Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

APRIL 29, 1830.]

The Tariff.

[H. OF R.

that an excise duty of forty per cent. should be levied upon all the productions of the Southern States, whereas, of the immense amount of the productions of the northern, middle, and western States, only twenty millions should be subject to a similar excise, and the remaining two hundred and eighty millions expressly exempted from any imposition at all? Would such a law bear inspection! Would not such an invidious and unjust distinction shock the moral sense of every man in the community? And yet, sir, the law I have supposed would do nothing more than express, in words, what actually exists at this moment in the revenue laws of this Government, wrapped up and disguised in the indirectness of their operation, and the generality of the terms in which they are expressed.

equally liable to taxation upon every principle of equity and justice, amounting to two hundred and eighty millions of dollars, which are not only entirely free from all Government impositions, but a large portion of which actually receive Government bounties! Sir, it is in vain for gentlemen to attempt to disguise this gross and monstrous inequality, under the vague notion that the ultimate burden of taxation falls exclusively upon the consumer. Even if this were true to the letter, it would not materially vary the case as to the unequal operation of the revenue laws upon the different sections of the Union. The complaint is, that upon less than seventy millions of the commercial exchanges of the country-principally belonging to the planting States-the whole of the federal taxes are levied, while upon commercial exchanges, equally liable to taxa- I have been recently looking into a British production tion, belonging to the farming and manufacturing States, of high reputation, which speaks in strong terms of the to the vast amount of two hundred and eighty millions of intolerable weight of British taxation. As a conclusive dollars, no imposition is laid at all by this Government. argument in favor of a reduction of the taxes, the writer Now I challenge any gentleman to point out a single in- asserts that they amounted, including the corn laws and stance in the history of the world-I will not except the poor rates, to a tax of thirty-three and one-third per cent. cruel exactions of the Roman Government from the con- upon the income of every individual in the kingdom. This quered provinces that can be compared with our own reve- he regarded as being so very oppressive, that no people nue system, for the injustice and inequality of the contri- could possibly endure it. Now, sir, every cotton planter in butions it draws from the people of the southern and south- the United States pays a tax of at least thirty-three and onewestern States. When all the States of this Union were third per cent. upon his income to sustain the Federal GoAtlantic States, and were interested very nearly in an vernment, in addition to his contribution to the revenue of the equal degree in the foreign exchanges of the country, no State in which he resides. Indeed, as almost the whole of his great injustice resulted from making these exchanges sus-income is derived from the exchanges of foreign commerce, tain the whole fiscal burdens of the Government. But the tax he pays upon the annual amount of that income even in 1790, the period to which I refer, Alexander Ha cannot be estimated at much less than the rate of the duty milton, the putative father of the prohibitory system, deem- which is indirectly laid upon the productions of his indused it unwise and inexpedient to carry the duties upon try. And thus it is, that while we are vainly and ignoforeign merchandise higher than seven and a half per cent. rantly boasting of our freedom from taxation, the people How would he have been astonished if any one had pre- of a portion of the Union are subject to a more oppressive dicted that, in less than forty years, fourteen million eight burden than the most heavily taxed people on the face of hundred thousand dollars, out of a revenue of twenty- the earth. three millions of dollars, would be raised by duties upon little more than one-ninth part of the productive industry and commercial exchanges of the Union!

Thus far, I have confined myself to the consideration of the mere fiscal operations of the Federal Government, and have attempted to show the unequal action of your revenue system upon different parts of the Union, without reference to the protection afforded by the impost duties to certain branches of domestic industry. It now becomes my duty to trace the operation of what has been very inappropriately denominated the protecting system; and to ascertain, if possible, how far it contributes to increase the inequality of the burdens imposed by the Federal Government upon the people of the staple-growing States.

I am sure, if gentlemen did not permit themselves to be carried away by a mere distinction in names, this unequal distribution of the taxes would strike them more forcibly than it now does. If the whole revenue of the United States were raised by an excise, and, instead of levying an impost on the merchandise imported, an excise duty to the same extent were levied upon our cotton when sold to the merchant, and before it reaches the custom-house, the palpable injustice, the outrageous inequality of the system, And, sir, let it be remembered that a revenue system, would be apparent to every one. It could not then be grossly and palpably unequal in itself—a system which, undisguised, that the Government was exacting an excise der the most favorable modification, would levy the entire duty of forty per cent. from the cotton planters, while, amount of the federal taxes from one fifth part of the upon the productions of other parts of the Union, standing productions of the Union, while the other four-fifths are upon precisely the same footing, and amounting to nine entirely exempted from all manner of imposition-let it times the value of the cotton made for exportation, it ex- be remembered, I say, that this is the substratum upon acted no duty at all. Now, as I have heretofore shown that which has been reared this monstrous and iniquitous suan import duty is precisely equivalent to an export duty perstructure-the protecting system. It did not satisfy upon the same commercial exchange, it follows, from the the manufacturers and their confederates, that the whole same course of reasoning, that an excise duty paid upon expense of supporting the Federal Government should be cotton when it leaves the storehouse of the planter, is sustained by those branches of domestic industry which precisely equivalent to an export duty paid at the custom-make up the foreign commerce of the country-it did not house. Both are equally taxes upon the productions of satisfy them, that they themselves were not only exempted the planter, and operate precisely alike in. all their bear- from all impositions of the Government, but actually reinge, whether we regard them as throwing the burden of ceived an indirect bounty from the imposts laid upon other the tax upon the producer or the consumer. And I have branches of industry for the purposes of revenue. No, no hesitation in saying that I would regard a law imposing sir; all this did not satisfy them; they are now making an excise duty of forty per cent. upon all cotton sold by a sure and steady, and, for any thing that can be done the planters in the United States, and providing at the here, an irresistible progress in the system of legislative same time that foreign merchandise received in exchange warfare, by which will be ultimately swept from the face for it might be imported free of duty, as making not the of the ocean a large and valuable branch of foreign comslightest change in the burdens under which we now labor. How, then, let me ask-and I beg gentlemen to answer me the question, if with clear consciences they canhow would a law strike them, which provided, in terms, VOL. VI.-107.

merce, exclusively belonging to the stapie-growing States, and which now actually contributes two-thirds of the re venue of this Government. And, this, sir, is what they are pleased to denominate a system of protection.

$850

H. OF R.]

[APRIL 29, 1830. get up and urge their own acts This system, which has been gradually built up, as far sacrificed! And, sir, is it to be endured sets of injustice as it has gone, by successive acts of on should ruins of southern commerce, has now become, in the esti- and oppression as creating a pledge to maintain and extend mation of some gentlemen, an object of idolatry too sacred their encroachments upon the rights of the minority! Sir, to be touched without profanity. When at an early I protest against a doctrine which thus sanctifies and conperiod of the session, I had the honor to introduce a bill secrates to-day, what was admitted to be injustice and to modify the existing tariff by a very moderate reduction oppression yesterday. What, then, let us briefly inquire, is the tendency, and of the duties, a very extraordinary excitement was manifested. A gentleman from Pennsylvania rose in his place, what has been the effect, of the high duties imposed for and, as if some great indignity had been offered against the purpose of protecting manufactures and other dothe majesty of the protecting system, approaching to the mestic productions? It is too plain to admit of argument: guilt of treason, the measure was unceremoniously con- indeed, it has been candidly admitted by the chairman of demned, and strangled at the very threshold, without the the Committee on Manufactures, in former discussions, common forms of parliamentary proceeding. The gentle- that domestic productions can only be protected by pro man to whom I allude, [Mr. RAMSEY] as an excuse for hibiting the foreign articles that would come in competia course so unusual and uncourteous, stated that he tion with them. He openly avowed that he aimed at prohad no idea of having the repeal of the tariff of 1828 hibition, and it would have been folly to have aimed at discussed or agitated, until we had ascertained, by experi- less, if he really meant to give protection. No duty can ence, whether it was really as injurious as it had been re- give any protection to any domestic fabric, which does not presented. I should be very unwilling to permit an igno- exclude a similar foreign fabric; and, in the very nature of rant physician, wholly unacquainted with my constitution things, the amount of protection cannot exceed the amount and habits, to indulge in experimental quackery, at the of prohibition, though it may, and generally does, fall imminent hazard and almost certain sacrifice of my life. short of it. You cannot create a demand, for example, For the same reason, I cannot consent that the vital inte- for any domestic manufacture, by legislation, otherwise rests of my constituents should be put to hazard upon the than by excluding a similar foreign manufacture; and as result of an experiment in political quackery, which can your legislation is calculated to enhance the price of the only end in the ruin of those interests. The gentleman article, you certainly cannot create by it a demand for a says, give it a trial; not reflecting that, when the result is greater amount of the domestic fabric than you exclude of ascertained, the patient may be dead. What has taken the foreign. It may be confidently assumed, therefore, place, forcibly reminds me, sir, of the mode of trial adopt- that whatever may be the amount of iron and salt, and maed in times not quite so enlightened as the present, for as-nufactures of cotton, wool, iron, and hemp, which have certaining the guilt or innocence of certain venerable old been brought into existence in the United States by the women, charged with the dreadful crime of witch-system of high protecting duties, at least an equal amount craft. In the dark ages of jurisprudence, these predes- of foreign rival productions has been excluded by those tined victims were subjected to a species of trial, denomi- duties. It will not be deemed an extravagant estimate to nated, I believe, the water ordeal. The mode of trial was suppose that the protecting system has caused to be provery simple, and, as it was no doubt supposed, perfectly duced, annually, articles of these various kinds, to the fair and equitable. A large stone was tied around the amount of twelve millions of dollars, which would not have neck of the person accused, and she was cast into deep been produced, but for the protection given them. water, under the very natural belief, that if she was really follows, then, as a corollary, that at least an equal amount guilty of dealing with the devil, he would not permit her of these articles of foreign production must have been exto sink. While, therefore, humanity cried out for cluded. But these are the very articles which we receive the rescue of the struggling and sinking victim, the stern from Great Britain, France, and Holland, in exchange for justice of the times replied, "let her alone! let her alone! our agricultural staples. By excluding twelve millions of If she really be a witch, she certainly will not sink." I such articles, therefore, we necessarily diminish the foreign need hardly state to this enlightened audience the final demand for our staples, and principally cotton, to that issue of the trial. The innocence of the accused was most amount. There is scarcely any limit to the consumption conclusively established; but, unfortunately for the poor of our cotton in Europe, but that which is imposed by old woman, it was not ascertained until after she was con- our refusal to take manufactures in exchange for it. If signed to a watery grave, and placed beyond the hope of therefore, we were permitted to import the twelve milresuscitation. And such, sir, will be the inevitable fate of lions of dollars worth of manufactures that have been exthat branch of our foreign commerce which is the rightful cluded by our commercial restrictions, or, rather, if they and almost exclusive property of the planting States. I had never been excluded by those restrictions, it cannot have no idea of indulging gentlemen in these witchcraft be reasonably doubted that we should now have a demand ordeals with the rights and interests of the whole southern in Europe for four hundred thousand bales of cotton, be yond the existing demand. Even, therefore, if we grant,. and southwestern portions of this Union. I am not unaware, sir, of the prevalence of an idea that what is not the fact, that the whole of the domestic dethe Government stands pledged to maintain the system of mand for cotton has been produced by the prohibitory ef high and prohibitory duties, from the mere circumstance of fect of our tariff, it will follow that we have gained a mar having once enacted it. Nothing can be more utterly falla-ket for one hundred and fifty thousand bales, by sacrific cious, than the idea that the faith of the Government is ing one for four hundred thousand. From this estimate, concerned in the maintenance of an unjust and oppressive it will be seen that the prohibition of foreign imports has system, simply because it has been adopted. It assumes that the Government is some ideal being at Washington, who has persuaded the manufacturers and others concerned to invest their capital in certain pursuits, by giving them the assurance that the high duties would be maintained. Now, sir, what is the Government by which this pledge has been given to the manufacturers? Is it not composed of the representatives of these very manufacturers, and of the interests associated with them, making together that interested and despotic majority, by which the most undoubted rights and interests of the minority have been

[graphic]

resulted in curtailing the entire demand for cotton in the markets of the whole world, including our own, two hun dred and fifty thousand bales. In addition, then, to the annual burden he bears in paying the duties upon the im ports he is still permitted to bring into the country, the planter sustains an annual loss of seven million five bundred thousand dollars, being the value of the cotton for which he has lost a market, in consequence of the unjust restrictions imposed upon his lawful commerce by the suicidal policy of his own Government.

I think I have by this time satisfied the committee that

APRIL 29, 1830.]·

The Tariff.

[H. of R.

I have not exaggerated the burdens of the southern planters | importance of preserving it, are certainly not diminished in stating that a duty of forty per cent. upon the amount of by what we have unavoidably lost. On the contrary, the their exports may be taken as the measure of these burdens. inducements to preserve and extend it are rather increasI have not the slightest doubt that I have greatly under-esti-ed than diminished; and if a common interest pervaded mated those burdens, looking to the operation of your im- the whole Union, a doubt would not be entertained on the post duties in the double aspect of a system of revenue and subject. To exemplify this, sir, I will suppose the whole a system of protection. Having now, sir, made out the case United States to be the property of a single individual. of the southern planters-having demonstrated the grossly Would the owner of this vast estate be guilty of the conunequal and oppressive operation of your whole tariff system summate folly of refusing to carry on a free and unrestrictupon the productions of their lawful industry, I will now ed trade in cotton, tobacco, and rice, because his customproceed to the consideration of the principal ground upon er either would not purchase or could not purchase his which the advocates of this system have attempted to rest grain also? Such absolute fatuity cannot be ascribed to it, as a measure of justice and expediency. It is almost any individual having the common use of his faculties. universally conceded by all the supporters of the protect- And yet, sir, such is the wisdom that governs the affairs ing policy, from Alexander Hamilton down, that if all other of nations, this Government is now actually exhibiting the nations would throw off the restrictions they have im- very infatuation which cannot be imputed to any indiviposed upon commerce, it would be wise in the United dual, however ignorant and stupid. States to pursue the same policy, but it is contended, The great misfortune is, sir-and it gives us the true key that, as long as other nations continue to impose restrictions to the whole system-that, while this Government is an upon the free importation of our productions, it is expe- undivided and indivisible unity, the country over which it dient and necessary that we should countervail their re extends is divided into various and—disguise it as we may gulations, by imposing similar restrictions upon their pro-diametrically adverse interests. Hence, it results, that ductions. Now, sir, if I am not greatly deceived in the the law which throws a restriction upon the commerce of view I have taken of the matter, this is the capital error the southern States, to the great and obvious injury of the which lies at the foundation of the whole protecting sys- planter, is obviously calculated, and professedly intended, tem. And nothing will, perhaps, tend more clearly to ex- to promote the interest of the northern manufacturer. If pose the true genius and character of that system, than a the manufacturer can gain ten per cent. by the restriction, brief examination and exposure of this error. I waive, it is his interest to adhere to it, though it impose a burdeu for the present, as belonging to another branch of inquiry, of forty or fifty per cent. upon the planter. Hence it is the policy of countervailing regulations, calculated and de- that the majority of this House are pursuing a policy with signed to induce other nations to abandon their restric- regard to the interests of the whole Union, which no hu tions. No one pretends that ours are of that character, man being would pursue in regard to his own interest. It either as to their design or tendency. As a mere question is worth while, sir, to trace the operation of this policy a of political economy, then, I maintain that the restrictions little more in detail. Great Britain, it is alleged, will not, which foreign nations impose upon the importation of any or, which is the same thing, does not, in fact, purchase the production of ours, in pursuing their established policy, grain of the northern, middle, and western States, and, furnish not the slightest ground, upon the score of inte- consequently, those States have nothing wherewith to rest or expediency, for imposing similar restrictions upon purchase British manufactures. This is the complaint. any of the productions of these foreign nations. I will il- Now, sir, if this be true, the wisdom of man could not lustrate my view by considering the operation of the Bri- more effectually exclude British manufactures, or give a tish corn laws upon the commerce of the United States. more complete protection to domestic manufactures, in Let it, then, be granted that Great Britain has absolutely those States. If they have nothing to give in exchange prohibited the importation of foreign grain. No one pre for British manufactures, what earthly necessity is there tends that she has not an undoubted right, under the law to exclude them by law? The domestic manufacturer is of nations, to do so. We have no just cause to complain absolutely secured against foreign competition by the sinof it. Indeed, her policy in this respect is not only imi-gle fact, that the British manufacturer will not take any tated, but applauded by the advocates of the restrictive thing in exchange for his fabrics, which the people of those system here. Then, sir, the exclusion of our grain from States have to give. What, then, is the real object of the Great Britain is simply a fact to be considered by this Go- restrictions which the tariff States are so anxious to throw vernment, without any regard to the causes that have pro- about our foreign commerce? It is not, sir, be assured, duced it. It is precisely the same thing to the grain grow to prevent those States from importing British manufacers of this country, as if the increased fertility of Great tures, who have nothing to give in exchange for them. Britain, resulting from a newly discovered manure, had That would be impotent and gratuitous legislation. The enabled the farmers of that country to produce grain as true object-disguise it as gentlemen may-is to prevent cheaply as it can be produced in Kentucky or Ohio. There those States who have the means of paying for British macould be no more effectual exclusion of our grain than nufactures, and who have a deep and vital interest in prewould result from this. And yet I can hardly suppose serving that branch of commerce, from importing those there is a man in the world who would be so absurd as to manufactures, in order to promote the interest of those contend that these agricultural improvements in Great States who have not the means of paying for British manuBritain would furnish any colorable ground for excluding factures, and who really have, or believe they have, a deep her manufactures; or, in other words, for prohibiting the and vital interest in destroying that branch of commerce. free exchange of those of our productions which she might Twist and turn it as you may, "to this complexion it still require, for such of her own as she could most advan- must come at last." Hence it is, that to the gross inequatageously give us for them. Now, it seems impossible for lity of the revenue system of the United States, the majohuman ingenuity to draw any substantial discrimination be- rity of Congress have superadded the intolerable burdens tween the case I have supposed and that of the British corn of the prohibitory system. Will any gentleman from Maslaws. In both instances, we lose a market for our grain, sachusetts, or Rhode Island, or Vermont, have the hardiin the one from natural and in the other from artificial hood to maintain that the duties imposed on cotton and causes; and the question which arises upon this state of woollen manufactures, varying from forty to sixty per cent. facts, is simply this: would it be wise in us to deprive our- are equally a burden upon his constituents as they are upselves of our remaining commerce with Great Britain, be-on mine? Will any gentleman from Pennsylvania assert cause circumstances beyond our control have deprived us that the enormous duty upon iron imposes an equal burof a portion of it? The value of what remains, and the den upon the people of Pennsylvania and upon those of

H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

[APRIL 29, 1830.

South Carolina On the contrary, do not these gentlemen not look into the motives of the Legislature. But, sir, a distinctly and openly avow that the duties which throw a law, or a system of laws, calculated and designed to degrievous and oppressive burdeu upon the people of the stroy commerce, or any branch of it, is not the less unconsouthern States, operate as a beneficial and sustaining stitutional because the Supreme Court cannot pronounce bounty to the people of the northern and eastern States? it to be so. It is not a question of which that court could I do firmly believe, that, if the proceeds of the public lands take cognizance. It turns upon great political principles, would defray the whole expenses of the Government, or which would be entirely out of place in a mere technical if the staple growing States would assume the responsibi- argument before a judicial tribunal, but which this body lity of paying those expenses out of revenues raised by is under the most solemn obligations to regard in all its themselves, there are certain States in this Union-I allude proceedings. to those emphatically denominated tariff States - that As no one now pretends that these prohibitory duties would not consent to a repeal of the impost duties. No, are imposed for the purpose of raising revenue, I shall sir, they gain much more than they lose, by the aggregate proceed to inquire how far they can be justified by the effect of the duties imposed, and the disbursements made, clause of the constitution which authorizes Congress "to by this Government, regarding the system in the light of a regulate commerce with foreign nations." What, then, mere pecuniary speculation. If a foreign invention were was the object of the convention in clothing Congress made, by which the operations of Government could be with this power to regulate foreign commerce! I put it carried on without the expenditure of a single dollar, those to the conscience of every member of this body, upon the States would regard it as a nuisance, and prohibit its im-high responsibility under which he is acting, to answer portation by as rigorous penalties as are now proposed in me the question, whether this power was not vested in regard to foreign manufactures. A greater calamity could Congress for the sole and exclusive purpose of preservscarcely happen to the interests of northern capital, con- ing, protecting, and defending the very commerce which federated in favor of the protecting system, than would re-it proposes to regulate. No one, I am sure, can serioussult from an entire suspension of the fiscal operations of ly believe that there is any other legitimate object for this Government, including both taxation and disbursement. which this power can have been conferred, or for which This extraordinary, but undoubted fact, that those who it can be rightfully exercised. By constituting Congress control the legislation of Congress have a decided pecu- the guardian of our foreign commerce, the constitution niary interest in the increase and perpetuation of the has imposed upon that body the high duty of extending burdens of taxation, brings me to the consideration of a its protecting arm equally and impartially to every lawview of this subject deeply interesting to the people of the ful branch of that commerce. No restriction, therefore, southern portion of this confederacy, and involving the can be lawfully and constitutionally imposed upon the highest principles of constitutional liberty. foreign trade of any part of this Union, that has not for its object the preservation, security, or improvement of the very branch of trade upon which it is imposed. Any man who will look into the history of the times which immediately preceded the Federal Convention, will be satisfied that the great object of convoking that assembly, and of creating this Government, was to provide for the security of our foreign commerce. What language then can be used strong enough to characterize those prohibitory regulations of Congress which are inevitably calculated, and openly and avowedly intended, not only to suspend for an indefinite time, but utterly to abolish and destroy, forever, a great branch of commerce belonging to eight sovereign States of this confederacy? There is nothing, sir, either in history or fable, that can be compared with this most unnatural and monstrous perversion of power The very commerce which this Government was created to preserve, and which it is under the clearest and most solemn constitutional obligations to protect and defend against all foreign outrage, is actually destroyed by the Government which was created to preserve it, and professing to act under a power evidently conferred Sir, I never have been an advocate of strict limitations for no other purpose! Yes, sir, and to add mockery to or technical refinements, in construing the constitution. the outrage, Congress very modestly claims the title of a I have always interpreted that instrument as I would any parental and protecting government, for the very act of other, by its plain sense and obvious intention, having re- sacrificing that commerce which it is bound to preserve, gard both to the letter and spirit. Taking these for my to build up on its ruins a distinct branch of industry-doguide, I utterly deny that Congress has the constitutional mestic manufactures-which the constitution has not power to carry on a legislative warfare, either open or committed to the guardianship of the Federal Governdisguised, against any branch of foreign commerce, with ment in any respect whatever. The monster which should a view to the advancement of any other branch of national devour his own offspring, would not commit a greater industry. I know, sir, that I shall be asked if Congress outrage against nature, than this body is thus perpretating have not the power of laying impost duties for the pur- against the constitution under which it assumes to act, poses of raising revenue, and also the power of "regu- and from which only it can derive any legitimate authorilating commerce with foreign nations;" and to these ques- ty. The only cause which can justify Congress in imtions I answer in the affirmative. I shall be then asked, posing restrictions and prohibitions upon commerce, is how it would be possible for the Supreme Court to pro- the violation, by foreign powers, of those principels of nounce a law of Congress unconstitutional, which purports, upon the face of it, to be a revenue measure, or a measure for the regulation of commerce. To this I answer, that the Supreme Court could not, and would not, pronounce such a law unconstitutional, because they can

The southern States, actuated by that uncalculating patriotism for which they have always been distinguished, have submitted without a single murmur, to a system of taxation which has drawn from the productions of their industry, at least double the amount of their just contribution to the federal treasury. But, sir, when they find an interested majority, "which feels power and forgets right," steadily aiming the imperial ban of the prohibitory system at the absolute annihilation of that very branch of commerce which has so largely and disproportionately contributed to support the expenses of the Federal Government-when they find that majority, confident in the strength of numbers, openly and boldly avowing the unjust, and, I had almost said, nefarious and piratical purpose of sweeping from the very face of the ocean a lawful branch of trade, which almost exclusively belongs to the people of these States-it is time for them to rise up in the majesty of their rights, and demand, in the name of the principles of eternal justice and of constitutional liberty, by what authority do you commit this monstrous outrage?"

international law which are the guaranty of our commercial and other sovereign rights as a nation; and the only constitutional object to which these restrictions and prohibitions can be directed, is to induce or constrain fo reign powers to repeal the regulations, or abandon the

[ocr errors][merged small]

1

APRIL 29, 1830.]

The Tariff

course of action by which our national rights are violated. This Government was principally designed by its framers to concentrate the whole power of the confederacy, for the purpose of resisting the aggressions of foreign nations upon our rights on the ocean. been committed, if all our rights of commerce and navigaIf no such aggression has tion are secure under the protection of the law of nations, even from apprehended encroachments, then, sir, I maintain that the case has not occurred, in which this Government may rightfully interpose its power to vindicate the Sovereign rights of the confederacy, either by military force or legislative restrictions and prohibitions.

853 [H. OF R.

of the United States. I am decidedly of the opinion, therefore, that the embargo was a constitutional measure; but I am very far from believing that it was a wise one.

in regard to the two essential requisites of a constitutional 1828 will stand a comparison with the embargo of 1807, Let us now see how the prohibitory acts, of 1824 and regulation of commerce. justifiable object. What, then, was the cause of these two prohibitory acts? Was it pretended that any foreign power I mean a sufficient cause, and a had violated our rights, by imposing restrictions upon our eommerce, not warranted by the law of nations? So far I will now illustrate my views on this subject, by a power, which has been alleged as a motive for a prohibifrom this being the case, the only measures of a foreign brief examination of the embargo of 1807, a measure too tory tariff on our part, is the prohibition of foreign grain memorable to have been forgotten, and with the history by Great Britain; a measure as highly applauded as it of which, I take it for granted, every member of the was unwisely imitated by the advocates of the prohibitory committee is familiar. It is a well known fact, that an system in this country. It was not to vindicate any vioentire political party, constituting a decided majority of lated right, then, that the acts of 1824 and 1828 were the people of New England, and headed by men of very passed, and thus far they want the justifying cause that distinguished talents and great political experience, de- existed in the case of the embargo. What, then, is the nounced the measure in question as an unconstitutional object, the final end, which these acts purpose to accomperversion of the power to regulate commerce. sir, that every public functionary, from the chief Execu- to abandon restrictions injurious to our commercial rights, I believe, plish? Are they intended to compel any foreign power tive downwards, and every department of the Government or even detrimental to our commercial interests? This in almost every New England State, solemnly pronounced will scarcely be pretended. The only foreign restriction the embargo law unconstitutional. merce, is that imposed by the British corn laws. which has been alleged as an interference with our com

of the United States are anxious to induce or constrain Now, will it be seriously argued that the manufacturers Great Britain to repeal her corn laws? Will any man in this House hazard the assertion, that the prohibitory duties imposed by Congress were designed to produce such an effect? Nothing, sir, was more remote from the wishes of those by whom these duties were imposed. When the subject of negotiating a commercial treaty with Great Britain, providing for a reciprocal free trade between the two countries, was agitated some months ago in the public journals, in what tone and temper was it denounced by the advocates of the manufacturing interest? bill was reported a few days ago by the Committee on Commerce, proposing to effect the same object, in a partial And when a degree, by legislation, what an electric terror seemed to run through the ranks of the tariff party in this House ?

There never was a political party arrayed against this Government with more unanimity upon any question, than were the federal party of New Eugland upon the unconstitutionality of that measure. Now, sir, what was the ground upon which it was contended that the embargo was unconstitutional? I have recently heard that ground stated, from high authority, in a speech delivered not far off, in which the idea seemed still to be maintained. The ground was this: that the embargo law contained no limitation upon its face, and was, therefore, an indefinite suspension of commerce. To suspend commerce indefinitely, is to destroy it; and the power to regulate commerce does not confer the right to destroy it. Such, sir, was the argument, as I understand it. Though it is certainly a plausible and imposing argument, I do not think it a sound one. It entirely overlooks the cause which induced Congress to pass the embargo law, and the object to accomplish which it was enacted, both of them considerations essential to the correct determination of the question of constitutionality. and particularly by that of Great Britain, that would be No measure could be adopted by any foreign Government, Let it be remembered that the belligerent powers of Eu- more earnestly deprecated by the friends of the protecting rope had committed a series of outrages upon our national system in this country, than an unconditional repeal of all and commercial rights, in open violation of the clearest commercial restrictions. If the British Parliament were principles of the law of nations. Here, then, was an un-about to abolish the corn laws, the manufacturers of the doubted case for the constitutional interposition of the United States, if there was any disguise in which they power of the Federal Government. The casus fœderis of could present themselves, would pray for a continuance of the constitutional compact had evidently occurred. The those laws as devoutly as the British landlords. Their rerights of the citizens were violated by foreign powers, and peal, sir, would be the most fatal blow that could be inthis Government, having in charge the foreign relations of flicted on the manufacturers in this country, next to the rethe country, was not only authorized to vindicate those peal of our own prohibitory duties. What would be the rights by commercial restrictions, but even by war itself-effect of this repeal upon the competition between the the last resort of injured nations. Indeed, the embargo British and American manufacturers! While it would diwas a war measure in all its material characteristics, viewed in reference either to its causes or its objects.

And what, sir, was the end, the final end, which Congress proposed to accomplish by the embargo? Was there a man in America at the time is there a man in America at present, so far gone in the delusions of party prejudice, as to believe that Mr. Jefferson, iu recommending the embargo, or Congress in adopting it, aimed at the permanent destruction of commerce, or of any branch of it, as the ultimate and final end of that measure? doubted, at this day, that the sole and exclusive object It will hardly be which the Government had in view, in this temporary sus pension of foreign commerce, was to compel the bellige rent powers to relieve that very commerce from the shackles and restrictions which they had thrown around it, contrary to the law of nations, and in violation of the sovereign rights

minish the price of grain one-half in Great Britain, and and consequently in the cost of manufactures, it would produce a corresponding reduction in the price of labor, produce an effect almost precisely opposite in the United States. It is an established principle of political economy in Great Britain, founded upon the actual condition of the laboring classes, that every rise or fall in the price of grain produces a rise or fall in the price of labor, almost exactly equal to increased or diminished cost of food for the laborer. the minimum of human subsistence. His employer will This results from the fact, that the laborer is reduced to not give him more, and cannot give him less. A reduction in the price of corn, therefore, from two dollars to one dollar a bushel-an effect which would probably result from the repeal of the British corn laws-would reduce the price of labor twenty-five per cent., and the cost of producing ma

« AnteriorContinuar »