SENATE.] Internal Improvements. [JULY 4, 1832. which differed in principle not one particle from the one prove it. This is not an amendment to defeat the bill, he had rejected. If the Maysville and Rockville roads but to improve it. If it were an amendment calculated were local objects, there were hundreds of objects in the to defeat it, still I should expect those opposed to it to bill just approved, infinitely more local. What had been vote for it. One thing only can be decided at a time. the course of the present administration? They first The question now is, which is the most unexceptionable, held appropriations for certain objects of internal im- the substitute or the original bill? It is not whether the provement to be unconstitutional, and then sanctioned ap-substitute ought to pass, but whether it is not better than propriations for other objects depending entirely on the the original proposition. The refusal to vote for this same principles with those held to be unconstitutional; substitute necessarily subjects those who do so to the inand the result has been to open an entire new field of in- ference that they prefer the bill to the substitute. ternal improvement. Favorite objects, Mr. C. sa.d, had been considered constitutional, while objects in States not so much cherished had been held to be local. Mr. C. concluded by saying that he thought with the Senator from South Carolina that there ought to be some principle of distribution for internal improvement settled for the future. He regretted that it was too late now in the session to mature any satisfactory plan; but he hoped that at the next session the subject would be taken up, and some principle recognised that would do equal justice to all the States of the Union. Mr. MANGUM said he did not believe there was any difference in principle between the amendment and the bill. Although he knew he could, according to the parliamentary practice, vote for the amendment, and finally against the bill, yet he was unwilling that his vote should meet the public eye as sanctioning any thing like the scheme, either in the bill or the amendment. The question was then taken, and Mr. MILLER's amend ment was rejected, as follows: YEAS.--Messrs. Dickerson, Grundy, Hayne, King, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Ruggles.--8. Mr. SMITH gave a history of the commencement and NAYS.-Messrs. Brown, Buckner, Clay, Clayton, Dalprogress of appropriations for the improvement of har-las, Dudley, Ellis, Ewing, Foot, Forsyth, Frelinghuysen, bors. The doctrine held was this: The States on the Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Marcy, Nau Atlantic had relinquished to the Federal Government dam, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague, the right of imposing tonnage duties, thus depriving Tazewell, Tipton, Tomlinson, Tyler, Waggaman, Webthemselves of all power of improving their harbors ster, White, Wilkins.--33. and rivers. It was the bounden duty, therefore, of the Mr. FORSYTH, with a view to test the sense of the General Government to do that which the States could Senate, whether it is their pleasure to sanction all objects not do of themselves, because they had given up the funds wlucli have not been surveyed, moved to strike out the from which they could make such improvements. The appropriation of twenty-five thousand dollars for deepen gentleman from Kentucky was mistaken in one point.ng the entrance of the harbor at the mouth of ConnectiThe bill just signed by the President was a bill for internal cut river. improvements, and not the harbor b.ll which was then before the Senate. Mr. FOOT made some remarks in favor of the appro priation. Mr. HAYNE rose, not for the purpose of entering into Mr. TOMLINSON opposed the motion, and stated that any argument on the question before the Senate, but to the harbor had been surveyed by a civil engineer of great say that, although he should vote for this amendment of respectability, skill, and experience, heretofore in the his colleague as an alternative preferable to the bill, he public service; whose report, detailing the nature and exwas utterly opposed to the whole scheme, and should ul-pense of the proposed improvement, had been before the timately vote against the bill. He viewed the amendment Committee on Commerce, and was on the table. He ex merely as an alternative to the bill, and, of the two, he plained the importance of the proposed work, and the thought it preferable, but the system itself was a general benefits expected to result from it to the navigation em scramble, and there was no knowing where it would end; ployed in the foreign and coasting trade, and particularly it was wild and extravagant, and the sooner it was abandoned the better. The bill signed by the President appropriated one million one hundred thousand dollars, and this bill appropriated about six hundred thousand dollars more. to the large amount of shipping owned in the several populous towns situated on the Connecticut river; and insisted that the information contained in the papers before the Senate, in relation to the necessity and utility of the appropriation, was entirely satisfactory. Mr. MANGUM said he was unwilling to countenance a Mr. CLAY said the sense of the Senate had already proposition of the nature submitted by the Senator from been tested on the clause in the former bill for the Cum South Carolina, in any shape, and should be compelled to berland river, and we had seen that the President had ap vote against it. He was opposed to any distribution proved that bill. It was not likely, therefore, that he among the States of any kind according to federal numbers, because he believed, as did the gentleman on the opposite side, that those States who received the least would pay the most. Mr. MILLER said he regretted that the honorable Senator from North Carolina had come to the determination to vote against this amendment; he could vote for the amendment without afterwards voting for the bill. In refusing to vote for this, as a substitute, the honorable Senator would, in effect, vote for the original bill. The question now, which he was called on to dec.de, was whether he preferred the bill before the Senate, or the substitute now offered. Although he might refuse to vote for the substitute as a substantive bill, he must choose now between this and the bill. Would he rather the bill should pass in its present form, or that it should assume the form of this substitute? Those who are opposed to the entire principle in the bill, have the most perfect right so to amend it as to im would disapprove this. He did not object to the appro- YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Holmes, John ston, Knight, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague, Tipton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster, Wilkins.--25. NAYS.-Messrs. Brown, Dudley, Ellis, Forsyth, Grun dy, Hayne, Hill, King, Mangum, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Tazewell, Tyler, White.-16. The amendment made by the House of Representatives to the bill to extend the time of issuing Virginia land war rants, was concurred in. The Senate then adjourned. THURSDAY, JULY 5. THE TARIFF. On motion of Mr. DICKERSON, the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill from the House of Representatives, in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports, together with the amendments reported thereto by the Committee on Manufactures. A great number of amendments were acted on, in the course of the day. The following comprise the most important, and those on which any discussion took place: The amendment to strike out five and insert twenty-five, increasing the duty on silver or plated wire from five to twenty-five per cent., was carried by the following vote: YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson. Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Johnston, Knight, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tomlinson, Waggaman.-22. NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Robinson, Smith, Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, White, Wilkins.--21. [SENATE. handles, rings, hoops, or other addition of wrought iron, NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, To the amendment changing the duty on sail duck from fifteen per cent. ad valorem to eight cents the square yard, Mr. SILSBEE moved an amendment, to add, except ravens duck, which shall be three cents per square yard. This being rejected, Mr. DICKERSON moved five cents, and Mr. HOLMES subsequently four cents; which were also rejected. The question was then taken on the amendment of the committee; which was carried by the following vote: YEAS.—Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, The amendment to strike out ten per cent. and insert Holmes, Johnston, Kane, Knight, Naudain, Poindexter, twenty-five per cent. as the duty on common tinned and Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Seymour, Tomlinson, Wagjapanned saddlery of all descriptions, was, after a discus-gaman, Wilkins.--23. sion, rejected--yeas 21, nays 25, as follows: NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Ellis, Foot, YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dal- Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, King, Mangum, las, D.ckerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Silsbee, Sprague, Tazewell, TipHolmes, Johnston, Knight, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, ton, Tyler, White.--22. Seymour, Silsbee, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Wilkins.--21. The next amendment increased the duty on cotton bagNAYS.--Messrs. Benton, B.bh, Brown, Buckner, Ellis, ging from three and a half cents the square yard to four Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, Hill, Kane, King, cents. Mangum, Marcy, Miler, Moore, Poindexter, Robinson, Mr. CLAY made some remarks in favor of the amendSmith, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Troup, Tyler, White.ment; and --25. Mr. BIBB opposed it. Although the article was manu The amendment in the 104th line provided that all articles factured in the State he represented, yet he could not con manufactured of iron shall not pay a less amount of duty than is imposed on the raw material. The amendment amended the proviso in the 104th line, so as to read, "rovided that articles manufactured of iron shall not be imported at a less rate of duty than would have been chargeable on the material constituting their chief value, if imported in an unmanufactured state." Mr. HAYNE opposed this proviso, as one of the most objectionable features in the bill, and as calculated to deceive. It proposed to impose a duty of thirty-five per cent. on certain articles, and then contained a proviso by which the majority of them would bear a duty of from one hundred and fifty to two hundred per cent. If gentlemen, said he, intend to lay a duty of one hundred and fifty per cent., say so; but do not lay a duty of thirty-seven and a half, as proposed by the committee, and then insert a proviso raising the duties on a majority of the articles to two hundred per cent. Many of the articles affected by this proviso would, he was assured, be taxed under it as high as four hundred per cent. Mr. DICKERSON observed that, as there was so strong an objection to the amendment under consideration, he was willing, for one, to wave the amendment. After some remarks from Mr. HAYNE, Mr. EWING said he did not understand the Senator from New Jersey as withdrawing the proviso in the bill, but only as waiving the amendment to the proviso. Mr. HAYNE said, this, then, was "keeping the word of promise to the ear, and breaking it to our hope." It was the proviso itself that was objectionable; the bare amendment was not of much consequence. The amendment was then, with the approbation of the chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, rejected. The amendment, that all manufactures of iron partly finished shall pay the same rates of duty as if entirely finished; all vessels of cast iron, and all castings of iron, with VOL. VIII.-75 sent to tax the great body of his constituents for the be- Mr. POINDEXTER also opposed the amendment. Mr. HOLMES contended that adequate protection cheapened the price of articles, whilst inadequate protection had the contrary effect, and raised the price. Mr. HAYNE, after some remarks in reply, said, that when they came to the subject of cotton, he was prepared to say to gentlemen, reduce the protective duty on your cotton fabr.cs, and we are willing to reduce the duty on the cotton, the raw material, to the lowest amount possible. Mr. KING said, in his climate, soil, &c. they asked for no protection; they wanted none whatever. He denied that Kentucky required any protection for her cotton bagging; a prejudice had at one time existed against the article manufactured there, because it was thought to stain the cotton packed in it, but this was found not to be inju rious, and Kentucky now commanded the preference in the market above that imported from Scotland; therefore she required no protection on that article. Mr. CLAY replied, and contended that the duty was but a fair protection. Mr. POINDEXTER said that he objected alike to this amendment proposed by the Committee on Manufactures, and to the rate of duty proposed by the bill as it came from the House of Representatives. The reduction did not seem to him to be important, as it did not descend to the principle of revenue, but was evidently designed exclusively for protection. He should vote against the in SENATE.] The Tariff. (JULY 3, 1832. crease of duty from three and a half to four cents per consider it a favor, and be particularly obliged to him if square yard on the article of cotton bagging, but without he would make it a little fighter. intending to support the original proposition. He could The question was then taken, and the amendment was not give his sanction to a system of protection, bounties, rejected--yeas 22, nays 22, as follows: and monopolies, intended to benefit one branch of indus- YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, try at the sacrifice of other great interests of the country. Dickerson, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Such legislation was repugnant to the genius of a free Holmes, Knight, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, people, and to the principles of our free constitution. Silsbee, Sprague, Tipton, Waggaman, Wilkins.-22. Besides, said he, this particular item of protection is un- NAYS.--Messrs. Bibb, Brown, Chambers, Dudley, necessary; it was not called for by the manufacturers of Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hll, Johnston, Kane, cotton bagging in 1828, when the duty of five cents the King, Mangum, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Rosquare yard was impose 1, but it was gratuitously inserted binson, Smith, Tazewell, Tyler, White.--22. in the bill at that time to give additional strength to the The VICE PRESIDENT added his vote in the negative. combination by whom it was passed. These manufac- The next was an amendment inserting on "felts or turers have never wanted a ready and a profitable mar-hat bodies made wholly or in part of wool, thirty cents ket for the article, to the full extent of their ability each." to produce it; and such, in his opinion, would be the Mr. KNIGHT said this is a new article of importation. case if no duty whatever, except for revenue purposes, It is not to be found in any of our tariff laws. The history was imposed. The price would depend more on the of it is this. A few years ago, a journeyman hatter in demand and the supply, than on our legislation. Ar vented a machine for inaking felts or hat bodies--simple in honorable Senator from Maine [Mr. HOLMES] had said its operations, and admirably adapted to the business it was that unmanufactured cotton had been protected until it intended to perform. It entirely superseded the old way had expelled all foreign cotton from the country; from of making this part of the hat. It had so completely suc which he infers that equal protection ought to be extend- ceeded as to reduce the price of the article to about fifty ed to the covering of the bale which contained it. Sir, per cent. of its former cost. He had regularly patented said Mr. P., this idea is not novel; it has been repeated on his invention, and was proceeding peaceably in his busi this floor and elsewhere, as a justification of the onerousness, satisfactorily to every body, and profitably to himself. imposts on the great articles of consumption imported Some person, to me unknown, took a copy of his machine from Europe, for the use of the agricultural and other in the Patent Office, or from some other place, and trans laboring classes of the community. I take this occasion mitted it to Europe, and somewhere in the neighborhood to correct the error. The duty of three cents the pound of Hamburg set up the business of making hat bodies of on raw cotton was imposed in 1790, when that staple was Saxony wool, and shipping them to this country. When not produced to any extent in the United States. It presented to the custom-house, they were not found in the was an article extensively imported into the country, and laws regulating the duties, and were estimated according the duty was a part of our revenue system. It did not to the provisions of the law embracing non-enumerated then, and it never had, at any subsequent period, operat-articles. This was not all; there was an imposition on the ed to protect the agriculturists against foreign competi-officers of the customs by the valuation of the articletion, in the production of cotton. If the advocates of this they were estimated to be worth fifteen cents each, and injurious and iniquitous system of taxation would relieve the duty assessed accordingly. the people from the burdens which are now imposed on Now, sir, the best Saxony lamb's wool, of which this them, he pledged himself to strike from this bill the no- article for fine hats is made, costs in England from four minal duty of three cents on unmanufactured cotton. shillings to four and sixpence sterling per pound, and it The planter relied on his own enterprise and industry, and takes about one pound of wool to four hats. The duty not on the spoils of his countrymen in other sections of on the wool would amount to forty-four cents, and the duty the Union. Sir, said Mr. P., permit me to trace the rise on the manufactured article, made of the same wool, is and progress of the culture of cotton in this country. In nine cents. To prevent this fraud upon the patented 1794, when Mr. Jay made the treaty with England, he did rights of the inventor of this machine, as well as the fraud not know that the article of cotton was grown in the Unit- on the revenue, is the object of this amendment. By the ed States, as will appear by his correspondence with the fraudulent introduction of these hats or felts, as they are British minister. called, the consumer is not benefited; they are not soll ata less price than actual cost-they can be nianufactured here as cheap as they can be made in Europe or any where else. The whole labor is done by machinery, and, if we make the importer pay the amount of duties we pay on Saxony wool, we can compete with the world. The sum proposed as duty is but about the amount the finest Saxony wool will pay when imported. The CHAIR here reminded Mr. P. that the question being on the increase of duty on cotton bagging from three and a half to four cents, did not admit of the latitude of debate which the honorable Senator was taking. Mr. P. then said he yielded to the suggestion, and took his seat with the declaration that he should resist the amendment, and afterwards vote against the bill imposing three and a half cents the square yard on Scotch bagging. The amendment was rejected. Mr. TYLER objected to it. Mr. MARCY thought the amendment unnecessary. A Mr. KNIGHT said this is an article which my constitu- clause was clearly embraced in the bill, by which all maents have as deep an interest in as any people of the nufactures of wool were charged fifty per cent., and by Union; if any tax is paid on it, it is paid by them. It is another all unmanufactured articles of the same material true, as the Senator from Kentucky has stated, that the were to pay the same as the manufactured. The object cotton bagging is not paid for by the grower of cotton-- of the amendment would be embraced by either the one it is sold by the pound with the cotton, and is an article of or the other. He would move, however, to amend, by profit to him. I have heard some of my constituents say striking out thirty and inserting eighteen. that the bagging purchased with the cotton has cost them Mr. SMITH had a letter from his hatter on the subject. about thirty cents the yard, when the bag itself would Hat bodies were imported, made of Saxony wool, and the cost only about twenty cents. I will not say any thing only fur put on the hats was in the covering by the manu more on this subject, it having been so fully explained by facturer here. In England the duty on Saxony wool was the Senator from Kentucky. My chief object in rising only two cents, and, in consequence of the high duty on was to say to that Senator, that when he shall return to the the wool here, the American latter is injured. manufacture of cotton bagging, my constituents would Mr. TYLER said, if he understood the matter as ex JULY 5, 1832.] The Tariff. [SENATE. Mr. DICKERSON said this amendment was intended to put coffee on the same footing as the articles free of duty. The question, which being agreed to by general consent, was taken on striking out the duty on coffee, and decided as follows: plained by the gentleman from Rhode Island, it was proposed to tax the article because it had been found too cheap. The article could be imported for less than the cost of the material from which it was made. The history, as given by the gentleman from Rhode Island, was, that an ingenious Yankee had invented a machine which operated so YEAS. Messrs. Bell, Benton, Chambers, Clay, Claysuccessfully, that in the very first year he reduced the price ton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelingof the article fifty per cent. This followed, he presumed, huysen, Holmes, Johnston, Kane, Knight, Marcy, Miller, what might be termed a Yankee trick. The inventor Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinsells out his patent at a handsome profit, and immediately takes the wings of the wind, and goes abroad, where he makes the article so cheap as to undersell in this market those who had bought his machine. Seriously considering the extent of the consumption of this article in the Southern States, he thought gentlemen, if at all disposed to dim nish their burdens, ought not to lay a heavier duty on it. The duty was already too high, and he hoped it would not be increased. son, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tazewell, Tyler, Waggaman, Wilkins.--31. NAYS.-Messrs. Bibb, Brown, Buckner, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, Hill, King, Mangum, Tipton, Troup, White.-14. The amendment next considered was to strike out as follows: On teas of all kinds, imported from China or other places east of the Cape of Good Hope, and in vessels of the United States, one cent per pound: on all teas import ed from any other place, or in vessels other than vessels of the United States, ten cents per pound. And insert " on all teas imported from places this side the Cape of Good Hope, or in vessels other than vessels of the United States, ten cents per pound." Mr. HAYNE said this was a proposition whether teas should come in duty free. He regarded teas as articles of luxury, and as much deserving of taxation as any other NAYS.--Messrs. Bibb, Brown, Buckner, Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Poin-article. dexter, Robinson, Tazewell, Tyler, White.--15. The amendment in the 134th line was then considered, as follows: After the word "part," insert "coming from beyond the Cape of Good Hope;" and after the word ad valorem, in the same line, insert and on all other manufactures of silk, or of which silk is a component part, six per centum ad valorem." The bill reads, "on all manufactures of silk, or of which silk shall be a coroponent part, ten per centum ad valorem, except sewing silk, which shall be forty per centum." After some remarks in favor of the amendment, by Mr. SMITH, Mr. TAZEWELL moved to amend the amendment by striking out "six," and inserting "five," and this referred to French silks; which was agreed to. Mr. DALLAS made some remarks in opposition to the discrimination between French and Chinese silks. The amendment was then agreed to, as follows: NAYS.--Messrs. Clayton, Dallas, Grundy, Hendricks, The amendment to strike out two and a half cents, and insert three cents, being the duty on brown sugar, and sirup of sugar cane, in casks, was next considered. Messrs. DICKERSON, JOHNSTON, and CLAY addressed the Senate in favor of the amendment; after which, the question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to--yeas 24, nays 18, as follows: YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Chambers, Clay, Clay ton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Tipton, Waggaman, Wilkins.--24. NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Miller, Sprague, Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, White.--18. The next amendment was to strike out "on coffee half cent per pound." a Messrs. DICKERSON and CLAY addressed the Senate in favor of the amendment; after which, the question was taken, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 28, nays 15. YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Benton, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuy sen, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnston, Kane, Knight, Marcy, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tipton, Waggaman, Wilkins.--28. NAYS.--Messrs. Bibb, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, King, Mangum, Miller, Poindexter, Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, White.-15. The next amendment was in the 167th line, striking out the duty of thirty per cent. on Leghorn hats or bonnets, and all hats of straw, chip, or grass, and all flats, braids, or plaits for making hats or bonnets, leaving the duty as it is under the present tariff. Mr. DICKERSON said the object of this amendment was to prevent diminishing the protection on articles produced principally by female industry. He hoped there was sufficient gallantry in the Senate to retain a sufficient protection on this branch of industry. Mr. HAYNE said the articles are worn by almost all the females in the United States, and the gentleman proposed to show his gallantry by taxing fifty per cent. articles used by females. The duty imposed by the House was thirty per cent., sufficiently high for all the purposes of protec tion; and he saw no reason why it should be increased. This was a very heavy expense felt by every head of a family. Mr. DICKERSON said that his gallantry consisted in wishing to encourage the poor and laboring females, while that of the gentleman from South Carolina was in a wish to relieve those who were rich and consumers of articles of luxury. The question was then taken on this amendment, and it was rejected by the following vote: YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Holmes, Johnston, Kane, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Wilkins.--22. NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Miller, Poindexter, Robinson, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Troup, Tyler, White.--22. SENATE.] The Tariff The VICE PRESIDENT added his vote against the amendment. [JULY 5, 1832. Mr. KNIGHT insisted on having the yeas and nays on this amendment, they having been previously ordered on all. The question was then taken by yeas and nays, and the amendment was adopted--yeas 30, nays 3. The next amendment provided for striking out the follow. ing words from the bill contained in lines 205, 206, 207, 208, 29, and 210: "all articles not herein specified e ther as free or as liable to a d fferent duty, and which, by the existing laws, pay an ad valorem duty higher than fifteen per centum, to pay an ad valorem duty of fifteen per centum, from and after the said third day of March, one thou sand eight hundred and thirty-three." Mr. HAYNE wished to have the effect of this amendment distinctly understood. As the act came from the other House, all manufactures of hemp would be subject to no more than twenty-five per cent. If it were designed Mr. HAYNE hoped this clause of the amendment to except cordage from this, the duties under the existing might not prevail. The committee had looked at all the tariff would revert on this article, and by that the duty articles taxed by the present tariff with a microscopic eye, amounted to eighty per cent. on tarred cordage, and to and had provided duties for them all; but, under the fear eighty-eight on untarred. He would submit that twenty-that there might be some articles which their astuteness five per cent. was thought too low, if eighty or eighty-had not discovered, and which might, under the bill, be eight per cent. was not far too high. He hoped gentle-brought in so low as fifteen per cent., had prepared their men would not impose a duty so extravagant. amendment to prevent this possible reduction. He trust ed that they would permit this part of the bill to reman, and any articles which their ingenuity and research might possibly have omitted, to come in at the moderate rate of duty of fifteen per cent. Mr. SMITH said the manufactures of cordage could not exist if only protected by a duty of twenty-five per cent. They paid forty dollars a ton, of duty, on hemp, and it was impossible they could thus compete with the foreign market. Mr. SILSBEE spoke in favor of the amendment. After some remarks from Mr. DICKERSON, who de Mr. FOOT said it must be evident, unless this amend-nominated th's clause of the bill a broad net to catch all ment prevailed, the manufacture of cordage must be en- the articles omitted by it, the question was taken on strik tirely abandoned in this country. The manufacture was ing out the clause, and carried-yeas 24, mays 21, as fulbarely getting on, and could not bear any additional burden. lows: Mr. SMITH said we can no longer export the cordage | YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dalof our own country, it being taxed so high in the article las, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, of hemp. Hendricks, Holmes, Knight, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tipton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Wilkins.--24. The amendment was carried--yeas 26, nays 16, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Chambers, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Sm.th, Sprague, Tipton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Wilkins.-26. NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, B.bb, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Kane, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Robinson, Tazewell, Tyler.--16. The amendment in the 19th 1ne was to insert musical instruments at a rate of duty of thirty per cent. ad valorem. Mr. DICKERSON said that this was a manufacture that deserved protection; they were made to a very high degree of perfection in the United States. By the b.ll from the House, they would come in as articles made of wood, at a rate of duty too low to protect the manufacture. This amendment was, after a short discuss.on, agreed to--yeas 25, nays 16, as follows: YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Chambers, Clay, Clay. ton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Holmes, Knight, Naudan, Prent.ss, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Seymour, S.lsbee, Smith, Sprague, Tomlinson. Waggaman, Wilkins.--25. NAYS.--Messrs. B.bb, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Kane, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Tazewell, Tipton, Tyler, White.--16. The amendment in the 197th line was as follows: At the end of the line, insert until the 3d day of March, eighteen hundred and thirty-four; and from and after that day one-half of those rates respectively; and on all other wines, other than those of France, one-half of their present rates of duty respectively, from and after the day last aforesaid." The bill reads, on the wines of France, namely, red wines, in casks, six cents a gallon; winte wines, in casks, ten cents a gallon; and French wines, of all sorts, in bottles, twenty-two cents a gallon. Mr. HAYNE said he thought the yeas and nays need not be taken on this amendment; it was a clear revenue measure, and no one would, he presumed, object to it. NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Buckner, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Robinson, Smith, Tazewell, Tyler.-21. The amendment striking out from the list of duty free articles, epaulets of gold and silver, was next considered. Mr. MILLER observed that this was a matter of some importance to the militia of the United States, who served without pay, and were at considerable expense in equip ping and uniforming themselves. This amendment would bear hard on these officers, and he hoped it would not be adopted. Mr. DICKERSON, in answer to an inquiry as to the ex tent of the manufacture, and the amount of the present duty, sad that the article was made in the United States, and paid a duty on the importation of twelve per cent. This was but a very moderate protection, and of no manner of consequence to the consumer. The amendment was rejected--yeas 17, nays 28. The amendment in the twelfth line of the third section was to insert ind go among the art cles free of duty. Mr. DICKERSON sad the object of the amendment was to strike out "indigo" from the list of articles exempt from duty, in order to insert it in the second section of the bill, in the clause enumerating various articles at fifteen per cent. This protection was considered neces sary, as ind go had become an article of home produce. Mr. BENTON said he had a letter from a gentleman of much information in South Carolina, which showed the extent in which this article was raised and produced in the South. The letter stated that from forty to fifty thousand pounds of indigo were raised, within the year, by a single parish in South Carol na; that it was frequently shipped to Cincinnati and to New York, where it was found to equal any imported from abroad. Mr. B. said he had read this letter for the purpose of contradicting the error that prevailed, that indigo was not produced in this coun try. The fact was, that England, when she possessed |