APRIL, 1824.]

The Tarif Bill.

[H. OF R.

necessaries of life, which may be produced at | is paid by the people, the consumers. It is home, is not commerce; it is the worst abuse said to be a concealed tax, and therefore paid of commerce; it is to be the victim of com- willingly. Let it be that it is paid willingly. I merce. We declare ourselves to be the friends deny that it is paid ignorantly. Now, then, of commerce, when we profess ourselves the let us in a few words, with an eye constantly friends of industry on shore; they may con- to the bill before us, examine the soundness sist together-indeed they may stand better of this policy, which is contended for with such together. We are not bound to choose between gravity by some, and with such heat by others, them; if we were, I should say that the land of importing, for the sake of revenue, manufacis our home, and not the sea. I should say tures from abroad which we are capable of prothat internal wealth and manufacturing indus- ducing at home. For that portion of woollen try can of themselves create commerce. With- and cotton goods, hempen and linen goods, iron, out them commerce is precarious; liable to hemp, lead, glass, and Leghorn hats, now imtotal destruction in the first war with any first, ported from abroad, and which will be exsecond, or third-rate naval power of Europe. cluded and supplied by domestic industry, if With them commerce is imperishable. Sink this bill becomes a law, we now pay to forevery ship, public and private, in the ocean- eigners, say ten millions of dollars a year. with domestic industry, and freedom from for- These articles, on their importation, afford, on eign tribute, we can be able, in less than five the average, to the revenue, a tax, say of years' time, to replace them all. But why rely twenty-five per cent. This tax is paid by the on argument? I repeat it, we have experience people of the country, the consumers of the to go by, and the actual fact that every com- goods. It amounts to $2,500,000; which sum mercial nation in Europe, without exception, goes into the public treasury. Clearly, the is prosperous exactly in proportion to the people of the country not only pay this tax, vigilance with which it protects its own manu- but in paying it they have also to pay the prices facturing industry, by excluding the foreign, of the articles, the ten millions of dollars and puts down this spurious, pernicious com- original purchase money. They must pay, merce of importation of manufactured goods. also, the importer's profits, the merchant's As to the island of Great Britain, the first com- profits, the freight, the insurance-not, probmercial country of the world, everybody knows ably, less, altogether, than twenty-five per that not only her wealth, but her salvation, is cent. on the $12,500,000. So that, in advancsupposed to depend upon her naval power and ing to the public treasury the sum of $3,500,000, her commerce, both of which it has been her our citizens actually pay the sum of $15,625,000; aim for ages to promote. If any interest pre- ten millions of dollars of which sum, as far as dominates in that country, it is the commercial respects ourselves, might as well be sunk in the interest. Yet no temptation of cheapness, no ocean-perhaps better-for it goes, perhaps, to employment or encouragement of shipping or rivals; perhaps to enemies. At any rate, our seamen, no argument of the political economists, citizen, contributing by this sort of assessment has ever induced her for one day, since her to the support of his Government, for every naval ascendency, to permit the importation of one dollar he pays to his own country, has any article for domestic use which domestic four dollars to pay to foreign industry. But, industry could possibly be made to produce. worse than any thing yet mentioned in this France, probably the second naval power of mode of raising revenue, is the circumstance Europe, follows the same policy with the same that, with respect to the greatest proportion of success. So other countries; and from their the people, who pay this $15,625,000, in order examples, and from the contrary examples of to place $3,500,000 in the treasury, so far are weak and miserable nations, we may learn and they from getting the slightest incidental admay know, that to employ commerce to super- vantage from this mode of supporting their sede home manufacture, by the importation of Government, that, by it, they only drive their foreign goods, is ultimately as destructive to the neighbors, the manufacturers, into idleness and naval power as it is to the domestic industry beggary, and deprive themselves of the only of a country. possible market they can have for their agricultural productions. And this is the very popular mode of taxation spoken of. Sir, if there is, among our countrymen, such fanatical blindness, as to prefer to pay their taxes in this way, I do not know where it exists.

It is apprehended that the encouragement of domestic industry will injure the public revenue. We admit that our present revenue is derived chiefly from the duties on importations. Yet I trust it will be admitted on the other side, that the consumption of foreign goods is not The gentleman from New York, (Mr. CAMthe only means of raising the revenue. And BRELENG,) in opposing this bill, has asked, "Do further, I trust, it will be admitted, that while you not see the angry war-clouds gathering in the nation exists, and while our people are the South?" As if the probability, or even the wealthy and prosperous, there never can be a possibility of war, was not of itself the strongwant of revenue to support the credit or de-est reason; and even if there was no other, was fence of the country. There must be taxes. The question is only as to the preferable mode of taxation. The tax on imported manufactures

not of itself a sufficient reason for our encouragement of domestic manufactures, and dependence upon our own industry. Whether

[APRIL, 1824. YEAS.-Messrs. Alexander of Virginia, Allen of Tennessee, Archer, Baylies, P. P. Barbour, J. S. Barbour, Bartlett, Bassett, Blair, Brent, Buchanan, Buckner, Burleigh, Burton, Cambreleng, Campbell of South Carolina, Carter, Cary, Cobb, Cocke, Con

we regard the revenue necessary for carrying on war, and the inconvenience and danger of stopping it at the time it is most wanted, or any other of the resources demanded for carrying it on; or the loss and confusion which attends the sudden interruption of our usual sup-ner, Crowninshield, Culpeper, Cushman, Cuthbert, ply of manufactures,-it is very clear that domestic industry is more wanted for war than for peace.

There is a matter which, as it has been already discussed, I shall advert to very briefly. It is said the passage of this bill will be peculiarly injurious to those portions of the country whose staple article is cotton. Let it be remembered that it has been asserted (and though denied, the denial has not been supported by fact or argument or probability) that the protection allowed by this bill, to the different interests comprehended in it, is not so high nor so complete, generally, as the protection by the existing law to the cotton grower of a duty of three cents per pound on the imported article. And further, it has been said with great truth, that no article better deserves to be protected; and that there is no portion of our agricultural industry, nor scarcely any portion of our manufacturing industry, that requires a larger protection. The consumption of cotton in our country is at present immense. With a due encouragement of our own manufactures, it must be next to incalculable. Those manufactures must afford a certain market-it ought to be the greatest market-it will be the greatest

market.

Day, Dwinell, Edwards of North Carolina, Farrelly, Gatlin, Gist, Govan, Gurley, Hall, Hamilton, Harvey, Floyd, Forsyth, Frost, Fuller, Garrison, Garnett, Hayward, Herrick, Hobart, Hooks, Houston, Isacks, Kent, Kremer, Lee, Leftwich, Lincoln, Livingston, Locke, Long, Longfellow, McCoy, McDuffie, McKee, McKim, Mangum, Matson, Mercer, Moore of Alabama, Neale, Nelson, Newton, O'Brien, Owen, Plumer of New Hampshire, Poinsett, Randolph, Rankin, Reed, Reynolds, Richards, Rives, Saunders, Sandford, Sibley, Arthur Smith, Alexander Smyth, William Smith, Spaight, Spence, Stande fer, A. Stevenson, J. Stephenson, Tattnall, Thompson of Georgia, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of South Carolina, Vance of North Carolina, Warfield, Webster, Wickliffe, Williams of New York, Williams of Virginia, Williams of North Carolina, Wilson of S. Carolina-101. Allison, Barber of Connecticut, Bartley, Beecher, NAYS.-Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, Bradley, Brown, Buck, Cady, Campbell of Ohio, Cassedy, Clark, Collins, Cook, Crafts, Craig, Durfee, Dwight, Eaton, Eddy, Edwards of Pennsylvania, Ellis, Findlay, Foot of Connecticut, Forward, Harris, Hayden, Hemphill, Henry, Herkimer, Hogeboom, Holcombe, Jenkins, Johnson of Virginia, J. T. Johnson, F. Johnson, Kidder, Lathrop, Lawrence, Letcher, Litchfield, Little, Livermore, McArthur, McKean, McLane of Delaware, McLean of Ohio, Mallary, Markley, Martindale, Marvin, Matlack, Metcalfe, Miller, Mitchell of Pennsylvania, Mitchell of Maryland, I speak the opinions of men practically ac- Ohio, Plumer of Pennsylvania, Prince, Rich, Rogers, Morgan, Patterson of Pennsylvania, Patterson of quainted with the whole subject, when I say Rose, Ross, Scott, Sharpe, Sloane, Sterling, Stewart, that, with what is called free trade, our culti-Stoddard, Storrs, Strong, Swan, Taylor, Ten Eyck, vators of cotton must be undersold by other nations; and their reasons appear conclusive; that it is an article which, in some other countries, has but lately began to be cultivated, with the greatest success; and that nearly all countries where it is raised, are possessed of advantages in almost every respect superior to ours; that they have generally a better soil; that the greater rigor of our climate in winter, makes the clothing of slaves in our country much more expensive-while the greater lenity with which they are treated, a lenity produced by our laws or our manners, makes their labor less profitable to the master. So that all parts of our country, those most unanimously opposed to this bill owe the most, and must continue to owe the most to the system of protection. If protection is a tax for the benefit of those protected, that tax is imposed for the benefit of the cotton grower: rightly, I say. And if an increase shall be required to effect the full purpose, I am for increasing it. But I am not for stopping there, but for giving, upon the same principles, a just and equal protection to domestic industry wherever else it may be wanted, so as to secure at least our own markets for the productions of our own country.

The question was then put, and decided by yeas and nays, as follows:

Test, Tod, Tomlinson, Tracy, Trimble, Tyson, Uaree,
Vance of Ohio, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck, Vinton,
Wayne, Whipple, Whitman, Whittlesey, White,
James Wilson, Henry Wilson, Wilson of Ohio, Wood,
Woods, and Wright-99.

So the House concurred with the Committee
of the Whole, in reducing the minimum on
woollens from 80 to 40 cents.
And then the House adjourned.

THURSDAY, April 8.

A new member, to wit, JoHN TALIAFERRO, in place of William Lee Ball, of Virginia, deceased, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

The Tariff.

The question was taken on agreeing to the second amendment, and decided in the affirmative without a division.

The House then proceeded to the third amendment, which is, to strike out the words "printing types" from the class of twenty-five per cent. ad valorem duties. This amendment was agreed to.

The fourth amendment proposes to insert, in the eighty-seventh line, the following: "On all

APRIL, 1824.]

The Tariff Bill.

[H. OF R.

ingrain carpets or carpeting, twenty-five cents | gress possess the power and will exercise it." per square yard."

The fifth amendment proposes to insert, on oil-cloth carpeting, and on oil-cloths of every description, a duty of thirty per centum ad valorem."

With these two amendments, the clause reads as follows:

"On Brussels, Venetian, Turkey, and Wilton carpet and carpeting, fifty cents per square yard; on all ingrain carpets or carpeting, twenty-five cents per square yard. On all other kinds of carpets and carpeting of wool, flax, hemp, cotton, or parts of either, twenty cents per square yard; on oil cloth carpeting, and on oil cloths of every description, a duty of thirty per centum ad valorem.

Both these amendments were agreed to, the first without a division, and the latter by a vote of ayes 99, noes 72.

The question then recurring on the House's agreeing to the report of the Committee of the Whole in that amendment of the bill which reduces the minimum on woollen goods from eighty to forty cents the square yard

Mr. MCDUFFIE, of South Carolina, rose and delivered his sentiments, at length, in favor of agreeing.

Mr. CUTHBERT, of Georgia, and Mr. LIVINGSTON, of Louisiana, followed on the same side.

The debate was further continued by Messrs. LIVERMORE of New Hampshire, MCLANE of Delaware, and ToD of Pennsylvania, in opposition to agreeing with the committee; and by Messrs. LIVINGSTON of Louisiana, WEBSTER of Massachusetts, COBB of Georgia, MERCER of of Virginia, RANDOLPH of Virginia, and P. P. BARBOUR of Virginia, in favor.

Now, sir, the first step towards this consummation, so devoutly wished by many, is to pass such laws as may yet still further diminish the pittance which their labor yields to their unfortunate masters. To produce such a state of things as will insure, in case the slave shall not elope from his master-his master will run away from him. Sir, the blindness, as it appears to me I hope gentlemen will pardon the expression-with which a certain quarter of this country-I allude particularly to the seaboard of South Carolina and Georgia—has lent its aid to increase the powers of the General Government on points to say the least, of. doubtful construction-fills me with astonishment and dismay. And I look forward, almost without a ray of hope, to the time which the next census, or that which succeeds it, will assuredly bring forth-when this work of destruction and devastation is to commence in the abused name of humanity and religionand when the imploring eyes of some will be, as now, turned towards another body, in the vain hope that it may arrest the evil and stay the plague.

The question was finally taken, and the House refused to agree in reducing the minimum to forty cents-yeas 101, nays 104. And then the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, April 9.
The Tariff Bill.
Mr. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, spoke as
follows:

Mr. Speaker, it is not my design to enter into a discussion of the general principles of the bill now before the House. Although I am fully prepared to do so, yet time has become so precious, and so much has already been said upon the subject, that I have abandoned any such intention.

Mr. RANDOLPH expressed his surprise that the votaries of humanity-persons who could not sleep, such was their distress of mind at the very existence of negro slavery-should persist in pressing a measure, the effect of which was to aggravate the misery of that unhappy condition, whether viewed in reference to the slave I will, however, take the liberty of asking the or to his master-if he were a man possessing committee to attend to some observations a single spark of humanity-for, what could be which I shall make, in reply to that part of more pitiable than the situation of a man who the argument of the gentleman from Massahad every desire to clothe his negroes comfort-chusetts (Mr. WEBSTER) which related to hemp ably, but who was absolutely prohibited from so doing by legislative enactment? He hoped that none of those who wished to enhance to the poor slave (or, what was the same thing, to his master) the price of his annual blanket, and of his sordid suit of coarse, but to him comfortable woollen cloth, would ever travel through the Southern country to spy out the nakedness, if not of the land, of the cultivators of the soil. It was notorious that the profits of slave labor had been, for a long time, on the decrease, and that, on a fair average, it scarcely reimbursed the expense of the slave, including the helpless ones whether from infancy or age. The words of Patrick Henry, in the Convention of Virginia, still rung in his ears: "They may liberate every one of your slaves. The ConVOL. VII.-47

and iron. The reasons which that gentleman urged, with great ability and zeal, against an additional duty upon these articles, were, that much injury would result from it to the manufacture of ships and to the navigation of the country. In the course of his remarks, he alleged that our navigation had been left dependent upon its own resources, without any protection from Government; that it was in a depressed and declining condition; to use his own phrase, that it was barely able to keep its head above water; and that the weight which this bill would bring to bear upon it, by the additional imposts on hemp and iron, might destroy it, or, to repeat the gentleman's words, might be the last ounce which would break the camel's back. As a consequence from all

The Tariff Bill.

H. OF R.]
these observations, he inferred that the Navy | navigation?
was in danger of destruction.

In opposition to this argument, I trust I shall be able to show, conclusively, that no branches of domestic industry have ever been cherished by the legislation of this country with as much care as those of ship-building and navigation; that both these branches, although they have suffered in the general depression of the country, are now in a more prosperous condition than any other portion of domestic industry; and that they are perfectly able, and ought to be willing, to bear the additional duty upon hemp and iron proposed by this bill, even if it should amount to what the gentleman supposes. If, said Mr. B., I can establish these positions, it will result as a necessary inference, that our Navy is in no danger from the measure now under consideration.

Sir, said Mr. B., it is fortunate that the first congress which sat under the Federal Constitution, when they came to legislate upon the navigating interest of the country, were not guided by the principles which we have so often heard reiterated in this Hall. They did not belong to that school of politicians whose principal dogmas are, "Let trade regulate itself;" "Let not legislation attempt to divert industry or capital from the channels in which they are flowing into other branches." On the contrary, they believed that the manufacture of ships, and their navigation, were interests which required legislative protection, and they afforded it in the most effectual manner.

The third act which ever passed the Congress of the United States was that of the 20th July, 1789, imposing duties on tonnage. It was afterwards repealed by the act of the 20th July, 1790; which, however, re-enacted in substance the same provisions. Whilst these acts declare that ships or vessels of the United States, arriving from any foreign port or place, shall pay a duty of only six cents per ton upon each entry, they enact that all other ships or vessels shall pay a duty of fifty cents per ton, except those built within the United States and belonging to foreigners, which shall pay thirty cents per ton. The legislative protection afforded by these acts, to that portion of our tonnage employed in the coasting trade and in the fisheries, was of a still more decisive character. Whilst ships or vessels of the United States, engaged in these pursuits, paid a duty of but six cents per ton, in each year, those "not of the United States" paid fifty cents per ton upon each entry.

In addition to these discriminating duties upon tonnage, in favor of our own citizens, the act of the 10th August, 1790, added 10 per cent. to the rates of duties imposed, "in respect to all goods, wares, and merchandise which shall be imported in ships or vessels not of the United States."

What, Mr. Speaker, was the effect of this legislative protection upon our tonnage and

[APRIL, 1824.

Let Mr. Pitkin and Dr. Seybert answer this question. Mr. Pitkin, in his View, declares that

"These extra charges on the navigation and from our ports the greatest proportion of the foreign commerce of foreign nations were sufficient to drive tonnage. All foreign nations were affected by the system we had adopted in favor of the ship-owners in the United States. The diminution of the foreign tonnage employed in our trade was, with very few exceptions, rapid, regular, and permanent."

Dr. Seybert, in his Statistical Annals, bears the same testimony. He states that—

"Our discriminations operated powerfully in favor of our shipping. Vessels not of the United States, of 200 tons burden, on entering our ports, paid £20 tonnage duty, and for a cargo of the value of £2,000, they paid £15, extra duty, more than did the vessels of the United States, of the same tonnage, and laden as aforesaid. These extra charges were sufficient to drive from our ports the greatest proportion of the foreign tonnage. All foreign nations were affected by the system we had adopted; it seemed to operate like magic in favor of the ship-owners in the United States. The diminution of the foreign tonnage employed in our trade was, with very few exceptions, rapid, regular, and permanent."

I will freely acknowledge, said Mr. B., that the wars in Europe, and our neutral condition, by placing within our reach a large portion of the carrying trade of other nations, assisted these discriminating duties in producing their effect upon our navigation, with such astonishing rapidity. Dr. Seybert states, that "in 1789, our shipping was not sufficient for the transportation of the domestic produce of the States; one-third of that which was then employed for that purpose belonged to foreigners;" and that "in 1793, our tonnage exceeded that of every other nation, except Great Britain."

These discriminating duties, and the unexampled increase of our tonnage, alarmed the Government of Great Britain. They dreaded the rapid progress of our navigation, and made it a primary object to check its augmentation. For this purpose, they proposed, in the year 1791, "that British ships trading to the ports of the United States, should be there treated with respect to the duties of tonnage and impost, in like manner as ships of the United States should be treated in the ports of Great Britain." By this means, they expected to crush our navigation in its infancy. They wel knew, if they could persuade our Government to cast it, at that period of its existence, upon the ocean, without protection, they would obtain what they so ardently desired-a monopoly of our trade. They were convinced, that our navigation could not then endure a competition with the long-established naviga tion of Great Britain.

The statesmen of that day, thanks he to Prov idence, did not act upon the modern fashionable doctrines of political economy. They refused to accept this offer of a reciprocity of trade be

tween the two countries, which Great Britain | reminded of it by the toasts of a Prime Minister had made. They did not adopt the principle, of England, which the gentleman from Massathat trade should regulate itself. No, Mr. chusetts (Mr. WEBSTER) has thought fit to reSpeaker, they cherished and nourished our navi- peat for our edification. gation in its infancy, by protecting duties; and, in this manner, infused into it such energy and vigor, that it can now fearlessly go forth, and, upon equal terms, challenge competition with the world. The same kind of protection will produce the same effect upon the manufactories which this bill proposes to encourage.

Dr. Seybert informs us, that these discriminating duties on tonnage and imports alarmed the British merchants and ship-owners. That was a most favorable omen. In this particular, I can congratulate the advocates of the present bill that they are equally fortunate. Every British merchant, every British agent, and every vender of British goods, within the United States, have taken the alarm. Should this bill pass, they know that the day is not far distant, when they shall cease to drain from us our wealth, and to enrich themselves and the Brit-sition of these discriminating duties. Of conish manufacturers, at our expense.