove us from body. It should not be forgotten that this is open to our ships to the land, and now it is cruel and oppressive amendment also. It is a position for deep reflection of to force us back again.

this body. In some respects the bill of the Senate has, in I must beg leave, if the committee will bear with me, my opinion, provisions which give it a decided preference to draw their attention to things forgotten-to go back over the bill of the House. But let us go to work and into matters of history connected with the policy of this mature our own labors, not regarding the source from Government. It has been said, history is philosophy teachwhence suggestions of improvement may come. Let us ing by example. Whatever may be thought of this as an look at both measures, and weigh well the intrinsic merits aphorism, it is unquestionably true that experiment is betof every provision of each, and adopt or reject them as ter than theory, and that our knowledge is greatly im they may or may not subserve the great policy upon proved by the lessons of wisdom which lie in past times. which we are legislating. Before I sit down I shall send Whoever will examine our colonial history, will not fail to the Chair a proposition to amend the bill of this House; to learn that one of the great causes of discontent among and as that, or something tantamount to it, may or may the colonists, and of complaint against the mother counnot meet with support, so will the bill obtain or lose my try, was, that she fettered the industry of the colonies. A distinguished statesman said, America shall not manufacIt has been said, and earnestly said, that we ought to ture a hobnail. So jealous was England of her own intake the bill up in detail, and, after amending it, discuss terests, so watchful of the prosperity of her manufactures, the measure, if it be discussed at all. And I beg leave that she was unwilling we should shoe a horse without here to say, I differ entirely from all who entertain such driving the nails forged by her labor. She lived up to sentiments. Some have said it is a waste of time to talk; this policy; compelled us to trade with her; boasted that we ought to vote and go home; the session has been a pro- we took her surplus goods-the orts and ends of her manutracted one. And, sir, do not all know why it is so? It factures, such as no other people would buy; and that the is not my fault, nor yours; we have worked as many hours trade greatly enriched her. This was all true; but it made as any Congress, but whether to profit or not, the people our fathers almost as poor as the aborigines whom they must judge. But this proposition involves great and ex- had displaced. This unequal condition could not exist,

vote.