the money or surplus productions of another. Destroy agriculture and manufactures and commerce would be destroyed.

Nor would this measure diminish the revenue. If less cloth should be imported, the importation of other articles would be increased. The best plan to increase the revenue, was to increase the prosperity of the country-to increase its ability to purchase and consume foreign productions. He illustrated this by again referring to the establishment at Steubenville, where there were annually consumed imported goods to the value of $30,000, on which were paid duties to the amount of $10,000.

Mr. Buchanan said he had ever been the friend of what had been called the tariff policy; and that the new doctrines of political economy preached in England had no charms for him. They had never been practiced by British statesmen; and there was much reason to believe they had been manufactured, not for home consumption, but for foreign markets. [The doctrines alluded to by Mr. B. were those of free trade, by the profession of which Great Britain might influence other nations to adopt the policy, while she in practice rejected it.]

But while he made this avowal of his opinion, he was not ready to go to any length manufacturers might desire, in prohibiting the importation of foreign goods. Other interests had equal claims to protection. He admitted the depressed condition of the woolen manufacture, and the necessity of extending to it additional protection. One principal cause of this depression was, that, since the passage of our tariff of 1824, the British government had reduced the duty on the importation of foreign wool, from six pence sterling to a penny sterling per pound. By this decrease of duty on the raw material, the cost of the manufactured article had been diminished, and enabled the English manufacturer to compete with the American manufacturer in our market, with greater advantage than formerly. This cause was permanent in its nature, and would continue, until removed by legislation. The other cause—that of throwing upon us the surplus of British goods designed for the South American market-was an evil which would soon cure itself. Such fluctuations in trade could not be controlled by legislative provision, What he was now willing to do, was to give the protection fully and fairly intended by the tariff of 1824. The government was pledged to continue this protection. But our manufacturers had in a measure lost it, in consequence of the act of parliament which enabled their foreign competitors to manufacture cheaper than they could do in 1824. He was willing, therefore, to increase the rates of duty sufficiently to countervail the reduction of the British duty on foreign wool; but he would go no farther.

a

Mr. Archer, of Virginia, said the strong ground for supporting this bill had been stated by a gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Davis,) who spoke some days ago. It was, that the recent reduction of the British duty on the import of wool, had is effect taken away a part of the protection which the existing rates of duty were intended to afford; and it was estimated that sixteen perrunt increase was necessary to com. pensate for the disadvantage thrus occasioned to the American manufacturer. This argument amounted, in principle, to this, that the discharge of a foreign tax, was a sufficient reason for our adopting it. We were asked to put on our importation and consumption a new charge equal to the reduction of the British duty on imported wool, for the farther protection of the manufacturers.

Of the distress of the manufacturing interest he had no doubt. It had recently received the aid of a tariff; and the administering of this stimulus was always attended with distress. An excess of employment

. had been attracted to the favored pursuits; and the market had become overstocked with their products. Whatever might be the enlargement of a market given by a tariff, it would be glutted, and distress would fol. low. The present distress of the manufacturers, caused or aggravated by the tariff of 1824, was therefore a reason, not for, but against this form of relief, which would in the end produce a wider and more aggravated suffering

The only argument by which protection to any particular interest, at the public expense, could be vindicated in justice, did not apply in the present case. It was, that the protection would redeem itself-that the article would eventually be rendered cheaper by the tax. No one would defend a tax merely to favor a particular interest, if there were no expectation that the public would be indemnified. Such it had been said, was the result of protection in the case of coarse cottons. But was it 80 ? It was true that they were lower than they were when the duty was imposed; but were they lower than they would have been if they had been left without protection ? If they were as cheap as we could be supplied with the foreign article, why not repeal the tax? To this the manufacturers would not consent. For this reason, he did not believe that we did or could successfully compete with others in foreign markets.

But even if it were true in relation to coarse cottons, it would not be so in regard to woolens. In the manufacture of these, a smaller proportion of the labor was performed by machinery; and the manual labor required was of a more experienced and expensive kind. And for another reason: the cost of the raw material entered more largely into the prices of woolens, than into those of cottons. And wool raised at home must always be much higher than that which could be obtained from abroad. Our country was not so favorable for raising sheep as Eng.

a

land and other countries. This disadvantage of the greater cost of the raw material could never be avoided, and, taken in connection with the larger proportion of labor required in woolen as compared with cotton goods, was decisive as to the relative cost of the domestic and the foreign fabric. With us, woolens must be a forced fabric, and could never be made as cheap as they could be imported.

A farther argument in favor of the bill was the enlarged market which the extension of the manufacture was expected to produce. This also Mr. A. denied. There would be no enlargement of the market—no addition to the amount or value of sales-no augmentation of the quantity, or enhancement of the prices of the products of other branches of industry. Market could be obtained only in the proportion in which it was given. By purchasing at the north what had been heretofore obtained abroad, was surrendering, to just that amount, our present market abroad. It would be merely a transfer of market; for what would be added to the domestic, would be deducted from the foreign market. Markets in the immediate neighborhood of manufactories would be improved by their extension: and this had been confounded with a general improvement of the market. The market of the country would, in fact, suffer; for the whole value of the national exchanges would be reduced in an amount equal to the tax imposed by the bill.

It had been said, that the revenue would not be diminished. If our money was taken, our understandings ought not to be insulted. On such an argument, he declined comment. And when the revenue had suffered reduction, the resource would be imposts on other imports.

Much bad been heard of the extension of protection to other interests than the manufacturing. How could navigation and commerce be said to be protected when we were holding out a permanent invitation to the removal of all discriminating duties? By the removal of duties on foreign shipping, our navigation bad not been impaired. Scarcely more necessary were duties for the protection of agriculture. Of this, the proof was found in the readiness of our agriculturists to concur in the removal of the protective duties. They not only did not ask, they renounced protection, and were willing to annul every duty which wore the semblance of this character. The benefits of the proposed measure would be confined to a small number of persons-capitalists, who had experienced a diminished rate of profits from their business.

But we are not allowed to extend the remarks of speakers on this bill. So far as they embraced the general subject of protection, they do not essentially differ from those which will be found in the debates on the tariff bills of 1824 and 1828, in other parts of this work.

On the 10th of February, the bill passed the house, 106 to 95, and was sent to the senate, where, for the want of time to act upon

that session, it was laid upon the table, February 28, by the casting vote of the vice-president.

Disappointed in their expectations by the defeat of the “woolens bill,” the manufacturers early resolved on a renewal of their application to congress for relief. At a meeting of the “ Pennsylvania society for the promotion of manufactures and the mechanic arts,” held on the 14th of May, 1827, Charles J. Ingersoll presiding, in view of “the depressed state of the woolen manufacture, and of the market for wool, together with its injurious effect on other departments of industry, and on the general welfare,” resolutions were adopted calling on the farmers and manufacturers, and the friends of both branches of industry, to hold conventions in their respective states, and to appoint at least five delegates from each state, to meet in general convention at Harrisburg, on the 30th day of July, to deliberate on measures proper to be taken in the present posture of their affairs, and appointing a committee of twenty. seven, to frame an address to the citizens of the United States.

In their address, the committee discussed the policy of protection, and set forth the causes of the depression of the manufacturing interest, and the effect of this depression upon the other great interests of the country. Above 80 per cent. of the population was engaged in the pursuits of agriculture; and for the large surplus of the produce of the soil, there was no market at home or abroad. The want of a market operated severely upon the middle and western states. Europe no longer wanted their grain and flour, and her ports were closed against them, while these states consumed of the manufactures of Europe to the amount of $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 in value annually.

To show the effects of the closing of the European ports against our bread-stuffs, the amount of our exports of bread-stuffs during the year 1825, were compared with the amount exported while our wheat and flour had a foreign demand. It appeared that, while our population had nearly trebled since 1796, the exports of all the articles produced, exclusive of cotton and tobacco, had diminished nearly one-third. The arguments presented by the committee in favor of the desired protection and of the general policy, were substantially the same as those offered in previous discussions of the same subject.

In pursuance of the call of the “ Pennsylvania society for the promotion of manufactures,” &c., state conventions were held, and delegates appointed to the national convention at Harrisburg. From the proceedings of these state conventions, and the names of the persons who participated in them, there seems to have been greater unanimity at that time among the people of the northern states on the subject of the tariff than at a later period.

The New York state convention was held at Albany. Jesse Buel, of Albany, was president of the convention; and Edmund H. Pendleton, of Dutchess, and David E. Evans, of Genesee, were secretaries. From the published proceedings it appears, that “the convention was addressed by Col. Young, of Saratoga, Gen. Van Rensselear, of Columbia, and other gentlemen, in support of the purposes for which it had assembled." Among the delegates appointed to the Harrisburg convention, were some of the most prominent citizens of the state, viz: Eleazer Lord, Peter Sharp, Gen. James Tallmadge, Jacob R. Van Rensselaer, Samuel M. Hopkins, Samuel Young, John B. Yates, Alvan Stewart, Victory Birdseye, Enos T. Throop, Francis Granger, Philip Church, and several others, together with the officers of the convention.

A long series of resolutions was adopted, of which we copy the following as expressive of the common sentiments of the people, at that period, of the different political parties in the northern portion of the union:

Resolved, That agriculture, manufactures and commerce, are social pursuits, and flourish best in the society of each other; and that equal protection by the government is due to each.

“ Resolved, That as wool and the woolen trade were the principal foundation of the prosperity, first of the Netherlands, and afterwards of England; so the people of the northern and middle states ought to look to the same article as an unfailing source of wealth to their agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests.

“ Resolved, That, inasmuuch as the staple agricultural products of the south, to wit, cotton, tobacco, and rice, are admitted into the ports of Europe without competition in their production in that part of the world; and while both competition and prohibitory laws operate to exclude from European markets the breadstuffs, provisions, and manufactures of the northern, middle and western states, we deem it unkind in our southern brethren to oppose the passage of laws which are calculated to create a home market for our agricultural productions, and to promote our national wealth and prosperity.”

There were in the national convention at Harrisburg, 95 delegates from the following states : New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. Joseph Ritner, of Pennsylvania, was chosen president; Jesse Buel, of New York, and FRISBY TILGHMAN, ot Maryland, vice-presidents; and WILLIAM HALSTED, Jun, of New Jersey, and REDWOOD FISHER, of Pennsylvania, secretaries.

Committees upon the several most important branches of manufacture