Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

H. OF R.]

The Tariff Bill.

[FEB. 19, 1835

tending the resolution to decisions confirming as well as would move a duty of fifteen per cent., putting the rejecting the claims,

ticle of cotton on a footing with other subjects of reve Mr. CLAY stated that Mr. Wuite (who was absent) nue. He disclaimed and disdained any duty as a protec was willing to withdraw his amendment, lest it might dé- tion. feat the resolution.

Mr. WAYNE said that he had looked into some price The question was taken on Mr. Waite's amendment, currents recently received from the South, from which and negatived; and, after an inquiry from Mr. WAYNE he had found that the proposed specific duty of two cents as to the probable expense of the work,

a pound on raw cotton would be equivalent to an ad vzThe question was taken on the resolution, and decided lorem duty on Brazilian cotton of forty or fifty per cent. by yeas and nays in the negative, as follows: Yeas 54, He thought this much too high. He had voted in the Days 65. So the resolution was rejected.

negative on the question of concurrence, and should now [The proposition was introduced in the Senate the fol- vote in favor of the reconsideration. lowing day, and passed.]

Mr. CAMBRELENG said he had voted against the The House having passed to the special order of the duty when proposed. He should do the same to-day, and day, and resumed the consideration of

should continue to do so-not, however, on the ground THE TARIFF BILL,

taken by any of the gentlemen who had spoken. He

went against the duty altogether. He concurred in the Mr. CHANDLER, of Maine, moved a reconsideration general principle maintained by the gentleman from South of the vote of Saturday on the subject of fossil salt, (on Carolina, that there ought to be one uniform rate of duty. which the bill, as amended, imposes a duty equal to one as far as possible. But though they were advocates of third of the duty on other salt.)

free trade, they ought surely to be governed, in regulatThis motion introduced, in substance, the same debate ing duties, by some regard to the laws of other countries. which has repeatedly taken place whenever this subject So far as the bill went to take off duties, Mr. C. was in has been under consideration.

favor of it; but when it went to lay them on, he should Messrs. REED, of Massachusetts, HOWARD, and H. oppose it. He would put no higher duty on cotton here EVERETT advocated, and Messrs. JARVIS, BLAIR, of than was imposed in England. If their duty was six per Tennessee, HOFFMAN, and CRAIG opposed the re-cent., he would have ours the same. Mr. C. inquired consideration.

whether cotton had any duty imposed upon it before. On Mr. H. EVERETT said he understood the gentleman being reminded that it was now under a duty of three from Tennessee (Mr. Blair) to say he was opposed to cents a pound, he said that he should vote to put the duty this duty, because he was opposed to any duty on salt; at fifteen per cent. and that, if he succeeded in rejecting the proposed duty Mr. VINTON, of Ohio, said, as he had, at all times, on fossil salt, he should then move to strike out the duty sustained the protective principle, he felt himself called on salt. Mr. E. said he thought the question now pre- upon to assign the reasons which induced him, yesterday, sented was merely what were the proper relative duties to vote against agreeing to the amendment. When he first on the two kinds of salt; that, should the gentleman suc- read the bill as it was reported to the House, and saw ceed in his motion to strike out the duty on salt, this on the article of cotton among the list of imports admitted free fossil salt would fall of course, as in terms it was pro- of duty, he regarded it as presenting a test question of the posed it should pay one-third the duty imposed on salt. controversy so long waged between the planting interest He thought the gentleman would find himself under some on the one side, and the agricultural and manufacturing inembarrassment if the duty on fossil salt should be stricken terests on the other. He believed, if that feature of the bill out, and that on salt should be retained. He presumed were retained, and should go into a law, it would settle the the gentleman bad no desire to exempt the one without question between the North and the South in three years' exempting the other. Mr. E. thought there was much time, and give quiet to the country; because, in his opiforce in the remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts, nion, that interest would, in that time, be forced to come [Mr. REED,] that this article rested on the same princi- back here, and ask that very protection it now denies to ples as that of sirup of sugar. Both might be considered all others. The staple products of the South, cotton, as raw materials, each requiring foreign capital and la- tobacco, and sugar, are all protected by specific duties, bor-the one to raise it from the mines, the other to grow ranging from forty to seventy per cent." The two first, the cane, and to reduce it to sirup. Both were intro- enjoying the very highest rate of duty, have been secured duced in fraud of the revenue, and of the protection of by it in the exclusive possession of the home market these our manufactures; and he would add, that the judg-forty years. And yet, standing behind a breastwork so ment of the House on the one might determine his vote high and firm that nothing can get over or break through on the other.

it, they assert that, in fact, there is no protection before The question was then taken, and the motion negativ- them—that they stand out in the open air; and this is ed by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 82, nays 93. made the justification for hurling all manner of projec. So the House refused to reconsider.

tiles against every branch of industry which is, in any deMr. TAYLOR then moved to reconsider the concur-gree, shielded by your laws. The great body of the peorence of the House in the amendment laying a duty of ple at the South believed all this. They have been told, two cents a pound on raw cotton, as gentlemen from the over and over again, that they have no protection; that South had voted against it.

your laws plunder and rob them, to enrich other sections Mr. WICKLIFFE moved to lay the motion on the table, of the country out of their labor. The delusion has been but withdrew his motion at the request of

inculcated till it has taken deep root, and spread over the Mr. ISACKS, who briefly stated his reasons for voting whole South, this side of Louisiana. Now, sir, while that against a reconsideration.

belief prevails, it is in vain to expect the people of the Mr. McDUFFIE said it had been his intention not to South will be contented, or cease to make war on the inhave said one word on the bill; but as the question of re-dustry of the rest of the Union. All the stores of argu. consideration had been made, he should vote in favor of ment have been exhausted without effect; the South still it. He considered two cents a pound as much too high for denies the existing duty on cotton is any protection, and, a revenue duty. But he could not agree with some of on that ground, peremptorily demands a surrender of the his colleagues. He did not intend that the rights and pri- protection enjoyed by all others. Under such circum. vileges of South Carolina should be proscribed in that stances, it becomes a question that can be settled in no House. If the motion to reconsider should prevail, hielother way than by trying the contested fact by a repeal

FEB. 19, 1833.]

The Tariff Bill.

[H. OF R.

of the duty. A temporary repeal becomes necessary to from North Carolina, a few days ago, stated a very importthe interests assailed, as a measure of self-defence, and ant and imposing fact on this subject. He said it was they are justified in aiding the repeal on the ground of the opinion of those at the South, well qualified to judge self-preservation. The committee which reported the of it, that the cultivation of sugar had added fifty dollars bill proffered a trial of the contested fact, but it has been to the value of every slave in the country. The same defeated by the amendment now under consideration, im- gentleman estimated the value of all the slave population posing a specific duty of from thirty-five to forty per cent. at four hundred and thirty millions of dollars, being an as against that description of cotton which would be average of two hundred dollars per head for the whole. brought into the country for home manufacture-a duty It will thus be seen that the increased value given by the not based upon the ad valorem principle, which the South sugar cultivation to all the slaves in the country is several is so urgent to impose on all others; but a specific duty, millions over one hundred millions of dollars; and is onebe it remembered, which will rise in value precisely as third, or thirty-three and one-third per cent. added to the cotton sinks in price. He hoped the article of cotton one hundred and fifty dollars which would otherwise be would be left in the bill as it was reported, free of duty; the average value of each slave throughout the Union. and if, on subjecting it to the test of experiment, it shall He would ask if the protective policy beyond the immebe found the duty on cotton is of no value to the planter, diate neighborhood of the manufacturing villages and he was free to say, for one, that fact would have much towns had caused a similar increase of the price of proinfluence with him, and he should feel himself called upon perty in the other division of the Union. Had it, in New to review the principles by which he had been governed England, New York, Pennsylvania, or Ohio, increased the in respect to the protective policy. He was very far from price of land, or the products of labor, in a correspond. wishing to injure the cotton-growing interest. It was one ing degree! He was sure it had not. of the great and leading branches of American industry: Mr. V. said he would act on the principle of protectas such it ought to be protected, and he was willing to ing those who admitted they had protection, and wished give it protection. Indeed, he would cheerfully vote an its continuance; but as for those who denied they had any absolute prohibition in its favor, and prevent so much as protection, and asserted they “disdained” it, and wanted a pound of foreign cotton from ever being consumed in none, he would take them at their word, and withdraw this country. But he would do that, only on condition that it from them. If, for example, they who represent the that interest would deal fairly and justly by other interests, iron interest, should rise up here, and declare the protecas he had no doubt it would be willing to do when the tion was of no value to them, and make that a plea for cotton planter should become satisfied that the protec- assailing and pulling down other interests, after argutive policy was noc a system of plunder and robbery on ment and expostulation were exhausted, he would take him, without any benefit to him, but that it was a shield the protection away, and put the truth of the assertion to as necessary to his protection as for others. Mr. V. said he the trial. Such was, unfortunately, the state of the case entertained very little doubt, whatever might be said or with the cotton interest; and since they who represent pretended to the contrary, that the abolition of the duty that interest tell us they “despise” protection, and the would, in a few years, sink the value of the whole cotton offer has been made in this bill to give it up, he would crop ten or twenty per cent. The opening of the Ame- help them to throw down their fences, and let all manrican market to foreigners, by enlarging their market, ner of trespassing animals into their fair fields; and when would create, as its natural effect, a stimulus to the pro- they shall come back again, as he had no doubt they will, duction of cotton abroad, in the same way that a protec- he would assist to build them up again so high and so tive duty on an article manufactured at home, so adjusted strong that nothing could break over them; provided they as to bring it into fair competition with the foreign fabric, will consent to do it on the great principle of reciprocal stimulates the domestic manufacture. It is the market, justice, “live and let live." He had but one word more in both cases, which encourages production. Not only to say. If gentlemen, as they profess, desire to raise rewould the cotton of Asia, of the West Indies, of Brazil, venue from cotton, he could put them in the way of doing and South America, generally, find its way, in the course it; when it should be in order, he would move to fix the of trade, into our markets, but a powerful impulse would duty at five per cent., that being the rate at which the be given to the growth of the cotton plant in Mexico, and woollens and blankets worn by the slaves had been put especially in Texas, in our immediate vicinity, where, by the act of the last session; and then we should get from all accounts, it can be produced in the greatest abun- revenue from the duty. There was a fitness in adjusting dance, and at less expense than, perhaps, even in the the duty on the products of slave labor to the rate of duty valley of the Mississippi. Every one who has any ac-paid on the imported articles used by slaves. quaintance with the laws of trade, knows the superior Mr. BARRINGER, of North Carolina, said that he had value, in every country, of the home market over all moved to put this duty at two cents a pound, not excluothers. A very little time will satisfy the deluded plant- sively on the principle of protection, but equally on the ers of the South of the very great importance of retaining principle of revenue. It was true that as this was a raw the exclusive possession of the home market now enjoy- material, if it was not produced in this country, it might ed by them, if that market shall be thrown open to the be good policy to admit it free, in order to aid our own World; and it would, probably, satisfy them too of what manufacturers, and to cheapen the fabric of the consumer. he believed to be true, that no section of the Union de- But cotton was raised in this country, and every body rived so much benefit from the protective policy as the knew the duty upon it was in a great degree nominal. South. It has built up, at home, the greatest cotton Little or no cotton was imported, as the domestic supply market in the world except one, and that market is, exceeded fourfold the demand of the home market. The every year, growing in importance. It has built up the principle was true, in general, that wherever supply was sugar cultivation in Louisiana and Florida: that interest, equal to demand, and especially where it exceeded it, of itself, is of almost incalculable value and magnitude duties, however great, did not increase the price. AmeThe sugar production has diverted into that channel a rican cotton now regulated the cotton market in every large amount of capital and slave labor, which would part of the world. The prices at Liverpool, Havre, &c. otherwise have gone to swell the over-production of cot-were regulated by our product. Of the whole amount ton, and depress its price, both at home and abroad. of cotton made and consumed in the world, the American

The demand for slave labor to carry on the sugar cul- amounted to two-thirds, or perhaps three-fourths. Untivation has greatly increased the price of all the slaves der thesc circumstances, it would and must regulate the in the country. It will be recollected that a gentleman price. A duty upon it operated nominally only. It did

H. OF R. )

The Tarif Bill.

[FEB. 19, 1833.

&

not increase the price of the raw material to the Ameri. a manner calculated to deceive rather than to serve the can manufacturer. The only effect was, that if we should consumer. No part of the produce of the United States be excluded from the great cotton market of the world, enters into their composition. They are the work of fowe should still have a monopoly for our own cotton, just reign hands on a foreign material. Yet are they thrown as the manufacturer had for the manufactured article. into this country in such abundance as to threaten the Whatever gave a monopoly to one, would give the same exclusion of its more useful and substantial manufactures. monopoly to the other. And the only cause that could They injuriously affect the industry, not only of the mado this was a war with England. In that case, the pro- nufacturing, but of the agricultural States, and they cause tection of the raw and of the manufactured article would a continual drain of specie. The prohibiting their imbe mutually beneficial to manufacturer and producer. portation, except for exportation, would, we apprehend,

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Virton] was correct be attended with salutary effects upon the cultivators and in his deduction that this duty was a protection. It was manufacturers of the staple of the South.” about the ordinary standard of a revenue duty, viz. twen- In the report of the Committees on Commerce and Maty per cent. Besides, he would like to know on which nufactures, at the same session of Congress at which this of the principles ordinarily advocated by that gentleman duty was laid, it was expressly stated that it would be he would desire to exclude cotton from a protective duty, one of the beneficial results of fostering the cotton manufor the purpose of producing an importation of the article facture in this country, that it would increase the confrom the East Indies. He called upon the gentleman to sumption for American cotton. Nothing is therefore more show that he was not actuated by any personal hostility certain than that, at the period when the protecting duty or enmity toward those whose misfortune he might say it was laid, it was intended, as one object, to shut out India was to live in the Southern States. According to no sys- cotton, in the form of the fabric; and the reasons of politem of morals that he ever heard of, would the conduct of cy which connected the two objects then, exist now. others, however wrong it might be, afford justification to But I have other reasons for not disturbing this duty on him in abandoning bis own principles. The gentleman's cotton. Its history entitles it to respect. It is a curious opposition could, so far as lie perceived, be traced to no history, and less known than it ought to be. The genprinciple but that of retaliation (he would not say vin- tleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,) thoroughly dictive retaliation, though that, perhaps, would not be too acquainted as he is with all these matters, had asked strong an expression) upon those whose course might whether there was, by the existing laws, any duty on be considered as opposite to the interests of the gerile- foreign coton imported. I will therefore recall the man's constituents. According to the doctrine of the gen. manner in which this duty was laid, to the recollection of tleman from South Carolina, cotton was as fair a subject the House. for a revenue duty as any other article, and a duty of two The manufacture of cotton is as old as the earliest setcents could not be called exorbitant. On the principles tlements of America; not, of course, its manufacture in of protection, such a duty might perhaps confine the ma- mills, and with machinery, (which is an invention of the nufacturers to the use of American cotton. But if the last sixty years,) but the household manufacture. Nineprice of cotton should rise, this specific duty of two cents tenths of the population of the country, not merely the might come to be equal to an ad valorem duty of only poorest portion of the inhabitants, but the substantial ten per cent., or even less than that. Mr. B. would ap- yeomanry, were from the first clothed in homespun. Cotpeal to the gentleman from Ohio to review his course, and ton fabrics, it is true, were much less worn then than at act more in consistency with his own principles. If cer- the present day; sheetings and shirtings of that material tain gentlemen from the South chose, in the loftiness of were much less used; but various articles of clothing their mind, to abandon all protection; if they chose to be were made of cotton, and of cotton and woollen mixed, so very magnaninious as to give up all, Mr. B. could not besides its use in other parts of domestic economy. Just go with them. He was for putting a revenue duty on before the adoption of the constitution, cotton mills were this Southern product; and if protection should be the established in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, result, he thought his constituents entitled to it. As a New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and perhaps in other Southern man, he asked it. If others abandoned it out States. They were aided by State bounties, by the efof magnanimity, he should not. He was sent there to forts of patriotic associations, and by duties laid by the take care of his constituents, not to surrender their inte. States upon the importation of cotton fabrics. Such was

Nor did he see on what principle the gentleman the state of things when the constitution went into operafrom Ohio could resist the duty, unless on the naked tion in 1789; there was a very extensive household manuprinciple of retaliation.

facture of cotton, and the manufacture with machinery Mr. E. EVERETT said he should vote against the re-was daily increasing: consideration. He should vote against reducing the duty Now, what was done by the first revenue law passed on imported cotton, for the same reason that he had vot- under the Government-the second law passed under ed, and should continue to vote, against reducing the the constitution? Cotton, as a raw material, was left in duty on imported cotton fabrics. In fact, the same gene the bill, as it went through the House of Representatives, ral principles applied, with a great degree of similarity, among the free articles. Though a little had been raised in the two cases. When the protecting duty on cotton in some of the Southern States, it was not known as a fabrics was laid, in 1816, that duty was not intended for staple product, nor as an article of exportation. All the the benefit of the manufacturer alone: the interest of the cotton used in the country, for household or other manu. planter was also consulted. This has been controverted factures, (except in the immediate neighborhood of those on this floor; but I know it to be true. I do not pretend spots where the small quantity alluded to was produced,) to speak of the motives of the Southern members who was imported from the West Indies and the Spanish voted for the minimum duty on cottons in 1816, (a duty Main. As the bill passed the House of Representatives, avowedly asked for as a prohibitory duty,) but I know that this foreign raw material for clothing was allowed to be the manufacturers, who petitioned for that duty, urged, imported duty free. It then cost about one-third of a in favor of it, that its effect would be to shut out a fo- dollar per pound. In the Senate, by way of amendment, reign material, as well as a foreign manufacture. In the a duty of three cents per pound was laid upon foreign memorial of the manufacturers of cotton in Massachu- cotton. This was done, not' to encourage, but to create setts, in 1815, it is said that.

the culture. It was purely a speculative duty. It was “The articles, whose prohibition we pray for, are not asked for (as my constituents are compelled to ask made of very inferior materials, and are manufactured in the continuance of duties, on the faith of which their

rests.

FEB. 19, 1833.)

The Tariff Bill.

[H. OF R.

[ocr errors]

establishments had been created) to keep them from tinued willing to lay a tax of three cents per pound on breaking down, but it was asked for to enable the South- every yard of coarse homespun cotton cloth; nay, upon ern planters to introduce the culture of cotton.

the wicks of the candles by which the poor farmer and When the bill came back to the House of Representa- his family spun and wove this cloth, in the long winter tives with its amendments, the amendment in question evenings, in order that their plantations might whiten was supported by Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, on the with this beautiful product. From the last named peground that “cotton was in contemplation,” as an article riod, and after the skill of a New England mechanist had of produce, by the planters of South Carolina and Geor-presented the South with the saw-gin, the duty was progia; and that “if good seed could be procured, he hoped bably for a long time of no consequence. But at the it might succeed.” On this hope the duty was laid. In present prices of the cottons of other countries, it is now this patriotic contemplation, the first Congress laid a duty again unquestionably protective. The gentleman from of about ten per cent. on the raw material of some of the Georgia (Mr. Warne] told us that he had price currents most necessary articles of clothing--a duty which was felt before him, that made a duty of two cents per pound in every farm house and cottage from Maine to Virginia, amount to forty or fifty per cent. Three cents per pound and from the sea to the mountains-a duty asked for by is therefore sixty or seventy-five per cent. This is surely Southern Senators and Representatives, to encourage a protecting duty. The gentleman from North Carolina Southern products. What renders more striking the (Mr. Barringer) says that one-third of the consumpgood care which the South then took to protect her in- tion of Europe is of cotton not raised in the United States. dustry, although at the expense of that of the North, in Our consumption is exclusively of our native cotton. the present case, is, that the duties laid by the same bill Why should not one-third of our consumption be of Braon imported cottons were actually less than those which zilian, Egyptian, and East India cotton? There is a some of the States had laid under the old confede- small quantity imported and wrought up even with the ration.

burden of the duty, enormous as it is even on the foreign This was severely felt by the infant establishments for article. A great deal more is imported and re-exported. manufacturing cotton; and when General Hamilton, in (It would of course stay here and be wrought up, but for December, 1791, made his celebrated report on manufac- the duty. Sir, take off the duty, and a considerable quantures, he stated that “the present duty of three cents tity would be imported. The freight even from the East per pound on the foreign raw material was undoubtedly Indies is not much greater than from New Orleans. a very serious impediment to the manufactures of cotton," Now, it is true that some gentlemen from the South, and that "a repeal of it is indispensable" to their pros on this floor, reject this duty. I would not insist upon perity. Did the South respond to this appeal? did they their taking it against their own wishes. I would not agree to remove this “serious impediment” to the manu- proceed on what the gentleman from North Carolina calls facture of a necessary part of the clothing of the poor? an vindictive motives. I would not take this duty from impediment arising from a protecting duty, asked for as them, because they propose and endeavor to take our such, by themselves, to enable them to introduce a staple protecting duties from us. But if they did not want it, I as yet only contemplated? I find no trace of such agree would not force them to have it. If the South was unani. ment, and the duty remained.

mous, whatever I might think of their policy, I should Let it not be thought that this was a momentary thing. be disposed to let them have their own way. But they The cotton plant was acclimated very slowly in our South- are not unanimous. Louisiana wishes the continuance of ern States. Although it had been known there as early this duty. With that State the part of the country where as 1740, or earlier, yet, in 1784, a small quantity, of Ame- I live carries on a commerce advantageous to us, and prorican growth, which had found its way to Liverpool in a fitable, I hope, to them. They take our manufactures, vessel from the United States, was seized, on the ground our fish, our oil. We take their sugar and their cotton. that it must have come from the Islands. In 1789, as we the interchange is mutually beneficial. We are satishave seen, the Southern members only contemplated and fied with it on both sides. We want no change. The hoped it success, as a staple product; and as late as 1794, cotton is cheap enough: ten cents per pound is little when Chief Justice Jay negotiated his treaty, he inserted enough; and so is six and a quarter for the yard of clothi cotton with molasses, sugar, coffee, and cocon, as articles made from it. I will not lend a hand to the trying of any supposed to be all exclusively of colonial produce, which experiments to make them cheaper. These interests American vessels should not be permitted to carry from are too vast to try experiments. The annual value of the the United States to Europe; it not being intended to cotton fabrics of the United States is 32,000,000 dollars, allow to our vessels the carrying trade between the West a sum equal to the value of the cotton crop. I wonder Indies and any ports but our own. It could not, accord- that gentlemen, who consider how cheap the various ingly, have been within the knowledge, either of Chief articles manufactured are, should wish to tamper with it. Justice Jay or the British minister, as late as 1794, that The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. BARRINGER) cotton was an article raised for exportation in this coun- said the duty on cotton was nominal, and added nothing try. But two years later than this, I find this duty still to the price. And what, I ask, does a duty of seven and considered and retained as a protecting duty on cotton. a half cents per square yard add to the price of an article In 1796, a memorial was presented to the House of Re- that sells for six and a quarter? We do not want the duty presentatives, from the proprietors of a cotton mill on the to add to the price of that class of fabrics. We want it to Brandywine, praying for the repeal of the duty on the raw keep the market steady; to keep out foreign trash sold material, and the increase of the duty on cotion fabrics. at auctions; to prevent great fluctuation. And it is want

The prayer of the petitioners was rejected by the Com-ed for the raw niaterial as well as for the fabric. If the mittee on Commerce and Manufactures, on the grounds whole South wished the duty removed on their staple, I that the then existing duty on the imported fabric afford-would gratify them: though in three years they would ed sufficient protection," and that' to repeal the duty feel the difference, to their cost. But when a large part on raw cotton imported would be to damp the growth of the South ask to have it kept on, I will not agrec to of cotton in our own country.” This committee con- repeal it. On the contrary, if any gentleman will move sisted of a member from Pennsylvania, South Carolina, to put it back to three cents, he shall have my vote. North Carolina, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia, Mr. HALL, of North Carolina, made some remarks, and Maryland. These facts show the light in which this but what they were, or on which side, cannot be stated, duty was regarded by Southern members of Congress. as not one word was audible at our reporter's table. They prove that, at least for seven years, the South con- Mr. BLAIR, of South Carolina, said that he should

H. or R.]
The Tariff Bill.

(FEB. 19, 1833. vote against the reconsideration. He was unwilling to treated as well as the other States. He had heard nodisturb the duty as it now stood, and should vote against thing said about touching the duty on tobacco; and why any reduction of it. He did not consider that duty as reduce it on cotton? The duty on tobacco was merely sanctioning, by any fair inference, the policy of protec. nominal, but Mr. T. was far from asking to have it taken tion. That policy, according to the general understand. off. This, however, he would say, that if cotton must go, ing, was comparatively modern. It had not commenced tobacco must go with it. till 1816. But this duty on cotton was of old standing, Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, said he should vote for and had been laid long before. If its effect should now the reconsideration, and this on very obvious principles. be to produce protection to the raw material, he thought The Committee of the Whole and the House had denied they of the South were entitled to it on the ground of to the manufacturing interest a protection above 20 per seniority. They had a right to plead something like an cent. And it was a principle recognised as sound by the act of limitation.

South, that the raw material ought not to be taxed higher Mr. BURD observed that the gentleman from Ohio than the manufactured article. Now he asked gentle. [Mr. Vixton) had said, that if gentlemen from the South men for the same rule on cotton as they had applied to were not willing to protect themselves, he would help cotton goods. Ninety thousand bales of cheap cotton had them to throw down the fence. Mr. B. would act upon been imported in one year, costing from 4 to 6 cents. a higher rule. He would endeavor to do as he would be Now let gentlemen go to the foreign market, and assess done by. The gentleman had said, let the foreigner the price there, not here. This East India cotton cost in come in, and the House would see their need of protec- India only 4 cents. A specific duty of 2 cents amounted tection, and they would come and petition for it; and to 50 per cent. Yet manufactured cotton was to be put that then the gentleman would grant it to them. Mr. B. at 20 per cent., while the raw material was at 50. Was thought the House ought to be governed by no such mo- that the gentleman's way of equalizing duties? Besides, tive. However just retaliation might be towards ene- this duty was specific. But when the manufacturer asked mies, he could not view the people of the South as enemies, for a square yard duty, no such thing must be heard of. and he was not willing to retaliate upon his brethren. If It was unjust; it was deceptive; it was defrauding the they were deluded, he was sorry for it, but could not help public. Why did not all this apply to a specific duty on it. He should be pleased to see them protected. He cotton? He invited gentlemen to preserve some little hoped their views would soon become more correct; and consistency. When he looked at the planting interests, that they would view those measures as just and beneficial he found them all protected. Coal, cotton, flour, tobacwhich they now erroneously believed to be grinding them co; all were protected by high duties. Manufactured to the dust.

Mr. B. thought they were wholly mistaken; tobacco was covered by a duty of 10 cents a pound; he did not consider them as oppressed at all. He was a four by a duty of 50 cents the cwt.; and coal by a duty friend to the protective system, and was decidedly in favor of 6 cents the bushel. These were the staples of the of continuing the discriminating policy. He hoped the country; every one of them protected in the amplest House would not reconsider.

manner. And the Southern gentlemen came forward and Mr. THOMAS, of Louisiana, said that, lest it might be cried out loudly against the protecting policy, and even thought that all the cotton-growing States were of one insisted that it was a just cause for dividing the Union. opinion as to this duty, he wished to say a few words. They had had the benefit of all these high duties, and He found that the most southern State in the Union was now, forsooth, they despised protection. The gentleman in favor of the protective policy, while the most eastern from South Carolina said that he had despised this duty for was the advocate of free trade, while the States between protection. It was time this thing was understood. The were some of one opinion, and some of the other. For gentleman from South Carolina had said that this was a himself, he had always been of one and the same opinion. revenue duty. The time had now come which Mr. D. He had fought to win our liberties, and after they were had long predicted. They had at length arrived at a test won, he had always held that our country ought to be in- question on revenue. Mr. D. asked whether a duty was dependent as well as free; and that this would never be a revenue duty merely because it was assessed, or because the case until we were able to work up the raw material it actually produced revenue. Which of these two senses of our own raising, and to sell in its manufactured state to was the true one? Which addressed itself to common foreigners. Then the country would be not only free, sense? Mr. D. maintained that no duty was a revenue but independent. Mr. T. liad not changed his opinion: duty unless it produced revenue-unless it brought moand he held himself bound to say in his place, speaking, ney into the treasury. If gentlemen would look to the as he did, for the State of Louisiana, that she considered table of imports, they would find that the treasury bad the duty on cotton as a great thing. What would be the realized from this duty of three cents a pound on raw condition of the planters there if it should be taken off ? cotton, some three or four, or at most five thousand dolThey had the finest cotton country in the world hanging lars. Yet the gentleman from South Carolina got up, and just above them on the Red river, and the removal of the gravely told the House that it was a revenue duty. What duty could not but be attended with the most serious in-character of revenue bad it? Let not the House be de jury. He was not for letting all Texas into our market. ceived by names. Revenue meant money. What was it Let Texas hunt out a market for herself, as Louisiana bad levied for? Why was the duty put at 20 per cent.! Would to do. Let us keep the home market for ourselves. We gentlemen call it a revenue duty because it equalized reought to proceed on the same principles as every cautious venue? They must know that a duty of 20 per cent. and economical family did. They looked first after them- would raise revenue on some articles, but more on others. selves, and then helped their neighbors. He asked, who This was the doctrine of Mr. Huskisson. He had said came first to the New Orleans market? The American that in England 15 per cent. was enough. Why? Bemerchant. Who gave the best price? The American cause in England that was protection. So was the duty merchant. He had often heard of the price declining, of three cents a pound on cotton. If it should be put at but never of its rising. By our present policy, an amount 20 per cent., it would not be with a view to enrich the of eight or nine millions of dollars was secured to the treasury. It would be imposed for protection. Let things American planter. Was this nothing? He thought it have their right names. A duty was not either more or was something. And he hoped it would not be given up. less a revenue measure, for being made equal to the duty

If, however, any State wished herself excluded from on other articles. Mr. D. protested against considering this benefit, he was for granting her the privilege. He this as a revenue duty, as being a false assumption. It was might be mistaken, but he hoped Louisiana would be no revenue duty at all,

« ZurückWeiter »