صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[blocks in formation]

time, a destructive drain of specie from this country. Many of them must soon be redeemed in cash. Dividends or interest must be paid on all:-thus carrying off our specie, and giving foreigners control over the funds and resources of the nation. If this be not literally mortgaging the country, to purchase British goods, I know not what would be. Sir, these transfers are a mere palliative remedy: it postpones, a little longer, the dreadful day of account; but will render the final destruction as much more extensive, as it will be more certain.

Mr. Crawford, then Secretary of the Treasury, in the year 1820, estimated the whole metallic currency of the United States, at $20,000,000. Notwithstanding these enormous transfers of stocks, it has probably increased but very little since that time. What, then, is our situation ?Should I hazard any thing in saying-it then appears that our country is permanently mortgaged to England, in an amount exceeding $40,000,000-twice the amount of the whole metallic currency of the country; and that we are now going on to make our condition still worse, at the rate of, probably, not much less than $5,000,000, yearly. Whatever inferences may be drawn from the general balances of trade,these facts prove, beyond all controversy, that the trade with that nation is, to the people, a most ruinous one.

But Mr. Chairman, there is another view of this subject, still more interesting and important to my constituents. I have no desire to make the condition of others worse, but I have a desire to improve our own. It will be seen that the proportion of this general evil falls, with a grossly unequal weight, on the Middle States particularly.

[MARCH 27, 1828.

sonable that we should endeavor to relieve ourselves of a
burthen which hangs so heavily upon us? So far from
being surprised that our situation is as bad as it is, I am almost
astonished that it is not much worse. Sir, nothing but the
energies, and long enduring patience of a magnanimo us
and free people could have sustained you so long.
Can a commerce, so grossly unequal— so palpably in-
jurious to my constituents, be tolerated for a longer time
than till the present course of it can be arrested, without
inflicting a still deeper injury upon the country?-For
this evil, there is not-there cannot be any other remedy
than a curtailment of this trade to England :—a diversion
of a portion of the capital now employed in it, to the bu-
siness of manufacturing-thus dividing the labors of our
own citizens, and creating a market at home for the pro-
ductions of our farms-and thus meeting that nation with
the same measures she has held out to us. A tariff' is the
only mean to accomplish these great purposes-yes, sir,
"a judicious tariff"-(I use the words of another man ; for
no other phrase now occurs to me, which would so well
express my meaning) of duties-so low as not entirely to
exclude foreign competition; and so high as not to admit
it injuriously. Should your duties be graduated upon too
low a scale, they will be of no service to the manufactu-
rer or the people; should they reach a point so high as
not to be justified by the present production of domestic
woollen fabrics, they would operate as a grievous tax up-
on the public-produce manufacturing monopolies-and
such a scene of speculation, fraud, and imposition, as this
country never yet witnessed, and, I trust, never will. I
admit that such an adjustment of duties requires the deli-
cate hand of a master. But, however delicate may be
the task, I deem it the duty of this committee to attempt
it; and I trust that there is sufficient talent and experi
ence here to perform it beneficially for the public interest.
Lest an improper inference should be drawn from these
remarks, permit me to observe, that, whatever may have
the ridiculous vanity and folly of puffing any idle preten
sions of my own. Had such not have been the case, I
should blush to acknowledge the feebleness of the effort
which I am now endeavoring to make, for the benefit of
my constituents.

I have already stated, that the value of foreign imported articles consumed in the United States, was, in 1826, $60,434,865; the whole population was about 11,500,000: the consumption, therefore, amounted to $5 25 and a fraction, per head. The population of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary-been my other foibles, I have, at least, been exempt from land, Ohio, and Kentucky, in 1826, was about 7,000,000. Their average quantity of consumption would, therefore, be nearly $37,000,000. These States exported in 1826, of domestic articles, the value of $24,854,490-leaving a balance against them of $12,145,510, in a single year. Take from this sum $2,000,000, as a probable part of the produce of those States included in the exports of Louisi ana, and still there will remain a balance of $10,145,510. Some part of this may be made up to us by the profits on exports, and some by the coasting trade, but nothing like the whole.

Since the year 1792, our free white population has increased, from about 3,400,000, to about 9,500,000. Our capacity to produce bread-stuffs has increased in, probably, a much greater degree, and yet our exports of flour are now but very little greater than at that time. The vast armies of Europe, who, not long since, were our consumers, have been disbanded, and have now become producers. In England, with whom our trade, in woollen goods alone, amounts to nearly $10,000,000 annually, our breadstuffs are admitted only when her subjects are in a state bordering upon starvation. In 1826 the whole exports of our flour and Indian corn, to " England, Man, and Berwick, were valued at $86,122 only. All the exports to Great Britain and Ireland, in 1826, were valued at $20,413,216; the imports from them to this country, $26,131,969: balance in their favor, $5,718,753. Of the exports, the value of $18,871,254 consisted of the productions of the Southern States, almost exclusively-leaving to all the Northern and Middle States, as their share in the whole export, $1,541,962, while we consume much the largest proportion of the imports!

دو

Mr. Chairman: We are here met by an argument which strikes at the foundation of the whole system of protection. The constitutional power of Congress to impose duties on rival articles, for the encouragement of our own manufactures, is denied. To this subject I will devote a mo. ment. It will be admitted that the law of nations is binding even upon us; and it certainly will not be contended that our constitution was formed with any view of exempting us from its obligations. What are those obligations on this subject?" Society being established with the view that each may procure whatever things are necessary to his own perfection and happiness, and a home trade being the means of obtaining them, the obligations to carry on and improve this trade are derived from the very contract on which society was formed. In fine, this commerce being of advantage to the nation, it is obliged, as a duty to itself, to render it flourishing.”—(Vattel, Law of Nations.)

Whatever might have been thought of his politics atterwards, the celebrated report on manufactures, made by ALEXANDER HAMILTON, in 1791, while he was Secretary of the Treasury, under General WASHINGTON, is admitted, by all political parties, to be one of the ablest productions of the age. On the subject of a domestic market, he says: "To secure such a market, there is no other expedient than to promote manufacturing establishments. Manufacturers, who constitute the most numerous class, after the cultivators of land, are, for that reason, the principal consumers of the surplus of their labor."

This is a concise, and, I humbly think, an unexaggerted view of our situation. Will it can it longer be I cannot conceive by what process of fair reasoning the endured? Can our southern brethren suppose it unrea-power to "regulate commerce," which is expressly given

[blocks in formation]

to Congress by the constitution itself, can be limited to the imposition of duties for the purposes of revenue only. This subject was incidentally discussed, in the debates of those conventions which were called in the several States, to deliberate upon the propriety of adopting the present constitution; but, perhaps, at no other time so directly, and never more ably, than by one of the members of the convention of Massachusetts. Should I attempt to tell you, in my own language, what the purport of his argument was, I should do injustice to the ability with which he advocated the grant of this authority to Congress. I will, therefore, give you some of his own words. It will be seen that he was speaking of the powers proposed to be given to Congress, as they are enumerated in the constitution.

[H. OF R.

Many of the members of the first Congress had assisted in framing the constitution, and this preamble evidently refers to the prominent reasons for its adoption. When we look at the act, and examine the rate of duties, we find them so small that we are compelled to consider the preamble and act rather as a response to public expectation-a small commencement of a system-a pledge of what Congress intended-than the actual performance of any thing approaching the effectual encouragement and protection of manufactures. Congress has acted upon this principle ever since. The policy has been strongly and re peatedly recommended by Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. It has received the legal sanc. tion of the judiciary: but, what is of more importance, it has been sanctioned by the people, since the formation of the government, till the present day. We, therefore, have, on this side of the question, the general obligation of society-the original intention of the advocates for the adoption of the constitution-the expression of the constitution itself-the continued sanction of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the government, and a majority of the people. If all these cannot settle a question of constitutional power, necessarily identified with the very independent existence of the nation, I should beg to know what would. [Mr. RANDOLPH said, in an under tone, "this would not settle it "] Mr. FoRWARD proceeded :

"Mr. Dawes said, he thought the powers in the paragraph, under debate, should be fully vested in Congress. We have suffered, said he, for want of such authority in the federal head. This will be evident, if we take a short view of our agriculture, cominerce, and manufactures. Our agriculture has not been encouraged by the imposition of national duties on rival produce: nor can it be, so long as the several States may make contradictory laws." As to commerce, it is well known that the different States now pursue different systems of duties, in regard to each other. By this, and for want of general laws of prohibition through the Union, we have not secured even our own domestic traffic that passes from State to State. Are we to be told, at this time of day, that an instrument This is contrary to the policy of every nation on earth." penned by our fathers, who are not less famed for their "Our manufacturers are another great subject, which has wisdom than their patriotism--an instrument which passreceived no encouragement by national duties on foreign ed the ordeal of the most critical scrutiny in thirteen manufactures and they never can, by any authority in States-is totally inadequate to one of the very purposes, the old confederation. It has been said, that no country and one of the most important, too, for which it was incan produce manufactures until it be overstocked by intended? If such were, indeed, the fact, then would your habitants. It is true the United States have employment, fathers deserve the reproach of stupidity which envious except in the winter, for their citizens, in agriculture- foreigners cast upon their name! If it were a fact, that the most respectable employment under Heaven: but it your government has not the right to protect the industry is now to be remembered that, since the old confedera of its own citizens, against the selfishness of foreign tion, there is a great emigration of foreign artizans hither, legislation-against British rapacity-then, truly, would some of whom are left here by the armies of the last war, it more than inerit the sheers of the monarchist who and others, who have more lately sought the new world, tells you "it is good for nothing." Sir, it would indeed from hopes of mending their condition: these will not be worth far less than nothing! change their employments. Besides this, the very face of The memorial of the merchants of Philadelphia states, our country leads to manufactures. Our numerous falls of that "gold and silver are articles of merchandise, equally water, and places for mills, where paper, snuff, gunpow. with cotton and tobacco." I will not dispute about this der, iron, and numerous other articles are prepared: these abstract proposition, but I deny totally its application to the will save us immense sums of money, that would other question now pending. I beg leave again to refer to the au wise go to Europe. The question is, have these been en-thority which I have just quoted. It is universally admitted couraged? Has Congress been able, by national laws, to prevent the importation of such foreign commodities as are made from such raw materials as we ourselves raise? It is alleged, that the citizens of the U. States have contracted debts, within the last three years, with the subjects of Great Britain, to the amount of near six millions of dollars, and that, consequently, our lands are mortgag. ed for that sum. So Corsica was once mortgaged to the Genoese merchants, for articles which her inhabitants did not want, or which they could have made themselves, and she was afterwards sold to a foreign power. If we wish to encourage our own manufactures-- o preserve our own commerce-to raise the value of our lands, we must give Congress the powers in question."

Mr. Chairman: I am not a very great stickler for prece lents, but, so far as precedent can go, on this point, we have it.

At the first meeting of the first Congress, after the constitution was adopted, the very first act which was pass ed, laying duties on imports, contained the following preamble:"Whereas it is necessary for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and merchandises imported."-(Vol. 2, page 2, Laws U. S.)

to be one of great weight; and I presume that weight will not be considered as any thing less, from the fact that it is not predicated upon any direct interest in the event of the measure proposed. It is the result of common sense and experience in every country.

"The conductor of a nation ought to take particular care to encourage the commerce that is of advantage to his people, and to suppress or lay restraints upon that which is to their disadvantage. Gold and silver being become the common standards of the value of all articles of commerce, the trade that brings into the state a greater quantity of these metals than it carries out, is of advantage; and on the contrary, that is ruinous which causes more gold and silver to be sent abroad than it brings home." Vattel's Law of Nations.)

But, sir, the merchants of Boston do not stop here. They assert that the "export of specie, so far from being prejudicial, is advantageous to a country." Yes, sir, my constituents are informed by these Boston merchants, that carrying the gold and silver of this, into a foreign country, is an advantage to them!-And this is an argument against a tariff!-In fact, it is the main argument; and, unless it can be sustained, a tariff must be adopted in justice to ourselves. I will not anticipate the answer of my constituents. But what are the consequences of this exporta.

H. OF R.]

Tariff Bill.

[MARCH 27, 1828.

tion of specie?-Depreciation of the value of property, or free trade-aye, and if gentlemen choose, of "sailors' appreciation of the value of money-embarrassment,bank-rights," also. If, however, any gentlemen will reflect ruptcy, and distress of the country! But these are advantages! They may be-but to whom are they so?-To the speculator--the harpy, that preys upon the spoils of the industrious and honest citizen.

[Here Mr. McDUFFIE rose, and said, he hoped the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. F.] would give way to a motion for the committee to rise. He said, that he observed a dwelling-house, in the city, on fire; and that, perhaps, the members of the House might render somewhatever may be the abstract doctrine in favor of unassistance. Mr. F. accordingly yielded the floor-the committee rose, and then the House adjourned.]

Next day, the House having met, and resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. F. resumed his remarks, and said

but a moment, he will discover that an unlimited freedom of trade cannot exist, unless by a general commercial league amongst all the nations of the earth. This state of things never did, and certainly never will exist, until the millenium. If it should even be adopted now, it is liable to be interrupted by war, which would render the league itself futile. On this subject, Mr. Monroe, in his message to Congress, in the year 1822, observes: "Satisfied I am restricted commerce, provided all nations would concur in it, and it was not liable to be interrupted by war, (which has never occurred, and cannot be expected,) that there are reasons applicable to our situation and relations with other countries. which impose on us the obMr. Chairman: Of the well-poised antitheses, and sono ligation to cherish and sustain our manufactures." rous periods of the orator, I know nothing but their What is implied by free trade? Is it not a complete renames. Yesterday, I had, therefore, the honor of present-ciprocity of commercial rights and privileges? If so, is there ing to the committee a few remarks relative to the mat- any freedom of trade when the odds are all against us? If ters under discussion, in my own plain manner. I then we cannot obtain this complete reciprocity, I wish to apstated the reasons which induced me to mingle in this de- proach as nearly to it as possible. The only mean of dobate. I related some historical facts, touching the "Wool-ing so is to meet foreign restrictions and embarassments lens Bill" of last year. I said something on the subject thrown in our way, by corresponding acts on our part. of commerce, and answered some of the objections against Thus, if we cannot have free trade in its unlimited sense, the tariff policy, when the deliberations of the committee let us approximate it as nearly as circumstances permit, were interrupted by the fire which occurred in the city. by placing our commerce on a footing equal to that of forDoubtless this conflagration proceeded from spontaneous eign nations. If they exclude our agricultural products, combustion, excited amongst the enormous woolsacks from their markets, why not meet them on equal terms, which the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BATES] by an equivalent exclusion? I cannot conceive of any arheaped so profusely up, to assist the British in climbing gument in favor of free trade, which does not necessarily the fence which he had raised with so much labor and in-imply, that the commerce of this country shall be placed genuity across his peninsula. in a situation as propitious for our interest as that of other nations.

Sir, there are still further objections urged, with much earnestness, against this measure. It is said, the manufacturers have set forth their own distress, and made out their own case upon their own testimony. True-and who but the manufacturers should do it? Who else can be expected to do it?-except, perhaps the philanthropists: and it would seem that, in the opinions of some gentlemen, they are much more likely to take care of their own, than the pecuniary interests of others. What would be the effect of a rule adopted by this House, that no citizen should be heard upon a petition in his own behalf? -At this rate, the more extensive the distress, the more distant would be the prospect of relief; and if all the people of the nation should join in one unanimous request, their case would be altogether desperate. I cannot as sent to this mode of reasoning. To suppose that a few individuals may be corrupt, is not so uncommon as to exceed belief: but to suppose that a large body of your citizens, scattered over a great extent of territory, should conspire together to effect an evil purpose, by misrepretation, perjury, and subornation of perjury, is presuming rather violently for the credit of our common country.

Again: It is said your revenues will be diminished. For mer experience does not justify this conclusion. But suppose it true. Shall we continue, to its present extent, our trade with a nation whose policy it is, to "sell all and buy nothing," for fear our revenues might be affected? However paradoxical it may seem, I have often doubted whether our revenues were not too large. Has not some of the extravagance complained of by the people proceeded from this cause? At all events, your revenues are too great, unless they can be expended for better purposes than some I could mention; and, if I wanted an example, I should be under no necessity of travelling very far to find it-(casting a glance around the splendid and inconvenient hall of the House of Representatives.)

Sir, when the subject of protecting our manufactures is spoken of, it is not uncommon to hear a lecture upon free trade. I profess to be an advocate (feeble it is true) of

Again, sir it is asserted that all duties are taxes on the people. But this assertion is sustained by no fact, and cannot be upheld by even a plausible theory. A duty may operate as a tax upon consumption, or it may not. In settling that question, these circumstances must be considered :-whether the article upon which the duty is to be levied be produced at home?-if so, what is the quantity of that production, and the capacity to increase it? What would be thought of the wisdom or sincerity of that man, who should gravely inform my constituents that they pay a tax of twenty-five cents on every bushel of wheat; ten cents per bushel on oats; and ten cents per bushel on potatoes they consume; because duties of these amounts are imposed for the benefit of the farmer, on those articles when imported? Yet, those who hold that all duties are taxes, are compelled to maintain these absurdities, and hundreds of others of the same kind.

Where an article cannot be supplied at home, and must, therefore, necessarily be imported, it will then be reached by the law; and the duty will be altogether, or in part, at least, a tax. But does not every person know that, whenever you exclude from the market all, or any portion of any foreign article, that can be procured at home, supplying a substitute of domestic growth or manufacture, to the extent of the deficiency thus created, becomes a business with our own citizens; and that competition almost immediately reduces the price down to the very lowest rate at which the article can be afforded; and this rate cannot, in the nature of things, have even the slightest reference to the duty imposed? This assertion has been triumphantly refuted by the honorable Chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, as well as by other gentlemen in the course of this debate. I will not trouble you with any repetition of their ideas. The clamor about taxation, I am compelled to think, is calculated to mislead public opinion. I am as much opposed to taxation as any man can be; and it is because I am opposed to it that I desire to assist the American manufac

MARCH 27, 1828.]

Tariff Bill.

[H. OF R.

furer in his struggle for a share of his own market. has now the means of furnishing us with woollens to the value of $20,000,000. As I have already mentioned, England furnishes the value of about $10,000,000. Should our own manufacturer sink, our importations of woollen goods must, therefore, immediately increase to the amount of about $30,000,000. What would be the effect of this, in the present situation of our commerce with that country, may easily be inferred from the statement already given. Distress, bankruptcy, and ruin, to the Northern and Middle States, must be amongst the awful conse-shall amount to fifty cents specific. Of these proposiquences.

He, occasion of difference, between the friends of the bill an amendment.

Sir, I am credibly informed, that woollen goods are now selling in our market, at prices below what can be afforded. This is occasioned by the present foreign and domestic competition. It is a struggle almost for life and death. Who shall have the advantage-the Americans or the British My choice is at once settled in favor of our own people. The British, for the express purpose, as has been alleged, of breaking down the American manufacturer, have been throwing their goods into our markets at a sacrifice. Suppose we suffer the American manufacturer to sink-what then will follow? The British will have the sole command of the market. Then comes the dreadful day of retribution! Then losses must be made up to them. Then they will sell at their own prices and such a tax will be levied upon, and collected from the people of this country, as never, even in the very worst of times, was experienced before. Sir, I am opposed to taxation-but I am most of all opposed to it when the proceeds are to go into the hands of British speculators, and to enrich the coffers of a British treasury. Woollen clothing is one of those absolute necessaries of life, that enters into the concerns of every man in the community. Do you talk about taxing the poor man by a tariff? It is, at best, a fiction of imagination. Sir, I desire, by encouraging a competition, in which, however, I wish our own people to have the advantage, to extend the market for the produce of the farmer, and to enable the poor man to obtain his clothing at the cheapest rates. 1 will not agree to abandon this competition, so advanta. geous to the public, and particularly to the poor; and thus to give the British capitalist the power to speculate upon-to tax-to rob the poor man of his earnings; but what is, if possible, even worse than all this, to carry those earnings into a foreign country, from which they are never to return. But, sir, grant it if you please, that the duty is a tax on imported cloths-and that cloths made at home will cost more than those purchased in England; no man can be so stupid as not to know that it is better to pay five dollars for a yard of cloth, when he has ten dollars to meet the payment, than be required to pay even twenty-five cents per yard, when he has not one cent to do it with.

Te bill proposes a specific duty of seven cents per pond-forty per cent. ad valorem, till the 30th June, 15-8; and an increase of five per cent. per annum, to a maximum of fifty per cent. The amendment, a duty of twenty cents specific upon the pound, exceeding in va lue eight cents, at the place whence imported, until the 30th of June, 1828; after which time, an addition of two and one half cents per pound per annum, till the duty

tions, I most decidedly prefer the former. When I con-
template the latter, and see the point at which it com-
mences-the great op ortunity for evasion-the unex-
ampled procrastinati of its effects-it looks so much
like a total abandonment of the interests of the farmer,
that I will not, I cannot support it. Sir, is not his labor
worthy of protection! Do not the farmer and mechanic
stand at the foundation of this republic? Do not their
breasts form the great bulwark of its defence? May they
not be considered as almost the only producers of all the
wealth of society? With them, and with them only,
dwells that virtue, which must shield this country from
the unholy and remorseless aspirations of ambition. Are
not all, or nearly all the expenses of this government,
ultimately paid by them? Do you boast of the military
and naval glory of your country? Who met and con-
quered the marshalled hosts of the enemy? Who bore
your triumphant banner over the waves of every sea?
These men-I say, emphatically, these men did it, either
in person or by their money. It appears to be almost as
fixed as the unalterable decrees of fate, that they must
either fight, or pay for fighting, the battles of every coun-
try. All other useful classes of society can justly claim
no higher distinction than to be considered their agents;
and should, therefore, be subservient to their interests.
I know there have been men in the world, to whose ears
these truths might be painful. Aye, sir, and the world
has had abundant cause to regret it.

[ocr errors]

Sir, when some other gentlemen have touched upon this part of the argument, it has been more than insinuated, that they were attempting to rouse the feelings, and inflame the passions of the farmer, in order to break down the manufacturer. For myself, I repel such a charge with the indignation it merits. From my earliest youth to the present time, I have been an humble, but unwavering supporter of the American manufacturer. I believed that the prosperity of my country would be advan ced by his success; I believe so still and this is one of the very reasons why I will not agree that he shall be invited to abandon his industrious habits, to plunge into an ocean of speculation. I represent a district, a great part of the population of which is made up of farmers. Because I will not suffer myself and them to be deluded by Sir, I desire to advance the true interests of my consti- a proposed duty, which would, perhaps, be of some sertuents; no clamors in favor of protection on the one hand, vice to their grand-children; and because I seek to deor against taxation on the other, shall drive me from that monstrate their claims to better treatment, am I to be acpurpose; and while I am anxious to accord to the manu-cused of hostility to the manufacturer ? facturer, every fair and reasonable measure for his relief; I will vote for no total prohibition of foreign trade, nor any monopoly of the home market-neither the one nor the other can be at all justified. It is unquestionably true, that the public interest lies between these ex

tremes.

Mr. Chairman, time admonishes me not to enter upon any discussion of the different minima proposed in the bill and amendment. I do not regret it. So much has been said respecting them, and so well and so ably said on both sides, that I fear I should but satirize the subject, were I to ask your attention for any remarks of mine upon it; I shall, therefore, limit myself to a consideration of the proposed duties upon manufactured wool. Indeed these duties seem to have afforded the principal

Sir, in 1820, the number of persons engaged in agriculture, was 3,075,363; those engaged in manufacturing, 349,633; those in commerce, 72,558. They now, probably, bear about the same proportions. Those engaged in woollen manufactures alone, have been estimated at about 100,000. Agriculture and manufactures derive, when properly regulated, a mutual convenience and sup port from each other. Whenever the manufacturer shall separate himself from the farmer, you will then hear, with too much justice, the argument now used by those opposed to any measures of protection, that they are but a small portion of the nation, asking for laws to promote their own views. But let the farmers and manufacturers be united, and they constitute an overwhelming majority of your citizens. They will then form an irresistible

[blocks in formation]

phalanx, whose labors, strength, and integrity, must accelerate the march of your country, to happiness, prosperity, and glory. Then, instead of pleading for protec tion against the rapacity of foreigners, they will demand and receive it at your hands. It is for these reasons that I am in favor of a duty for the effectual encouragement of the wool grower. I ask that the farmer and manufacturer may receive equal consideration-that their interests may be so harmonized, as that they may be companions instead of enemies. I am not in this case particular as to the precise amount of duty. I desire only that it may be effectual. I intend to show that the domestic production will justify it to any extent. The advocates for this amendment tell us, that the duty on raw wool, proposed in the bill, will operate as a tax on the manufacturer, because the article cannot be procured at home, in quantities sufficient to meet the demand for it. It is admitted, on all hands, that if the domestic supply be sufficient, the duty will, however, be no tax, and will, therefore, serve only as a protection for the wool grower. In this, I am happy to agree with the honorable chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BATES] who, notwithstanding the singularity of his method of illustration, has spoken with much talent and much feeling on the subject generally. On this point, however, I have heard nothing but assertion. When that has been opposed, it has been reiterated without any evidence to sustain it. Sir, I assert, with as much confidence as gentlemen on the other side of the question, that, in my humble opinion, there is that sufficient quantity; and that, therefore, according to their own admissions, repeatedly made, the duty will not be a tax. But being aware that well rounded assertion, and sweeping declamation, will not pass for argument, either before this committee or the country, I shall make it my business to pro, what I have said to be true. If I shall not succeed to the satisfaction of the committee, I am certain I shall approximate it so nearly, as to prove the sincerity of my own convictions, and this will at least be an apology for my error, if I should be mistaken. If my positions be not tenable, I ask that they may be demolished, but that I may be spared. My object is truth, and that only. It will be seen in the course of the argument, that the data from which I have drawn my conclusions are most of them not my own. I must, therefore, be considered merely as casting a few arrows from behind the seven fold shields of champions in our own ranks. If gentlemen, being confident of their strength, "languish for the fight," let not their weapons be hurled against me but let them "toe the mark," in hostile opposition to the broad breast and ponderous strength of Ajax. If, in that contest, they shall be successful, they will then experience the pleasure and the benefit of having over thrown their own friends. Suicide is a deed of so dark a cast, that I cannot suppose any gentleman disposed to try an experiment of that kind. Without giving any opinion of mine upon that part of the bill which relates to cloths, permit me to observe that, if I establish, or shall come any where near establishing, the main fact for which I contend, I shall at once show the utter fallacy of those almost innumerable calculations which have gone abroad, (I will not now conjecture for what purpose,) but which are based upon the talse idea, that the wool which enters into the fabric is to be imported, and that the duty is to be considered part of the cost of the manufactured article. I agree that the manufacturer should be encouraged and protected in producing his cloth; but surely it is no more than reasonable that the farmer should be allowed to furnish the wool. Whenever I am told that the manufacturer must receive his supply of wool from foreign countries, the whole measure loses more than half its interest. Sir, I think I can demonstrate that it is not

[MARCH 27, 1828.

necessary-and if it be not necessary, it is clearly not expedient.

It is this: whether this bill or any other, falling short of To do this, I assume one proposition as self evident. prohibition, pass or not, the market will, at all events, be supplied with woollen goods, of either foreign or domestic manufacture.

ants of the United States at 11,500,000. To be high I have already estimated the whole number of inhabitenough, I will now say, 12,000,000. This is the number agreed upon by the manufacturers themselves. The honorable Chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, and others, estimate the number of sheep at 15,000,000; and these are said to produce two and a half pounds of wool each-equal to 40,000,000 of pounds. Mr. Bristed, as long since as 1818, estimated the number of sheep in the United States at "nearly 20,000,000." Doubtless, they have since been considerably increased, nothwithstanding some measures of government not very propitious for the accomplishment of such an end. should be supposed to treat the subject unfairly, let us But lest I take the statement of the honorable gentleman himself— viz: 15,000,000 of sheep, and 40,000,000 pounds of wool. In England, where the climate nearly corresponds with that of the Northern and Middle States, five pounds of wool per annum has been estimated as the consumption of each inhabitant. This estimate accords exactly with the experience of a number of families in Washington county, Pennsylvania. This experience also corresponds precisely with the estimate made for the United States, by Mr. Coxe, of Philadelphia, in the year 1812-as may be seen in his work on Manufactures. Considering the nature of the climate-the present extended use of cotton, which, in most of the Southern States, has become almost a substitute for woollens, four and a half pounds of wool, for each of the inhabitants south of the Potomac, would certainly afford a most amply supply. According to this calculation, in which I have yielded more to those who differ with me, than I believe truth demands, it would require annually a little less than 55,000,000 of pounds of wool, to clothe the inhabitants of the Union and its territories. In an appendix to a report penned, as I understand, by Mr. Niles, of Baltimore, and published by, or at least under the auspices of, the Harrisburgh Convention, which assembled in July last, I find this expression, (page 65.) "Mr. Way, a dealer in wool, writes from Pittsburgh, that, in 1826, he took in 50,000 pounds weight of wool, at from eighteen to ninety five cents per pound; but, in the present year, for that which he gave eighteen, he has only given twelve and a half to thirteen; and the fine quality, which brought ninety-five has been reduced to fifty cents per pound. He supposes that the stock of wool has very much increased, and that there is enough on hand to keep all the factories in full operation, without importations." This is the language of a man engaged in the very business of which he gives an opinion. His language is adopted and published by men upon whom the manufacturers themselves rely with much confidence, and whom I consider entitled not to the right of dictation, but to much weight, in this question. Well might Mr. Way conclude-and well might the Harrisburgh Convention adopt his conclusion-that there was wool enough on hand to keep all the factories in full operation, without importations; since his statement proves, by the great depreciation of the prices, that the market was glutted with wool. more, unless it be to gratify cupidity, by injuring the buWhy, then, import siness of the wool-grower, and compelling him to sacrifice the fruits of his honest industry? If the observation of Mr. Way were true early in the year 1827, it is now much more so, by reason of the curtailed business of manufacturing. The facts correspond with his statement and this

« السابقةمتابعة »