SENATE.] The Tariff. [JULY 7, 1832. dy, Hayne, Kane, King, Mangum, Miller, Poindexter, Mr. KING said he would ask the gentleman from MasRobinson, Smith, Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, White.--17. sachusetts if it was also perfectly well known that flannels, NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Chambers, Clay, Clay- costing only 12 cents per yard, paid a duty of 16 cents, ton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuy- and that flannels costing 70 cents paid no more. sen, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Marcy, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Seymour, Tipton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster, Wilkins.--27. After some further debate, in which Messrs. WEBSTER, FOOT, and KING took part, the question was taken, and the motion was rejected by the following vote: Mr. HAYNE said he had several amendments, which YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grunhe desired to offer to this bill; but as he would avoid un- dy, Hayne, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, necessarily consuming the time of the Senate, he had Poindexter, Smith, Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, White.-18. concluded not to offer any, the principles of which had NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, been decided against. His amendments, therefore, were Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Henreduced to two, one of which he should offer at that time, dricks, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Marcy, Naudain, Prenretaining the other until the bill should have been gone tiss, Robbins, Robinson, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tipthrough with. The one he was now about to offer, re-ton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster, Wilkins.-28. lated to the minimum on cottons. He saw no reason why Mr. HAYNE then rose to offer the last amendment he this should be retained after the Senate had rejected the should offer to this bill. He had looked over this bill, and same principle with regard to woollens. Mr. H. moved to was satisfied that many of the duties provided ranged constrike all out the provision in the second section, as follows: siderably over 100 per cent. This gentlemen had deAnd provided, That all manufactures of cotton, or of nied; and he now gave them an opportunity of testing their which cotton shall be component part, not dyed, colored, sincerity by their votes on the amendment he then offerprinted, or stained, not exceeding in value thirty cents the ed. Mr. H. moved further to amend the bill by inserting square yard, shall be valued at thirty cents per square a proviso that the duties in no case should exceed 100 per yard; and if dyed, colored, printed, or stained, in whole or cent. ad valorem. in part, not exceeding in value thirty-five cents the square yard, shall be valued at thirty-five cents per square yard. This motion was opposed by Messrs. KNIGHT and CLAY, and supported by Mr. TAZEWELL. After a debate, in which Messrs. DICKERSON, CLAY, HAYNE, and HOLMES took part, the question was taken, and the motion was rejected--yeas 18, nays 28, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Smith, Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, White.--18. Mr. HAYNE said that gentlemen contended for the minimum on woollens, on the ground of the high duty on the importation of the raw material. But this did not apply to cottons, on the raw material of which there was NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Chambers, Clay, Clayonly a nominal duty, and which was supplied wholly in ton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Freling the country. If gentlemen would agree to put cottons huysen, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Marcy, at a revenue duty, say fifteen per cent., he, for his part, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Seymour, Silsbee, would cheerfully agree that cotton might be brought in Sprague, Tipton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster, Wilfree of duty. The gentleman from Kentucky had ex-kins.-28. hibited that morning some cotton goods made at one of Mr. FORSYTH then moved an amendment, the effect the Northern factories, and he confessed that he himself of which would be to destroy the bill; to repeal the tarif had been astonished at their cheapness. But this furnish- of '28, and leave the tariff on the basis of the act of 1824. ed an abundant reason why the duty should be reduced. Mr. F. could not vote for that bill--he knew it would not If cotton goods can be made so cheap, why this enormous be received as a peace-offering by those for whom it was duty? Gentlemen say that they can make the cheapest intended, and he therefore proposed to repeal all the re cotton goods in the world; but they want the duty high venue laws except the act of 1824, and leave the question as a fence to keep out the enemy. This, Mr. H. said, to be settled at the next session of Congress, by represen was an avowal that the system was to be perpetual. tatives coming fresh from the people. After some remarks from Mr. FOOT in opposition to Mr. CLAY suggested to the gentleman from Georgia the motion, the question was taken, and it was rejected--whether it would not be better to move an indefinite postyeas 17, nays 27, as follows: ponement of the bill. Although he would not promise to YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Brown Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, vote for it, such motion, he thought, would be more par Hayne, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Poin- liamentary. dexter, Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, White.--17. Mr. FORSYTH replied; after which, the question was taken on his motion, and decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, White.-16. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Marcy, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tipton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster, Wilkins.--27. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Chambers, Clay, ClayMr. DALLAS then moved to amend the bill by in- ton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuycreasing the duty on slates from twenty-five to thirty-five sen, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Mangum, Prenper cent.; which motion was agreed to--yeas 23, nays 22. tiss, Robbins, Robinson, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague, Mr. KING then moved to strike out the duty of 16 cents Tipton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster, Wilkins.--27. per square yard on flannels, and insert 30 per cent. ad va- Mr. SILSBEE moved further to amend the bill, by allorem. Mr. K. said he merely suggested this amendment. lowing a drawback to the owners of vessels and steamboats Gentlemen had the bill in their own hands, and could do to the amount of the duty paid on the hemp, flax, iron, as they pleased with it. His object was to make the duty and copper used in their equipment and construction. come lighter on the coarse flannels used by the poor. If Mr. MOORE moved to amend by allowing also a draw30 per cent. was not a sufficient protection, let gentlemen back on cotton bagging and agricultural implements; but, say so; and if they wanted a higher duty, let them put it after a discussion, in which Messrs. CLAY, SILSBEE, on the higher priced article. and SMITH took part, withdrew his amendment. Mr. WEBSTER said that this question had been discussed the other day, and it was then perfectly well known that the reduction would break up the flannel manufactures of the country. The question was then taken on Mr. SILSBEE's motion, and it was negatived-yeas 5, nays 38. Mr. BENTON then moved to amend the bill by adding a duty of five per centum on Indian blankets, &c. The question was taken, and decided in the negativeyeas 20, nays 26. Mr. BENTON then moved to amend by inserting a drawback on Indian goods. Mr. CLAY required a specification of Indian goods, in case of obtaining which, he might vote for the proposition. The amendment was rejected--yeas 18, nays 27. Mr. BENTON moved to amend the bill by striking out 10 cents per fifty-six pounds on salt, and inserting 5 cents; which was decided in the negative--yeas 22, nays 24. The amendments were then ordered to be engrossed, and the bill directed to be read a third time, by the following vote: [SENATE. Mr. TAZEWELL then returned thanks in a voice inaudible in the gallery. He was understood to say that he begged to offer his sincere thanks for this renewed courtesy on the part of the Senate. Had he consulted his own inclinations, they, as well as his convictions of his own incapacity, would have induced him to pursue the course which he had taken on a former occasion. The course which was then dictated by a most profound respect for this body, might now, under a change of circumstances, be considered as arrogant. Therefore, he should not, on this occasion, decline the distinction which had been conferred on him by the vote of the Senate on this occasion. The wishes of the Senate should be to him a command, YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Benton, Buckner, Chambers, and it would be his duty most promptly to render obediClay, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, ence. Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, John- those of the commonest kind. His qualifications for the station were few, and Whatever labor could acston, Knight, Marcy, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Robin-complish, should be accomplished: and by no relaxation son, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague, Tipton, Tomlin- of his exertions would he be induced to disappoint the exson, Webster, Wilkins.--31. NAYS.--Messrs. Bibb, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Hayne, self on the kindness of this body, to prevent error where pectations of the Senate. For the rest, he must cast himKane, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Taze- it could be prevented, and to correct where it could not, well, Tyler, White.--15. and to excuse those aberrations which could neither be The VICE PRESIDENT then informed the Senate prevented nor repaired. As the time pressed, he would that he should not resume his seat in the Senate, and ex- not detain the Senate any longer than to repeat his sinpressed his wish that the Senators might have a safe re-cere thanks for the honor which had been conferred upon turn to their families. At half past seven the Senate adjourned. Tazewell, 15 Hayne, 15 Bibb, 4. King, 5 Blank, 1 1 3 1 1 There being no choice, the Senate proceeded to ballot a second time, which resulted as follows: the whole number of ballots being 46, 24 was necessary to a choice. Poindexter, Tazewell, Smith, Mangum, 17 Bibb, 14. 7 Bell, Hayne, 1 King, 4 1 1 1 Mr. SMITH then rose, and said, it had been his desire early in the session not to be considered a candidate. Mr. GRUNDY said he had been exceedingly desirous lieve the public burdens, and in some degree restore quiet that some bill should pass at this session, that would reto an excited section of the country. Under these feelings, he was willing to vote for the bill as it came from the House of Representatives; but, in its present shape, he could not now vote for it. On account of the many amendments made on Saturday, it was impossible for him, at the taken, to arrive at such a result as to be fully informed of late hour at which the question on the third reading was this wish, however, he found that he differed from the out of his power to vote finally for the bill, if he could, on the effects of the bill, and, therefore, unwilling to put it opinions of his friends, and he had conceded his own de-examination, approve it, he had voted for the third readsire to gratify theirs. He now wished to be considered ing. He had since obtained sufficient information to satisfy as withdrawn, and he would give his own vote for a member who, in point of talent, was inferior to no man. The Senate then proceeded to a third ballot, when it appeared that 47 members had voted, of which 24 were necessary to a choice. Tazewell, Poindexter, In The Senate then proceeded to a fourth ballot, when it appeared that 47 members were present, of which 24 were necessary to a choice. Tazewell, Poindexter, 22 22 1 King, 1 1 The Senate then proceeded to a fifth ballot, when it appeared that 47 members were present, of which 24 were necessary to a choice. 24 21 Hayne, 1 1 Taxewell, him that the bill gave relief; that it contained nothing tariff system; and that, in some instances, it went beyond calculated to allay the excitement that existed against the the present tariff. He was, therefore, compelled to vote against the bill. Mr. WEBSTER knew not what calculations had been made by the Senator from Tennessee; but he was satisconsiderably public burdens. fied that they were incorrect. The present bill diminished articles on which the duties had been reduced, viz. sugars Mr. W. mentioned many and coffee. Half a million, he said, had been reduced on woollens. Mr. GRUNDY did not believe that either the gentleman from Massachusetts or himself was mistaken, though their views were different. He [Mr. G.] admitted that there had been a reduction on wines and silks, but none on those articles of universal consumption, iron and woollen goods. Mr. KING said he had cherished hopes of some equitable adjustment of the tariff, until this bill came from the House; and although it did not go as far as he thought SENATE.] The Tariff. [JULY 9, 1832. the aggrieved States had a right to demand, yet he had, one hundred per cent., it will not be because the public with some difficulty, brought himself to the conclusion to want the money, but because the introduction of the fovote for it as a partial relief. A change, however, had reign articles, at a low rate of duty, would interfere with, taken place in this bill, that had been very properly al- or, as gentlemen will have it, prostrate this branch of our luded to by the Senator from Tennessee. That change domestic industry. The standard which gentlemen prohas taken the burden off from the manufacturers, and pose on this subject, is not the wants of the treasury, but placed it on those who were least able to bear it. The what they are pleased to call adequate protection to the course pursued by the friends of the bill showed that this manufacturers. It must be obvious, therefore, that to was to be a permanent system; that they would not, for a adjust the tariff on the plan now proposed, is distinctly to moment, listen to the complaints of their oppressed bre- recognise the principle of protection as the settled policy thren, but would carry through their scheme by the of the country-a principle to which I can never give my strength of numbers. The bill they had made relieved consent in any shape. Let me not, on this point, be misonly those who were already protected, while it increased understood. I am no enemy to the manufacturers. I the burden of those who were suffering under the system. would not destroy them if I could. Of this I think I have In one word, it was the scheme of the gentleman from given abundant evidence in the plan I proposed at the Kentucky, intended for the benefit of that interest that beginning of the session, for the settlement of this great grasps at every thing, and will be satisfied with nothing question. The resolution which I had the honor to subMr. K. said he could not now, and never would, vote for mit as an amendment to that of the Senator from Kensuch a bill, be the consequences what they might. One of tucky, [Mr. CLAY,] was, in substance, a proposition to rehis greatest desires had been to relieve the prevailing ex-duce the revenue, after the payment of the public debt, citement; but this bill was so monstrous, so much at va- to the wants of the country. I proposed to do this on riance with the promises and professions of those who principles of perfect justice and equality, and to guard formed it, as to leave no hope but that the system is to be continued for an indefinite time. Mr. HAYNE rose, and said he must throw himself upon the indulgence of the Senate to state the reasons which should induce him to vote against the bill. I am well aware, Mr. President, said Mr. H., that nothing that can be now said will have the slightest effect on the votes of gentlemen on the other side; and I know that the House, at this late period of the session, is too impatient of delay to admit of protracted discussion on any question. Still I indulge the hope that they will consent to hear what I promise them shall consist of little more than a bare statement of my objections to the bill. I am opposed to the bill in its present shape, Mr. President, because it contains all the objectionable features of the existing tariff. I tion of one-third of the cost of the article in the home market, our manufacturers cannot enter into a successful competition with the foreign, they must be engaged in a pursuit most unprofitable to the country, and the sooner it is abandoned the better for all parties concerned. against any shock to the manufacturers, by a sudden reduction of the duties to the lowest revenue standard. I declared my entire willingness that this reduction should be gradual, and spread over several years. I was perfectly willing, provided the duties should be finally brought down to the revenue standard, that gentlemen should almost take their own time for the accomplishment of the object. Nor did this proposition involve the slightest sa crifice of principle; for it entered into my plan, that the debt should spread over several years, so that the duties should be brought down to the proper point, on the final extinction of that debt. Sir, according to this plan, the manufacturers would have enjoyed an incidental protection equal to the amount of duties necessary for revenue. am not prepared to say how far the reduction on the protected articles would, under this system, have been It recognises the protecting system as "the settled po- carried. I presume that fifteen or twenty per cent, ad valicy of the country." Ever since the commencement of lorem would have been found, eventually, sufficient for this system, from the year 1816, nay, from the beginning all purposes. This, as it seems to me, would, with charges, of the war to the present time, there has always existed freight, and insurance, have amounted to a protection of in the actual condition of the country some reason, or a at least thirty-three and a third per cent.; and it has alplausible excuse, for a system of high duties. During ways appeared to me that if, with a permanent protecthe war we wanted money to carry it on; and after the peace, the enormous public debt which was left upon our hands rendered high duties indispensable to enable the country to fulfil its obligations. I will not say that all the duties imposed were necessary to revenue, but I will fearlessly assert that, but for the demands on the treasu- My next objection to this bill is, that it retains the miniry, the system of high duties, which have acted so power- mums and the specific duties. I have already stated at fully for the protection of manufactures, would never large my objection to this feature in the bill, and will not have been established, and could not, possibly, have been now repeat what I then said. I will only here add, as an maintained for a single year. The successive tariffs of additional objection, that the minimums and specific du 1816, 1824, and 1828, owed their existence to the condi- ties create a perpetually increasing tax on the articles tion of the country in relation to the public debt, and the embraced by them. It requires no argument to show manufacturers had very adroitly connected a protection that a tax of eight cents a yard on cottons costing sixto their industry with the collection of revenue for the re-teen cents, which is a tax of only fifty per cent., becomes demption of the public faith. But now that the debt is one hundred per cent. when the article is reduced to about to be paid, and a demand on the treasury for twelve eight cents; and such reductions have, for years past, millions of dollars per annum is about to be entirely re- been going on, as we all know, in relation to every arti moved, a new and most interesting question arises, whe-cle included under the minimum principle. I regard the ther the protection of manufactures is to be made a dis- recognition of this odious principle, in the bill now before tinct and substantive object of legislation; and whether the Senate, as a lasting establishment of the prohibitory taxes, no longer necessary for any legitimate public ob-system in this country. The minimums on cottons were ject, are to be levied, merely for the purpose of affording at first introduced for the purpose of encouraging the protection to the manufacturers. It will be seen at a production of coarse cottons. We are told that it has glance that this question calls upon us to take a new and been completely successful; that it is no longer necessary most important step in the legislation of the country. It to protection; and yet the system is maintained inviolate, will be admitted on all hands that, but for the claims of because, as gentlemen insist, it has no operation. The the manufacturers of woollens, cottons, and iron, the du minimums, then, are to be introduced to build up a maties on these articles would now be reduced to fifteen per nufacture, and are to be retained to establish a monopoly: cent.; and if they are to be kept up to fifty, sixty, or for if gentlemen refuse to abolish them in relation to coarse cottons, we can never, hereafter, expect to have them abolished in any case whatever. [SENATE. tecting duties untouched. Sir, as to the mighty boon conferred, forsooth, by a low duty on negro cloth and Another and most insuperable objection to this bill is, coarse blankets, I have only to say that gentlemen seem that it raises an amount of revenue greatly exceeding the entirely to misunderstand the character of the Southern wants of the Government. This fact I shall fully establish people; they treat us like spoiled children, to be bribed in another part of my argument; but, for the present, as- with sugar plums, pleased with a rattle, tickled with a suming it to be incontrovertible, I object to the scheme, toy. But what are the grounds of our complaints? Is it because it necessarily leads to extravagant expenditures that we pay a high tax upon a few articles of negro clothto appropriations for unconstitutional purposes--to a dis-ing? No, sir, it is because every article which we receive graceful scramble for the public money, and to an inju- from abroad, in exchange for our productions, is enor rious dependence, on the part as well of the States as of mously taxed; it is because duties to the amount of from the people, on the Federal Government. It violates the forty to fifty per cent. on $40,000,000 of our importations, cardinal principles of our system, and must, in the end, cor- procured by Southern industry, are imposed as a bounty rupt the whole country, and endanger our free institutions. to the industry of a more favored section of the Union, Another and one of my strongest objections to this bill that we have called in question the justice, the policy, is, that it increases the evils of the existing system, by and the right of imposing on us a system absolutely fatal aggravating its inequality and injustice. The great to our prosperity. And what is the amount of this mighty point of distinction between the friends of the free boon to the South? According to an estimate which I trade and the advocates of the protective system, arises hold in my hand, the negro cloth, covered by the low duty from the different views as to the policy to be pursu- under this bill, will amount to about $239,600; coarse ed in relation to the protected and unprotected arti blankets, under seventy-five cents, to about $100,000; cles. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] and the saving on which two articles would just amount to myself, at the commencement of the session, differed irre- $112,000; and the share of South Carolina would be just concilably on this subject. The advocates of the Ameri- about $10,000; a sum quite sufficient, no doubt, in the can system insist that the only proper subjects for federal estimation of gentlemen, to bribe her to an acquiescence taxation are those foreign articles which enter into com- in the American system. petition with similar articles made or produced within the I have, sir, still another objection to this bill; it introUnited States, while we at the South contend there is nei-duces new and oppressive features in the protecting systher reason nor justice in subjecting to exorbitant taxation tem. Woollens of every description are to be subjected every article which we receive from abroad in exchange to cash duties; while other articles are to be entitled to for our productions. The ground of our complaint is, credits of three and six months. Why this discrimination? that we obtain woollens, cottons, and iron from Europe in Is there any reason or justice in it? Can there be any exchange for our cotton, rice, and tobacco; and when we object in it, but to discourage the importation of woolbring them into our own markets for sale in competition lens, and to open a door to a system of discriminating duwith similar articles, the fruits of our labor and capital are ties, by which particular articles may be excluded by subjected to a discriminating tax of from forty to fifty per oppressive regulations, at the discretion of Congress? I cent. for the benefit of the labor and capital of our North- object, sir, likewise, most pointedly, to the diminution of ern brethren. This we believe to be substantially a tax the credits, the only effect of which, as it seems to me, on the industry of the South, and a bounty to the industry will be to embarrass commerce, lessen the capital employof the North. It is not my present purpose, sir, said Mr.ed in trade, and cripple the commercial resources of the H., to enlarge on this topic, which I have endeavored, on country. It will, moreover, to a great extent, throw the a former occasion, to explain and enforce; but if there be trade into the hands of the wealthy capitalist, and do an any truth in the argument, it furnishes an insuperable ob- irreparable injury to the small importer, the retail dealer. jection to this bill, which is so arranged as to throw the Nor can it escape our notice that by this bill new and inentire burden of taxation on the protected articles, while quisitorial powers have been granted to the appraisers. the unprotected articles are to be admitted duty free. We I come now, sir, to the last point on which I propose to have always insisted that, while duties on the unprotected touch-the true character and practical effects of this articles, being generally articles of luxury, operate with bill. We are about to arrange a permanent system of reperfect equality on all parts of the country, the duties on venue adapted to a state of profound peace, after the total the protected articles not only operate most unequally extinction of the public debt. To establish a rate of upon the different sections and the different interests, but duties now, no higher than those imposed in 1828, a rethat they are also of the nature of a double tax-first on the duction at least of from twenty to thirty per cent. on every imported article, and next by enhancing the price of the article paying specific duties is indispensable. Since 1828, domestic article. We have heard a good deal of the efforts there has been a considerable reduction in the prices of that have been made to relieve the complaints of the South. all the articles embraced in our tariff-a reduction which The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] declares that no is progressively going on; and it requires no argument man would go further than he would to remove those com- to show that every reduction of price operates as an inplaints, though he believes them to be wholly groundless. crease of the duty. The duties under the act of 1828 Sir, the gentleman has frequently made similar declara- are, therefore, much higher now than they were when tions during the present session. As to the gentleman's that act was imposed. As an illustration of this branch friendly disposition, I have nothing to say; but I am bound of the subject, I will call the attention of the Senate to to say to him in perfect candor, that I have no evidence of the fact, that when a duty of thirty dollars a ton was imsuch disposition in his acts. How far he may be disposed | posed on rolled iron, it cost eleven pounds sterling, so that to go, I know not; but he certainly has not advanced one the rate of duty on the article was then fifty-nine per step, no, not one inch, in furtherance of his declared object. cent.; but the same duty now on such iron at the present Sir, this bill holds out no relief to the South. We reduced price would be one hundred and sixty-seven per have never uttered one word of complaint against the cent., making a difference of one hundred and eight per duties on the unprotected articles; they were imposed for cent. It is proposed to reduce the duty from thirty-seven revenue; and to any fair and equal revenue system we do to thirty dollars per ton, but thirty dollars at existing not object. Our complaints have been levelled against prices is a much higher duty than thirty-seven dollars in the duties imposed, not for revenue, but for protection. And gentlemen gravely propose to redress our grievances by taking off all the revenue duties, and leaving the pro 1828. The same thing is true of cottons under the minimum price of thirty-five cents. And every one must know that sixteen cents the square yard on flannels which SENATE.] The Tariff. [JULY 9, 1832. may be had for twelve cents, is a much higher duty than half of dollars. To me, however, said Mr. H., it would, twenty-two cents a square yard at the former prices of I confess, be comparatively unimportant whether this bill eighteen or twenty cents; so that every gentleman will is to effect a reduction of a few hundred thousand dollars perceive at once, that, in taking the tariff of 1828 as the on the protected articles, as contended for by the Senator standard for this bill, the duties will be considerably in- from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER,] or is to increase the creased beyond what they were when that act was passed. duty by an equal amount. Nothing short of a substantial The truth is, Mr. President, that there has been a con- reduction, a reduction to the fair revenue standard, would siderable fall in the price of all manufactured articles, not have been at all satisfactory to me; a few hundred thouonly in this country, but in Europe and throughout the sand dollars, more or less, in adjusting a revenue of twenworld. No mistake can be greater than to suppose that ty-five or thirty millions, being of very little importance in this has been produced by the establishment of manufac-my estimation. But let us see how the fact stands! The tures in this country. It is perfectly absurd to say that amount of the present duties on the protected articles, the introduction of cotton manufactures in this country, according to a calculation which I hold in my hand, foundfor instance, to an amount equal to two or three per cent. ed on the comparative statement" submitted to Conon the cotton manufactures of Great Britain, could reduce gress from the treasury on the 8th May last, is 15,000,000 the value of the whole of the latter one-half; and yet we dollars; of this amount, it was proposed by the treasury know that the cotton manufactures of England have actu- scheme to take off taxes from the protected articles to the ally fallen fifty per cent. in the price. The truth is that amount of 3,674,537 dollars. While of the unprotected this reduction in prices has fallen indiscriminately on all articles, amounting to about 9,000,000 dollars, it was proarticles, protected and unprotected; and has resulted from posed to take off, nominally, 6,416,016 dollars, but, in fact, general causes, in operation to a certain extent all over not more than two millions and a half, ($4,665,750 of the the world, such as changes in the currency, improvements said amount having been already reduced by the acts of in machinery, and a diminution in the wages of labor. 1830.) hold in my hand, sir, said Mr. H., an official document, So far, therefore, as the unprotected articles are emshowing the extent of the reduction of prices of manu- braced in this statement," it cannot, of course, be made factured goods of every description in Great Britain, be- the basis of our calculations, because, as any one will see, tween the years 1811 and 1829; an examination of which who will look at that statement, it gives six millions as the will satisfy gentlemen of the true state of the case. Mr. amount to be reduced on these articles; whereas four mil H. here read from the table the following abstract: lions of that amount had already been taken off from salt, coffee, cocoa, molasses, and teas, under the act of May, Manufactures and produce of Great Britain. 1830, and, of course, cannot be considered as furnishing any part of the present duties to be reduced under any proportion. bill to be now passed. But, so far as the protected arti100--141 cles are concerned, I presume there can be no objection 100- 64 to our proceeding on the basis of the treasury statement, On the whole, equal to about forty-five per cent. reduction. no reduction of the duties on these articles having taken Of the articles embraced in the above tables, it fur-place since 1828. Years. 1811 Official value. £21,723,532 1829 £55,465,723 Declared or ac- £30,850,618 Relative ther appears, sir, that the cotton manufactures have The whole amount of reduction proposed from the pre55 per cent. sent duties by the plan of the Secretary of the Treasury, fallen Woollen manufactures 32 45 55 And I hardly think, said Mr. H., that any one will seriously contend that these reductions in prices in England have been produced by American competition! Let us now, Mr. President, examine the last, and, I must think, an insuperable objection to this bill. I mean its effect upon the revenue. From an attentive examination of its provisions, I am perfectly satisfied that it makes no This is explained as follows: By the treasury statereduction whatever on the entire class of protected arti-ment, the amount of the reduction on the following articles, and that whatever reduction is to effected by it, must cles is stated as follows, estimated on the duties in force be produced only by the abolition of the duties on the prior to 1830, viz. unprotected articles. I will go further, and state my conviction that on the protected articles the aggregate of the duties would be increased, and not diminished, by this bill. This I will endeavor to show, not by instituting a comparison between the bill as it came from the other House, and as it now stands, but by comparing it with the tariff of 1828. Mr. President, I do not profess to be very skilful in figures, nor can I rely entirely on the accuracy of calcula- But of this amount, $4,665,750 had been already retions which have been very hastily made. I have looked duced, under the acts of 20th and 29th of May, 1830, viz into the provisions of this bill, however, as carefully as on the shortness of the time would permit, and, to satisfy myself that I have fallen into no material errors, have consulted several persons on whose accuracy I have the most entire reliance; one of them a gentleman of high character and a skilful accountant, now a member of the other House. All of these gentlemen have concurred in the general result, that the bill, as it came from the House, Of this sum, $4,665,750 being already reduced, as and, much more, as it now stands, actually increases the above mentioned, leaves the amount of actual reduction, existing duties on the protected articles to an amount vari- $6,416,016. Some articles, unimportant in amount, are ously estimated at frem half a million to a million and a here omitted. |