Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

MAY 13, 1830.]

Navigation and Imposts.

[H. or R.

SCOTT, with the proviso of Mr. HoWARD, and carried: yeas, | high responsibility of protecting the skill, the labor, and rs101-nays, 70. the property of our constituents, is here on us-and on us

After some remarks by Mr. CARSON, animadverting let it rest. on the reasons assigned by Messrs. RAMSEY and MILLER for their change of vote on the salt duty, and replies by these gentlemen,

But, before I go into an examination of the bill, and its bearing on the great interests of the country, I must occupy a little time in reply to the honorable gentleman from GeorThe question was (at 9 o'clock) put on ordering the bill gia, [Mr. WAYNE] So far as I understood him, his main to be engrossed, and read a third time, and decided in the object was to show that our tariff laws are exceedingly affirmative by the following vote: oppressive to the southern States, and to all parts of the YEAS-Messrs. Angel, Armstrong. Arnold, Bailey, Bar-Union; that this bill, should it become a law, would open ber, Bartley, Bates, Baylor, Beekman, John Blair, Bockee, foreign ports to us, and thereby give us steady foreign Boon, Borst, Brodhead, Brown, Buchanan, Butman, Ca markets for our breadstuffs and provisions, and, in a word, hoon, Childs, Clark, Coleman, Condict, Cooper, Cowles, for all the raw productions of our common country; and Hector Craig, Crane, Crawford, Creighton, Daniel, John that, consequently, the agricultural interest of the nation, Davis, Denny, Dickinson, Doddridge, Duncan, Dwight, and especially the cotton, tobacco, and sugar planters of Earll, Ellsworth, George Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward the south would be relieved. Everett, Horace Everett, Fiudlay, Finch, Ford, Forward, Fry, Gilmore, Gorham, Grennell, Hawkins, Hemphill, Hodges, Howard, Hughes, Hunt, Huutington, Ihrie, Thomas Irwin, W. W. Irvin, Isacks, Jennings, Johns, Richard M. Johnson, Kendall, Kennon, Kincaid, Perkins King, Adam King, Lecompte, Letcher, Lyon, Magee, Mallary, Martindale, Thomas Maxwell, Lewis Maxwell, McCreery, Mercer, Miller, Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Norton, Pearce, Pettis, Pierson, Powers, Ramsey, Reed, Richardson, Rose, Russel, Scott, Shields, Sill, S. A. Smith, Ambrose Spen- What, sir, is the principle of the tariff laws, of this cer, Sprigg, Stanbery, Standifer, Sterigere, Henry H." American system," so much reviled, because so little unStorrs, William L. Storrs, Strong, Sutherland, Swann, derstood? It is the adequate protection of our capital, Swift, Taylor, Test, John Thomson, Vance, Varnum, Vin- that is, of the produce of our labor and skill, whether this ton, Washington, Whittlesey, Edward D. White, Wick- produce be in the shape of money, houses, factories, cloths, liffe, Yancey, Young.-115. or ships, or of cotton, sugar, or tobacco, not only against the ruinous competition of foreign capital, but against the

The tariff laws have become, in the hands of their enemies, a ready weapon for every species of warfare. Formerly, the objection to them was, that they favored the rich, and oppressed the poor; that they taxed the industry of the poor man, to protect the money of the rich man. But now the objection is, that they favor mechanics and laborers, and oppress the rich farmers and planters; that now they tax the wealthy and the rich, to protect the skill and industry of the laboring poor.

NAYS.-Messrs. Anderson, Archer, John S. Barbour,
Chilton, Claiborne, Conner, Crocheron, Davenport, De-action of foreign legislation.
berry, Gordon, Hammons, Harvey, Cave Johnson, Lea,
Loyall, Martin, McIntire, Polk, Rencher, Augustine H.
Sheppard, Richard Spencer, Taliaferro, Wayne, Weeks.
Williams.-24.

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1830.

NAVIGATION AND IMPOSTS.
The House resumed the bill reported by Mr. CAMBRE-
LENG from the Committee on Commerce, in alteration of
the navigation laws, &c.

Mr. STRONG spoke half an hour in conclusion of his remarks against the bill, and then moved to postpone the bill to the 4th of July next, (tantamount to a motion to reject it,) but withdrew his motion at the request of

Mr. CAMBRELENG, who desired to make some remarks in reply, stating that he would, after he had said what he intended, renew the motion of his colleague; but,

The hour having expired, Mr. C. was precluded from proceeding to-day.

[The following is a full report of the remarks of Mr. STRONG.]

The protective system rests upon the same principle as the other great national and constitutional means of defence. Both are for protection. The navy, army and fortifications are for the protection of persons and property against open enemies, whereas the tariff laws (even as revenue laws) are for the protection of property merely against the arts and legislation of professed friends. The protection, therefore, is not to A or B, because he may happen to be a manufacturer, or a shipmaster, or a cotton planter; but it is to the property, of whatever kind it may be, that he has invested in the factory, the ship, or the plantation. Suppose any one man to have embarked his whole fortune, in equal proportions, in a cotton plantation, a co ton mill, and a ship. Is it not apparent that all three must be protected? And is the protection to him, and not to his property? Is he protected as a manufacturer merely? And is his plantation or his ship taxed for this protection, any more than his cotton mill is taxed for the protection of his raw cotton or his ship? I have always defended the principle of these laws, upon the ground that the protection was wholly to the property; that the benefits to particular individuals were incidental mereal; and that our safety and prosperity mainly depend upon the vigilant and fostering care of Congress, in protecting American capital and American enterprise. Sir, we may as well disband our army, and dismantle our navy and our fortresses, as to open our ports to the unrestricted introduction of the varied products of foreign labor.

Mr. STRONG said, the extraordinary character of this #bill would, he thought, justify him in submitting some remarks upon its mischievous and ruinous operation upon the agricultural as well as upon the manufacturing and navigating interests of the country. Its provisions, unless I totally misapprehend them, [said Mr. S.] are utterly hostile to the whole principle of protection. The honorable Among the earliest acts of this Government, there will chairman of the committee, [Mr. CAMBRELENG] by this be found one for the protection of the navigating interest. novel bill, would remove the old safeguards and leave My colleague, [Mr. CAMBRELENG] in the title of his bill, our farms, factories, and ships almost wholly unprotected; seems to profess the same thing; but, on looking at its would take away the superintending power of this House provisions, there is not to be found a line or a word which over the capital and industry of the country, and give it has any direct application to our shipping interest. It is partly to foreign Governments, but mainly to the Execu- known to the House that our mercantile marine has always tive of the United States. This will be a pledge to foreign been protected, but never, that I know of, too highly pronations which we cannot recall, and a power to the Presi-tected. Now, I suppose this protection was not, and could dent of the United States which we cannot control. 1 can not have been given for the sake of the master or the never agree to this. We may as well, and with more safety sailor, but for the sake of the large amount of American give up to the President the power of declaring war. The property which had been and might be invested in ships.

[ocr errors]

H. OF R.]

Navigation and Imposts.

[MAY 13, 1830

No man now denies the policy or doubts the necessity of co, and every bushel of foreign wheat, brought into the amply protecting the shipping interest; and yet the money country, and consumed here, would take the place of the laid out in a ship has no better claim for protection, than like quantity of American produce. The tobacco planter the same amount laid out in a cotton mill, or in a sugar, and the grain grower, therefore, while the home market cotton, or tobacco plantation. gradually fell into the hands of foreigners, and the mar kets abroad were closed against them, or were precarious as they now are, would soon find themselves obliged to produce less and less, until they ceased to produce altoge ther, except for their own necessary consumption. It is not a little remarkable that manufacturers are so unsparingly abused and vilified, when every one knows that the production of sugar and tobacco combine, most intimately, the manufacturing and agricultural interesta One part of the preparation, both of sugar and of tobacco, is as much a manufacture as is the fabrication of cotton or of wool. The first process is agricultural-the last, strict ly manufacturing. The two interests are often united on the same plantation, and in the same planter.

One of the signal advantages of this protecting system, is, to put the property, the skill, and industry of our citizens upon an equality as near as may be. Nearly all the wealth of the country is invested in agriculture, in manufactures, and in ships or vessels. And the great end of protection is to put all his property, however diversified its employment, in a condition of equal safety, so that all classes of our citizens may be benefited, as all clearly will be, where the property and employment of each are fairly and fully protected.

It often occurred to me, during the argument of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. WAYNE] how it could be, and whether it were possible that the southern States were ground down to the dust by the oppressive effects of the tariff laws, whilst all their great interests have always been, and still are, more highly protected by these same laws, than any other class of interests in the United States. Their greatest staple productions are cotton, sugar, and tobacco. Is it any part of their complaint that these are protected? And do they propose to repeal this protection! Oh, no! And what is it? A protecting duty on sugar of three cents a pound; on cotton, three cents a pound; and on manufactured tobacco, (other than snuff and segars,) ten cents a pound.

With respect to the great interests of agriculture, manufactures, and navigation, what has always been the policy of England? And what, for several years past, has been the policy of France and of Russia? Has there ever been a period since manufactures were first commenced in England, when she did not protect them by her laws! Or can a period be found when the manufactures of wool and of iron would have succeeded in that country, without the protection and aid that her laws gave them? If there be I have never discovered it; nor have I ever met with any one who could point it out to me. The gentleman himself The House, I hope, will recur with me, for a moment, [Mr. WAYNE] referred to the bounties which the British to the early history of the Government. Among the Government, in the infancy of her manufactures, paid di strongest reasons assigned for the adoption of the federal rectly out of the treasury. But the bounties now give constitution, was the protection it would afford to our by that Government are of a different kind, being nothing commercial interests. As the old confederation had no more than a drawback of the excise on the articles ex power to protect them, and as the States did not and could ported. During a long series of years, England prohi not do it, the whole power over commerce, and over the bited, in terms, the importation of many articles of means of sustaining it, was given to the Federal Govern kind which she manufactured; and on others the duties ment. And if Congress will not protect that sugar inter-were so high, as, in fact, to amount to prohibition. Her est, for example, who will? How else can it be done? cotton manufacture is now the greatest she has. This is Now I take it for granted, because I have been informed protected by an ad valorein duty of about twenty-eight per by sugar growers, that if the duty of three cents a pound cent., and her printed calicoes, notwithstanding the cry on brown sugar was taken off, the planters in the southern of "free trade," are protected by a specific duty of s States would have to abandon the cultivation of the cane; cents the square yard. This operates as a prohibition, because they could not compete in the home market with except perhaps to a few French prints, of a very fine the West India sugar grower. quality and high price.

It has been stated, with respect to the article of cotton, In the whole! history of England, down to the present that the duty was imposed, not for revenue, but expressly period, and notwithstanding the speeches of Mr. Huskis for protection. The cultivation of the article was then in son, and the assertions of others, which have been so often its infancy-the product small-its success uncertain. quoted upon us, about the revision of her revenue laws, Then, but a few thousand-now, near a million of bales we find the principle of her system the same. It is pro are annually produced. Still, at the present low prices tection-there is no instance that I know of, in which she of upland cotton, were the duty taken off, and the foreign has purposely given up the principle of protection. While article admitted duty free, our manufacturers would work she has modified her laws in respect to navigation, and to up a portion of foreign cotton. There can be no doubt some branches of manufactures, she has never for a mo of it. I do not say that the cotton of Brazil, or of Egypt, ment lost sight of thoroughly protecting her manufactur would wholly take the place in our cotton mills of the ing, navigating, and agricultural interests from all foreign southern cotton. The cultivation of cotton in the South is competition. I am aware that she has reduced the duty too far advanced to be ruined by any ordinary competition. on woollens to fifteen per cent.; and Mr. Huskisson as But it is enough for my argument, if a single bale more of signs the reason for it. He says, that branch of industry foreign cotton would be used here, in consequence of re- is so well established, that a protection of fifteen per cent. pealing the duty, because, there being an over-production will enable her manufacturers of wool to compete sue of cotton, every bale of the foreign article consumed here cessfully with the world. But he goes on to say, that, if would deduct the same quantity of southern cotton from it can be shown that the cotton manufacture, or any other the general market. The southern cotton planter, there- manufacture of the kingdom, cannot stand with the pre fore, would lose by the operation at home, and would gain nothing abroad.

The same course of remarks will apply to the article of tobacco. The duty of ten cents a pound on it amounts to prohibition. Were the duty taken off, I admit that foreign tobacco could not come into competition with ours, so as to ruin our tobacco planters, any more than the foreign growers of grain could ruin all our farmers. Yet, t cannot be disguised, that every pound of foreign tobae

80

sent degree of protection, the duty shall be raised-that he will not hazard one of these interests that all shall be fully protected. France and Russia are steadily persevering in the same policy. Such also is our policy.

So many allusions have been made to the various inte rests in different portions of the Union, that it may not be improper to look a little into the relative condition of the northern and southern States.

Neither the skill, nor the labor, nor the staple produe

1

MAY 13, 1830.]

Navigation and Imposts.

[H. OF R.

There is a much wider difference in the soil and climate of our country, and in the pursuits of our citizens, than in the peculiar interests of the several States. The essential interests of the States and of the people are the same, and no philosophy or sophistry can prove them to be diverse or irreconcilable.

tions of the North, or the East, have ever been adequately for home consumption wheat or corn from France or the protected, while those of the South, as I have already Black Sea? or rice from the East Indies? And yet these shown, have always been fully protected. Still we hear articles are more abundant and cheaper there than here. loud complaints from the South. Sir, I will not under-Hence it is that there are no unfailing markets abroad take to controvert the statements which have been made for our raw productions; and why shall we adopt any to us, of the oppression and misery prevailing in that measure, or pursue any policy, which will destroy our quarter of the Union-nor will I say that these complaints markets at home? are unfounded. But this I will say that, in my judg ment, they proceed from the anticipation of evils, rather than from evils felt. Most of these complaints are from South Carolina and Georgia; and it may be well to compare the relative population of those States that are against protection, with those that are for it. According to the best estimates, it will be found that South Carolina and Georgia together contain not over a half a million of free inhabitants. The cotton-planting States contain about two millions, and the other States about eight millions, so that the whole southern interest stands to the rest of the Union in the proportion of two to eight; and the States of South Carolina and Georgia, in the proportion of half a million to ten millions.

It is known to many who hear me, that much of the country in the North is mountainous, cold, poor, and sterile, while in the South much of it is level, warm, rich, and fertile. In the North, the frosts continue for half the year. In the South, they are rarely felt. The husbandman of the North is compelled to toil for his living from the rising to the setting of the sun. It will not do for him to fling his seed into the earth, and leave it to take care of itself. He must watch and nurse it. He must work hard, and spend little. But be of the South commits his seed to a genial and generous soil. It springs up and grows while he is reclining under the vine or the fig-tree.

But it is worthy of inquiry, whether any thing, and what, has been done towards relieving our southern brethren from burdens, common to all, which they say have borue heavily upon them-but which eight-tenths of the American people have not felt. Sir, the duties on wines I complain not of this; it is the allotment of Providence. have been reduced about one-half. The consumption of In some respects the southern States have the advantage: wines in the South will, I suppose, be admitted to be some in others, the northern States. The products of each are what greater, in proportion to the population, than it is in peculiar, and of great value. Labor is well rewarded in the North. Well, sir, this is not all. During the present both, and each can supply the wants of the other. Wheresession of Congress, the duties have been greatly reduced in, then, are northern interests opposed to southern Or on teas, coffee, and cocoa. These are articles of general wherefore are southern meu hostile to northern interests! consumption; and as far as the duties are a tax upon the Are not the northern and southern laborer equally enticonsumer, so far the cotton-plauting States have been re tled to protection? And where is the hardy laborer, lieved. As a generous people, willing that others should South or North, who complains of your laws! There is live, they ought to be satisfied. But the price of their nothing in the present condition of the Southern States, lands and produce has fallen! So it has in the North-so that I can comprehend, which warrants this continual ery it has every where. The people of the South do not suf- of oppression. Sir, I have been among our southern brefer more than the people of the North. I am inclined to thren. As a people, I know them to be hospitable; and believe not so much. Yet some few of our brethren I believe them to be generous and just. If aggrieved, I there charge their bad crops and low prices, to the oppres- should rejoice to relieve them, if I could do so without agsive effects of the tariff laws. Not many will believe it, any grieving others more. But, sir, whenever, in my judgment, more than they will believe that protection is oppression. the great and permanent interests of our common country The low prices and the distresses complained of are depend upon a rigid adherence to the protective system, not confined to our own country; they exist elsewhere, and there is no choice left. I must adhere to the system, are severely felt among most of the European nations. and protect the property and labor of the people. After They have not sprung from the tariff, but from causes all, what is the injury of which southern gentlemen combeyond it. Their origin is to be traced to the recent and plain? Are their liberties invaded, or their property taken radical changes in the habits and policy of the commer- from them without their consent? Neither. Both are cial world. The time was when the United States were safe. What, then, is it? Why, that we manufacture our the granary of Europe. Then all our energies were di- wool, cotton, iron, and hemp at home, instead of sending it rected to supply her markets with provisions. Our em to the workshops of Europe to be manufactured. That is bargo and non-intercourse laws, instead of starving our the real grievance. To say these manufactures wiil sucenemies, taught them to raise their own bread stuffs. The ceed, if left alone, will not do. They need protection, the war that succeeded continued this state of things, and, protection of the Government; and eighth-tenths of the moreover, forced up manufactures amongst us. After the people have decided that they shall have it. The term battle of Waterloo, and the general peace that followed it," protection" seems to have some terror in it. Call it by millions of hands were suddenly converted from non-pro- any other name if you will, but give the people the beneducers into producers. This vast multitude of human be- fit of it. ings, thus cast back upon the earth, were compelled to earn their bread, or starve. And, at this day, there is scarcely a commercial nation in Europe that does not produce and manufacture more than her subjects can eat or wear. Great Britain only is obliged to depend on foreign countries to supply her with bread stuffs for about three months in the twelve. France, Russia, and most of the northern powers, instead of buying their grain and provisions of us, have these articles to sell. Several of them are also actively engaged in manufacturing. In truth, nearly all the commercial nations of the earth are now much in the same relative condition; each wisely judging it better to depend upon her own resources, than upon the resources of others. Who would think of importing

What is the condition of the North and the South, as to markets for their productions? The northern people are confined almost entirely to the home market. Were the foreign demand for flour equal to their ability to produce it, they might annually send abroad four or five mil lions of barrels, instead of the four or five hundred thousand only, which they now do. The foreign demand for their manufactures, though still small, is gradually increasing. Thus it will readily be perceived that they cannot open the home market to foreigners without injury, if not ruin to themselves. Not so with the people of the South. They have a home market and a foreign market for their cotton, rice, and tobacco, both unfailing. Their sugar is consumed at home. The rice and tobacco

H. OF R.]

Navigation and Imposts.

[MAY 13, 1830. find ready markets both here and in Europe. Of their | me that he did not mean to be understood as contending cotton, nearly two hundred thousand bales are annually that the import duties fell exclusively upon the grower or used in the cotton mills of the North: the residue of the producer of the exports. If I now understand him, he crop is chiefly sent to England and France. Now, unless maintains that one part of the duties is chargeable on the two good markets are worse than one, I think our south-consumer, and the other part on the producer; and ern brethren have much reason to be contented with their that the tax upon labor is the mean quantity between lot. But the southern people are highly favored in an our own tariff, and the tariff laws of foreign nations. I other respect. They have the monopoly of cotton, su- have shown that the grower or producer, as such, does gar, and rice. None of these are raised in the North. not pay-and it seems difficult to prove that labor is taxTheir mountains teem with minerals, and their rivers af-ed, unless the laborer be the consumer of the taxed article. ford great water power. They can manufacture coarse There is one important view of this subject, to which I cottons and woollens cheaper than anybody else: and if wish to call the attention of the House. It is this: that they will not avail themselves of these obvious advantages, the tariff laws, that is, the protecting laws of each na it is their misfortune, and not our fault. tion act directly upon the producers of every other nation It is contended that exports pay the duties on imports: with whom there is commercial intercourse. It has been and as the southern planters supply two thirds of the shown that our tariff does not tax our farmers or planters, whole amount of the domestic produce exported, it is as the growers of wheat and cotton; but the British tariff, thence argued that the burden of taxation falls heaviest for example, does tax them. Take a brief illustration or on them. It is easier asserting than proving that the two of it. A Georgia planter has a pound (or any other American tariff imposes duties or burdens upon the Ame- quantity) of cotton for sale: it costs him five cents a pound rican producer, as producer merely. I wholly deny that to raise it; its stationary market price here is ten the producer, as such, of cotton, or wheat, or tobacco, cents, and in England fifteen cents a pound; but the British pays the duty or tax upon imports. He must be the ex- tariff imposes on it a duty of five cents a pound. Now, it porter as well as owner. A gentleman in Georgia, for is apparent that the planter will realize in England but ten example, sells me a bale of cotton-I pay him the cash cents for his pound of cotton; and that the British duty of for it, and send it to Liverpool. As the owner and ex-five cents will fall on the consumer. If, however, the porter, if the import duty falls upon either, it falls upon British duty is gradually raised to ten cents a pound, the me. But, sir, neither the producer, nor the owner or ex-market price there remaining the same, it is then equally porter, pays the import duty, unless he is the consumer of apparent that the pound of cotton here will fall from ten the imported articles. Let us examine it. A cotton to nine, eight, and so on, down to five cents, which will planter, with proper economy, having fed and clothed himself and his laborers from his plantation, has, at the end of the year, a thousand dollars worth of cotton for sale. Now, if he exchanges it with his neighbor for land or labor, he pays no duty or tax; if he sells it in Charles ton, New York, or Liverpool, and takes the silver or gold home with him, he yet pays no tax; if he sells it in Liverpool, takes its value in British merchandise, which he brings to New York, and disposes of at a profit, he pays no tax yet; but, if he takes the merchandise home with him, and consumes it, then he pays the tax-he pays it as the consumer of dutiable goods.

But let us see how the account will stand, upon the supposition that the exporter and owner pay the duties on imports. By looking into the treasury returns from 1821 to 1828, it will be found that, during these eight years, there were exported, of domestic produce, from Georgia, thirty-six million three hundred and fifteen thousand seven hundred and ten dollars; from South Carolina, sixty-one million five hundred and fifty-three thousand and ninetyniue dollars; from Louisiana, sixty-eight million two hundred and three thousand three hundred and thirty dollars; and from New York, one hundred and two million two hundred and six thousand three hundred and forty dollars. Hence, it appears that Louisiana is the largest southern exporter, and that New York exports more than South Ca rolina and Georgia together. If, therefore, the exporter pays the tax, New York pays much the largest part, and has the most cause to complain. It is undoubtedly true that a part of the exports from New York consisted of the produce of the southern States. So did the productions of North Carolina swell the exports from South Carolina, and so also did the cotton, tobacco, and grain of the Mississippi increase the exports from Louisiana. All this, however, alters not the result; for the question is not, who is the producer, but who is the exporter? Again, if either the producer or exporter pays the import duty, it is certainly matter of some surprise that northern farmers and merchants have not yet discovered that the one or the other of them was paying to the Government forty or fifty per cent. upon the value of the flour and other produce they sent abroad.

The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. WAYNE] informs

take away all his profits, and compel the planter to abandon the growing of cotton. Hence it is that the American shipper, when he sends a cargo of goods to Liverpool, looks into the British tariff only. But when he is about to purchase, in Liverpool, a cargo of British goods for the American market, he then looks into the American tariff, and also ascertains the price current of British merchandise in America. Our tariff acts in the same way upon the foreign producer. The additional duty of five cents a gallon ou molasses, imposed by the tariff of 1828, did not permanently raise the price of the article in our market. The truth is, that the whole additional duty fell upon the West India producer. And, sir, this is one of the fundamental laws of trade-it is one which my colleague [Mr. CAMBRELENG] seems to have overlooked in drawing his bill— and it is one, it appears to me, that makes it impossible, with due regard to national safety, to adopt a universal tariff of duties.

The revenue derived from duties on imports is certainly a charge upon the nation. This no one will deny. The nation pays it. And so long as the tax is the price of protection, the nation is the gainer. Of the gross annual amount, every one pays that proportion which is properly chargeable upon the articles he consumes, and no more. If he consumes no article upon which a duty is charged. he pays nothing. But, in that case, he receives the benefit of protection, without paying any thing for it. And when he consumes a dutiable article, it is by no means true that he always pays the full amount of the duty charged upon the article; because it often happens that the duty is divided between the foreign producer and himself, as the consumer. This result is well known to commercial men.

So far as I could understand the gentleman from Geor gia, [Mr. WAYNE] much of what he said seemed to tend to this conclusion, namely, that if the tariff policy was not abandoned speedily, Georgia would withdraw from the Union, and that some of the southern States would follow her. He did not say so in terms; but such I understood to be the result of his argument I hope I have mistaken both its tendency and his intention.

[Mr. WAYNE disavowed any such intention, and said there was nothing he deprecated more deeply than such

[blocks in formation]

an event. He never would consent to it in any form. His fixed determination was to resist such a measure to the utmost of his ability.]

[H. or R.

And now, sir, let us see what effect this bill is to have upon our agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation. The title of the bills speaks of navigation-but the bill itself proposes a sort of universal tariff, or scale of import duties, which is to become the standard rule of every nation and people.

I am indeed rejoiced to hear the worthy gentleman disavow any such purpose. It is a great relief to me. Our southern brethren have too much at stake to hazard such a step. I have undiminished confidence in their pa- The first section makes this broad proposition to every triotism, and in their attachment to the Union. Partial foreign Government, namely, if you-Great Britain, for exdisaffection is common. Restless and reckless spirits ample-will admit the produce and manufactures of the pester every community. But, fortunately, words are United States "at a rate of duty not exceeding thirty per not deeds; and it generally happens that men bold of cent. on the actual value," we will thereupon admit tongue are cautious of steel. And whence springs this your produce and manufactures upon "reciprocal terms." disaffection? What is it about? Why it is, whether the Whenever an arrangement is made, the President is to import duty shall be ten or fifteen per cent. more or less, announce the fact by proclamation. It is sufficiently ob on a yard of cloth or a pound of iron! The bare state-vious that any arrangement of this kind must be made ment should quiet the fears of the timid. There is too either by treaty or by legislation. If by legislation, then much capital at stake to recede now. The honorable gen- there can be no need of the President's proclamationtleman [Mr. WAYNE] thinks the whole manufacturing ca- because the statutes of the two Governments would nepital of the country does not exceed fifty millions of dol- cessarily prescribe the time and manner of carrying it into lars. This seems to be greatly underrating it. It is, effect. But if by treaty, then the President's procla perhaps, impossible to ascertain the exact amount; but Imation would be necessary in that as in every other simi believe I hazard nothing in saying that, in the State of lar case. Now, either way, it is plain that the power of New York alone, there is more than fifty millions of dol- Congress to protect the property and labor of our citi lars actually invested in buildings, in machinery, and in zens, will be gone. This high and essential power, for other property, the profits of which depend entirely upon which Congress is held justly and severely accountable to the success of her various manufactures. Great as her the people, will be rashly given up to the President and shipping interest is, she unquestionably has, at this mo- to foreign nations. I understand from my colleague, [Mr. ment, more property in factories and workshops, than in CAMBRELENG] that he expects to accomplish his purpose, ships. It has been asserted, by those who know better if at all, through the treaty-making power. Let us, therethan I do, that there is now employed a capital of some fore, inquire how the thing would work, provided the bill sixty millions of dollars in our sugar manufacture, the was a law. A negotiation is set on foot-a treaty is made continued success of which depends upon the protection upon the basis of this novel law-is submitted to the Seour tariff laws give it. nate-ratified-approved by the President and becomes the supreme law of the land. Well, sir, if no appropriation is required to carry it into effect, it is not laid before Congress. But if an appropriation is required, then it is laid before Congress, and this House is called on for the money: can the House refuse it, without violating the faith and honor of the nation! Clearly not-for this bill pledges both. What then? Why, though the President and twothirds of the Senate are the sole judges of this matter, which really relates exclusively to the internal domestic policy of the country, Congress can do nothing-and though the stipulations in the treaty be ever so bad, the people must take them.

Sir, the gentleman [Mr. WAYNE] was forced to admit that manufacturing establishments were valuable to the country around them. Here, they are not clustered in large towns, as in England, but are found springing up in all directions, about our numerous waterfalls. In the States where these establishments are, the lands improve, and the inhabitants prosper; but, in the States where they are not, the lands deteriorate, and the inhabitants grow poor. It is so the world over. Experience is daily demonstrating their great value to the whole country. The State of New York, whence I come, has a deeper interest iu maintaining this "American system" of protecting her capital and industry, than any other State in the Union. And the people of the North and East cannot give it up. With them, it is wholly a question of competency and comfort, or of poverty and want.

I do not mean to say that the tariff laws are to remain unchanged. If they contain some bad provisions, they were not put in by me. They were forced in against my consent. And, being in, I am, for the present, against repealing or modifying any of the duties which will affect the manufacturing capital or industry of the country. Let the experiment be fairly tried. I do, however, mean to say that our great national interests-the large amount of labor and skill, and the enormous capital, which, in various ways, are employed in manufactures, must be protected. Whatever may be the rate of duty required, whether high or low, still they must be protected. Whenever the minority, in whose power it always is to make a tariff law, either good or bad, will evince a disposition to arrange a scale of duties, with a single eye to the interests of all concerned, I will join them in the good work. But I have no desire to have the scenes of 1828 acted over again. The principal actors in the minority, on that occasion, openly avowed their intention to be to make the tariff bill so bad that the majority would be 'forced to reject it. They were, however, deceived, as such minorities commonly are.

So much for the remarks of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. WAYNE.]

To understand fully the mischievous effects of this anomalous bill, it is necessary to examine some other provisions in it. The second section provides that the "actual value" of the produce and manufactures of the foreign nation shall be ascertained in the manner "pre. scribed by existing laws." These existing laws, therefore, are to be considered, together with the bill, as forming the basis upon which the new arrangements are to be made. No duty, however, is to be charged on "any nominal valuation," but the charge is to be on the "actual value" of the articles. And, by the existing laws here spoken of, which are our revenue laws, this actual value is to be ascertained, not in the United States, but at the place whence the articles of merchandise are imported. Our rule in this respect differs from that of other nations. The value of an article imported into Great Britain is ascertained in her own market, and not in the foreign country. For example, an American merchant sends a piece of cotton goods to Liverpool; its value is ascertained at Liverpool, and the British duty charged on it. A Leeds merchant or manufacturer, on the contrary, sends a piece of broadcloth to New York; its value is ascertained by our custom-house officers, not at New York, but at Leeds, and the American duty, by this bill, is to be charged on that value. But this is not the worst of it. Nearly all the American importers have been driven from the British trade, which is now almost wholly in the hands of the British agents; and, if our duties were

« AnteriorContinuar »