Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume], March 28, 1832, Image 1

About Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume] (Vandalia, Ill.) 1832-183?

Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

                
ViMULI l WHIG •
IEEIJTRIS IJTTEEEIGEJrCER,
*,__, ..... .. _
PbY MEINRAD GREINER.] WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1832. [NEW SERIES. VOL. I.—NO. II.
THE
Whipsi, and infclligmcer
Is PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY, ON AN IMPERIAL
SHEET, WITH NEV TYPE,
At Two Dollars and. Fifty Cents per annum, payable
in advance, or Four Dollars, if not paid until
the expiration of the year. No subscription received
for a Jess time than six months.
PRICE OF ADVERTISING.
For 15 lines or less, one insertion, $1 00. For every
eubsoquent insertion, 3-7 1-2 cents.
' A liberal deduction made to those who advertise by
the year.
AGENTS
Who are authorised to receive subscriptions aud pay
ments for the Whig and Intelligencer.
Albion, Levi Churchill, P. M.
Atlas, Wm. Ross, P. M.
BluTilale, John JlusscH, P- M.
Belleville, Jas. Mitchell, Esq., P. M
Brownsville, Col. Wm. 11. Neilson.
• Bloomington, Judge Allen, P. M.
Carlyle, Harry YVilton, Esq.
Caledonia, George Cloud, P. M.
Clark County, Win. B. Archer, Esq*
Carmi, Edwin B. Webb, Esq.
Carrolton, Col. John W. Scott.
Charleston, Coles co., Jas. P. Jones, Esq.
Danville, Amos Williams, Esq.
Decatur, Isaac C. Pugh, Esq.
) IOdward-ville, David Prickett, Esq.
Equality, Stephen It; Rowan, Esq.
1'airfield, Sam*l Leech, P. AI.
Frankfort, S. 1ST. Hubbard, Esq.
Galena, Maj. Jas. W. Stephenson.
Golcomla, ('has. Dunn, Esq., P. M
Gilead, John Shaw, P. M.
Greenville, J. B. Rutherford, Esq.
Hillsboro’,.John Tillson, P. M.
Havana, O. M. Ross, P. M.
Jonesboro’, John S Hacker, P. M.
Jocksonville, Wm. Thomas, Esq.
Knox Court House, John G. Sunburn.
Kaskaskia, Sidney Breese, Bsq.
La Salle, James B. Campbell, Esq.
Lebanon, Capt. Adams. ;
, Lawrenceville, Henry M. Gillham Esq.
Lewiston, Fulton co., S. Dewey, P. M.
MoLanesboro’, Jesse C. Lockwood, P. M.
Mount Carmel, Col. Beall.
Mount Vernon, Col. Anderson*
Nashville, Washington co., Col. Philips.
Peoria, N. Hyde, I*. M.
Paris, Col. M. K. Alexander.
Quincy, Thos. Ford, Esq.
ltHshville, Col. 11. Fellows.
St. Louis, Mo. Charless fc Paschal!.
Shelbyvillo, JohnS. Gordon, Esq.
Suiiqri, Rufus Bicker, P. M.
Sylvan Grove, Archibald Job, P. M.
Sbawiicntown, Henry Eddy, Esq.
Vienna, Sam’I J. Chapman, 1*. M.
Wiggin’s Ferry, Samuel C. Christy, P. M.
Waterloo, John D. Whiteside, Esq.
‘ U THOKITY.
-
i
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
MASSED AT THE rrttST SESSION OF THE TWENTY
SECOND CONGRESS.
[Pt'BMC No. i).]
AN ACT making appropriations for the naval service]
for the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty
two.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represen
tatives of the United States of America in Congress as
sembled, That the following sums be appropriated fori
the naval service for the year one thousand eight him- j
dred and thirty-two, viz:
For pay and subsistence of the officers of the navy, I
and the pay of seamen, one million four hundred and]
liine thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven dollars. ]
For pay of superintendents, naval constructors, and
all tin; civil establishments at tin* several yards fifty-;
eight thousand five hundred and thirty dollars.
For provisions, four, hundred and t venty-uino thou
sand one hundred and seventy-five dollars.
For repairs of vessels in ordinary, and the repairs and
■wear and tear of vessels in commission, live hundred and
thirty thousand six hundred and eighty-two dollars.
For medicines and surgical instruments, hospital
stores, and other expenses on account of the sick, twen
ty-live thousand dollars.
-or improvements and necessary repairs of navy
yards, sviz:
For the navy yard at Portsmouth, forty-one thousand
one hundred aud thirty-four dollars.
For the navy yard at Boston, eighty-five ih d
dollars.
* For the navy yard at New-York, seventy-tw'
Rand dollars.
For the navy yard at Philadelphia, ten tl» ‘and six
Band r*»d and eighty-eight dollars.
For the navy yard at Washington, forty-two housand
’ dollars.
For the navy yard at Norfolk, one hundred and tvven
thousand nine hnndred and twenty-three dollars.
\f ForHhe navy yard at Pensacola, twenty-five thousand
* light hundred and fifty dollars.
For ordnaucc and ordnance stores, ten thousand doJ
Jars.
For defraying expenses that may aocrtie for the fol
lowing purposes, viz: For freight and transportation of
materials and stores of every description; for wharfage
and dockage, storage and rent, travelling expenses of
officers, and transportation of seamen, house rent, cham
ber money, and fuel and candles to officers other than
those attached-to navy yards and stations, and for oili-,
cers in sick quarters, where there is no hospital, and for!
funeral expenses; for commissions, clerk hire, and office
fent,stationary, and fuel to navy agents; for premiums
ami incidental expenses of recruiting, for apprehending
deserters; for compensation to judge advocates; for
per diem allowances for persons attending courts mar
tial and courts of inquiry, and for officers engaged in ex
tra service beyond tlu; limits of their stations; for print
ing and stationary of every description, and for books,
maps, charts and mathematical and nautical instru
ments, chronometers, models, and drawings; for pur
chase ami repair of steam and fire engines, and for ma
chines ; for purchases and maintenance of oxen and,
borsrs, and for carts, timber wheels, and workman’s!
tools of every description; for postage of letter? on pub-1
lie service; for pilotage; for cabin furniture of vessels!
in commission, and for furniture of officers’ houses at!
Davy yard*; for taxes on nary yards and public proper-!
ty; for assistance rendered to vessels in distress, for inci
dental labor at navy yards, not applicable to any other
;npropriatioQ; for coal anil other fuel for forges, foun
and steam engines; for candle?, oil, and fuel, for
vet els in commission and in ordinary: for repairs and
MtihVDf taagazioe? *nd powder bouses; for preparing
moulds for ships to be built, and for no other object or
purpose whatsover, two hundred and fifty thousand dol
lars.
For contingent expenses for objects not hereinbefore
enumerated, five thousand dollars.
For the pay of the officers and non-commissioned of
ficers and privates, and for subsistence of the officeT* of
the marine corps, one hundred and eleven thousand five
hundred and sixty-three dollars.
For subsistence for non-comrai'sioned officers, musi
cians, and privates, and washerwomen serving on shore,
eighteen thousand four hundred and thirty-nine dollars.
For clothing, twenty-eight thousand seven hundred
and sixty-five dollars.
For fuel, nine thousand and ninety-eight dollars.
For contingent expenses, fourteen thousand dollars.
For military stores, two thousand dollars.
For medicines, hospital stores, and surgical instru
ments, two thousand three hundred and sixty-nine dol
lars.
Approved, February 24, 1832.
--1———————
CONGRESS*
DEBATE ON THE TARIFF.
IN SEN ATE—Mouday, Jan. 16, 1832.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the
special order of the day, being the followup res
olution submitted by Mr. Clay.
Resolved, That the existing duties upon arti
cles imported from foreign countries, and not com
ing into campefeition with similar articles, madej
or produced within the United States, ougit to|
be forthwith abolished,except the duties on vines
and silks and that they ought to be reduced.
Resolved, That the Committee on Finance re
port a bill accordingly.
M r. Ha yak moved to amend the first resolution,
by striking out all alter the word “couiUna” in
the second line, anc insert the following:
“Be so reduced, that the amount of the public
revenue shall be sufficient to defray the expenses
of government, according to their present scale,
after the payment of the public debt; and tbat.
ai' giving a reasonable time for the gradual reduc
tion, of the present high duties on the articles com
ing into competition with similar articles made or
produced in the United States, the duties he ulti
mately equalized, so that the duties on no articles
shall as compared with the value of that article,
vary materially from the general average.”
Mr. Hayne addressed the Senate in support of
his proposition as follows:
I he Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,/com
menced his remarks a few days ago, by complain
ing of the advances of age, and mourned the de
cay of his eloquence, so eloquently as to ( rove
that it was still in full vigor. lie then went on,
Sir, to make a most able and ingenious argument,
amply sustaining his high reputation as an ac
complished orator.
With this example before me, Mr. President,!
(said Mr. II.) I am almost detcired from offering
any apology, lest I should create expectations
which it will certainly not he in my power to grat
ify. And yet, perhaps, it may be permitted to
one so humble as myself to say, that it belongs
not to me at any time, or under any circumstan
ces, and, least of all, at this moment, and on this
occasion, to satisfy the expectations of those, il
any such there be, who may have come here to
witness the graces of oratory, or to be delighted
with the charms of eloquence. I would not, Sir,
on this occasion, play the orator if I could. I
came here to-day for higher and far nobler purpo
ses. 1 stand on this floor as one of the represen
tatives of a high-minded, generous, and confiding
people, whose dearest rights and interests I am
now to vindicate and maintain. In such a situ
ation, I would lose every thought of myself in the
greatness of the cause. Confiding in the indul
gence of the Senate, and deeply sensible of my
inability to do justice to the inportant subject em
braced in these resolutions, I shall proceed Rt once
in the plain unadorned langnge of soberness and
truth, to the examination of the question before
US.
The gentleman from Kentucky set out with!
the declaration, that he did not deem it necessary |
to offer any arguments in favor of the American
system, “that the protecting policy stands self
vindicated—that it lias scattered its rich fruits
over the whole land, and is sustained by the ex-!
perience of all powerful and prosperous nations.”
Sir, we meet these positions.at once by asserting,
e. * our part, that the protecting system stands
self-condemned; condemned in our own country,
by the desolation which has followed in its train,
and the discontents n has produced—condemned
by the experience of all the world, and the almost
unanimous opinion of enlightened men in modern
times. And now, having fairly joined issue with
the gentleman, we might put ourselves upon the,
country, aiul submit the case, without argument,
nor should I have any fears for the result, if the
issue was to he tried and decided by an impartial
tribunal, free from the disturbing influence of
popular prejudice and delusion, and the strong
bias of interests, personal, pecuniary, and polit
ical. But situated as we are, I feel and acknowl
edge the necessity of making out our case to the
conviction of this assembly, and the satisfaction
ot the country. We are seeking relief from an
abiding evil—redress from an existing wrong.—
We cannot stand where we are. We cannot, like
the gentleman from Kentucky, rest on mere un
supported assertions. We must submitour proofs
and maintain our positions if we can. It is great
ly to be regretted, however that the gentleman
has not seen fit to present some of the strongest
arguments in favor of his policy, as such a course
I might have directed our inquiries to a few leading
points instead of making it necessary for us to
wander at large through the wide field of argu
ment presented by the protecting system. The
gentleman, however, lias so far favored us as to
specify two of the advantages which he asserts
have been derived from it in this country, and in
our day, and 1 am perfectly willing to try the iner
I its of the system by these tests which he has hitn
jselt proposed. They shall if the gentleman
pleases—institute the standard by which it? true
character shall be determined. In the first place,
then, the gentleman asserts,that the much abused j
policy of 1824, (the protecting tariff of that year,)
has filled ourcofFers and enabled us to pay off the]
public debt,” a debt of $100,0(K),000 of prin-j
cipal, and $100,000,000 of interest. Now, Sir,!
it any thing is capable of demonstration, it may be
demonstrated, that the protecting system could not,!
by possibility, have contributed in the slightest de
gree to produce this result. One would suppose,
indeed, that the very iast merit which would be
ascribbed to this system, was its tendency to fill
the “public coffers.” It is unquestionably to a
tariff, arranged and adjusted with a single eye to
revenue, that we are to look for such a result.—
The object of a protecting tariff, as such, certain
ly is to diminish or exclude importations, and of
course to lessen the amount of revenue derived
from duties. The very end and aim of such a
system is, to substitute for the imported article,
paying taxes, to government—the domestic arti
cle paying none—to transmute the duty into a
bounty to the manufactures; and, just so far as
this end is attained—that is to say, just so far as
the tariff is protective, must it cut off the public
revenue. Do we not all remember, that the lead-j
ing argument in favor of the protecting provisions
of the tariff of 1824, was, that these were neces
sary, “to put down a ruinous foreign competition
and did not one of the fathers of that bill pub
licly declare, “that the vital principle of tin sys
tem was, that the nation should command its own
consumption, and that when the nation did com
mand its own consumption, importations and im
posts would cease/’ sir, there are two detinct
features in the tariff of 1821—revenue ami pro
tection. It is the former that has filled yoilr cof
fers and paid off the public debt; and so fir as
the latter has operated at all,it must have dimin
ished the revenue, and delayed the candor of the
gentleman, whether, if the protecting dutioi un
der the tariff ef 1824 had been less, the rei-enue
would not have been greater, and that, too,|with
out adding to, but on the contrary, diminishing
the burthens of the people, since they would have
obtained the articles of their consumption, in
increased quantities, and at a cheaper rate, had
been relieved from the heavy tax which thet have
been compelled to pay to the American manufac
turers? W hy, sir, the policy of 1824 actually
taxed to prohibition a large amount of goods for*
meriy imported. !’ rom a report made by the
Secretary of the Treasury, 1830, it uppears that
these prohibited articles amount to about $8,000,
000 per annum, being near one sixth part of the
whole of our imports. Has this part of the poli
cy contributed to till your cofiers? Sir, the case
is too plain for further argument, and tried by
ibis test, ;'ne policy must be utterly condemned.
The next test by which the gentleman proposes
lo try this system, is “the rich fruits which it has
scattered over the country.” Sir, where are they
to he found? Is it in the West? I uppesl to the
gentlemen trom that quarter. Wo have heard a
great deal of the flourishing condition of the
manufacturing establishments elsewhere; hut
where are the manufacturing villages, the joint
stock companies, the splendid dividends, and oth
er evidences of prosperity to be found in the West ?
I submit it to the candor of the gentleman, wheth
er the benefits of Phe protecting system, so far as
the west is concerned, do not slili rest in hope—
whether the system would he sustained a day, if
it were not for its supposed connection with in
ternal improvements—whether it is not indebt
ed for its popularity, in that quarter, to the un
happy, the fatal marriage between the tariff and
internal improvements—a union which I yet hope
to sec dissolved. It was a left handed—an unlaw
ful marriage, and surely those whom God hath
not joined, man rnay put asunder. Sir, there are
doubtless some flourishing manufactories scatter
ed here and there throughout the western country
—chiefly confined, however, to situations beyond
the reach of foreign competition, and owing noth
ing to the protecting system. But the west has
not been rendered prosperous by these establish
ments. I appeal confidently to their actual con
dition at this time. With regard to the gentle
man’s own State, I will apply a test which cannot
deceive us. When the policy of ’21 was before
Congress, the Senator from Kentucky stood forth
as its champion, and it was my lot to attempt to
answer his arguments. It is true, sir, that his
speech was made in the other House, and mine
Oil this floor; but his argument had been sent forth
ns me mannosto ot the party—it was printed in
pamphlet and laid on the tables of the Senators,
and, embodying the views of the tariff partv, it
was impossible for tne to pass it over, 1 well re
member, therefore, that, on that occasion, the gen
tleman argued, that Kentucky was to participate
in the protecting system by raising large quanti
ties of hemp, and supplying the southern Slate
with cotton bagging,—and he strongly insisted
that she was then only prevented from »o doing,
by the ruinous competition of the inconsiderable
Scotch towns of Inverness and Dundee. And
what is it, Sir, that we hear now—after the lapse
el eight years? The old story repeated. Ken
tucky still deprived of the benefits of the protect
ing system by those formidable rivals, Inverness
and Dundee. They still constitute “the lion in
the path,” and foreign manufactures ever will be
“a lion in the path1* to those whoso prosperity
depends on the protecting system. We know
that the manufacture of cotton bagging is a sim
ple process, requiring hardly any skill or capital,
and yet, the great State of Kentucky cannot get
along with it, in consequence of the formidable
rivalship of two miserable Scotch towns, the in
habitants cf which are said to be so poor and
destitute, that they arc obliged to import their fu
el, and send to Dant/.ic, twelve hundred miles up
the Keltic, for their hemp, paying a freight equal
to the first cost. It is perfectly clear, therefore,
that Kentucky has not realized the promised
blessings of the protecting system; and, 1 am
told, that this is substantially true of the whole
west. But, Sir, if the west has gained nothing
by the system, she has had her shari of the taxes
which it imposes—she has paid herproporlion of
duties to the government, and bomties to the
manufacturers; and in consequence of the dire
calamities which the system has inlieted on the
south—blasting our commerce and withering our
prosperity—the west has very neary been de
prived of her best customer. When the policy
of '24 went into operation, the south vas supplied
from the west through a single avenm, (the Salu
da Mountain Gap,) with live stock, liorses, cattle,
and hogs, to the amount of considerably upwards
ofa million of dollars a year. Under the pressure
of the system, this trade has regularly bsen di
mtnishing.—It has already fallen off mope ’ban
one half, and from a-, authentic return, now be
fore me, it appears that it has been further dimin
ished near one hundred and fifty thousand dollars
during the last year. So much for the rich bles
sings bestowed upon the west by the protecting
system.
We come now to the South. If any portion
ot toe rich truits ol this system have been scat
tered there, they have not fallen under my obser
vation. Sir, we know them not—we see them
not—we feel them not. It may be supposed,
however, that we tire too full of prejudice, or too
ungrateful, to acknowledge the blessings it has
bestowed upon us. Sir, we have heard of men
having honor thrust upon them, and perhaps there
may be 9uch a thing as having benefits thrust up
on an unwilling people: yet I should think, that
even in such a case, they would soon become re
conciled to their lot, and submit to their fate with
a good grace. Jlut, I assure the gentleman, that
the condition of the south is not merely one of
unexampled depression, but of great and all-per
vading distress. In my own Slate, the unhappy
change which has within a few years past taken
place in the public prosperity, is of the most ap
palling character. If we look at the present con
dition of our cities, (and I will take Charleston
by way of example,) we find every where the
mournful evidence ol premature decay. Sir,the
crumbling memorials of our former wealth and
happiness, too eloquently teach us, that, without
some change in your policy, the days of our pros
perity “are numbered.” Sir, it is within my own
experience, that, in the devoted city in which niv
lot has been cast, a thriving foreign commerce
was, within a few years past, carried on direct to
Europe. We had native merchants, with large
capitals, engaged in the foreign trade. We had
thirty or forty ships, many of them built, and all
owned in Charleston, and giving employment to
a numerous and valuable body of mechanics and
[tradesmen. Loo); at the state of things now!—
Our merchants bankrupt or driven away—their
capital sunk or transferred to other porsuits—our
shipyards broken up—our ships all sold!—ves,
Sir, I am told the very last of them was a law
months ago, brought to the hammer—our mechan
ics in despair; the very grass growing in our
streets, and houses falling into ruins; real estate
reduced to one third part of its value, and rents
almost to nothing. The commerce, which we
are still permitted to enjoy, diverted from its
proper cnannels, carried on with borrowed capi
tal, and through agents sent among us, and main
tained by the tariff policy, bearing off their profits
to more favored lands, eating out cur substance,
and leaving to our own people the miserable
crumbs which fall from the table of their prosper
ity. If we fly from the city to the country, what
do we there behold? Fields abandoned; the
hospitable mansions ol our fathers deserted; ag
liculture drooping; our slaves, like iheir masters,
working harder, and fareing worse; the planter
striving, with unavailing efforts, to avert the ruin
which is before him. It has often been my lot,
Sir, to see ihe once thriving planter reduced to
despair; cursing his hard fate, gathering up the
small remnants of his broken fortune—and, with
his wife ami his little ones, tearing himself from
the scenes of his childhood, and the hones of his
ancestors, to seek, in the wilderness, that reward
(or his industry, of which your fatal policy has
deprived him.
Sir, when we look at our fertile fields, and
consider the genial climate with which God
has blessed the South—when we contemplate
the rare felicity of our position, as the produ
cers of an article, which, under a system of
free trade, would command the markets of
the world—is it not enough to fill our hearts
almost to bursting to find the richest blessings
that an indulgent Providence ever showered
down upon the heads of any people, torn from
us by the cruel policy ot our own government,
to find the bounties of Heaven thus blasted by
the hand of man? Sir, 1 will not deny that
there arc other causes besides the tariff, which
have contributed to produce the evils which
I have depicted. Trade can to some extent,
be carried on with greater facility at New
York, and cotton may be raised more profita
bly in Alabama; but, these advantages would
not have broken up the commerce or depres
sed the agriculture of South Carolina, while
an unrestricted intercourse with foreign na
tions, enabled us to realise the most moderate
profits. Men do not quit their accustomed
employments, or the homes of their fathers,
for any small addition to their profits, It is
only when restriction has reached a point
which leaves the door still open to one, while
it closes it against the other, that this result is
produced; and, therefore it is, that a rapid
transfer of capital and population is now ad
ded to the other evils with which the old States
are afflicted.
In this condition of the conntrj, where is
there to he found a fulfilment of the promises
held out to the south in 18d4! We vrfcie then
told that we had mistaken the true character
of this system. We were entreated only to
try it for a short time. We were told that the
taxes imposed on foreign articles would be but
temporary; that the manufactures would want
protection but for a short time—only to give
them a start—and that they would soon be
able to stand alone. We were to have had
a double market for our cotton—high prices,
reviving commerce, and renewed prosperity.
Sir, after (he expence of four years, the tariff
of ’28 came up for consideration, by which
the protecting system was to be further exlen
ded and enlarged. And what was found to
have been the result of four years' experience
at the South? Not a hope fulfilled, jict one
promise performing—and our condition infin
itely worse than it had been four years before.
Sir, the whole South rose up as one man, and
protested against any further experiment with
this fatal system. The whole of the repre
sentatives of seven States, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, and Tennessee, (with I believe,
but three dissenting voices,) recorded their
votes, against that bill. Sir, do not gentlemen
find in this fact, some evidence of the danger
ous character of that legislation on which this
system is based. Can it be wise—ran it he
just—can it be prudent—to adopt and enforce
a policy so essentially sectional in its character?
Can we hope for harmony, peace, and concord,
while enforcing a system against which an en
tire section of your country so strongly revolts?
—It is the essential principle of the represen
tative system, that a mutual sympathy of feel
ing and of interest, should bind together (he
people and their rulers; and it may be worthy
of profound reflection how far that principle
is essentially preserved by a scheme of legis
lation, under which the feelings and intrusts
of so large a portion of the country are out
raged and trampled on. When taxes are im
posed, not by the representatives of those who
are to bear tile burthens, but of those u ho are
to receive the bounty.
Now, Sir, let us turn our attention to the
North. And here I cannot speak from my
own know ledge, but 1 am free to comcss, li ;.t
if we are to credit the accounts we have heard,
the rich fruits of the system have been M at
tered in this quarter with a profuse hand.—
We are told that manufacturing cstablishmo uts
have sprung up every where as if hv eccnant-..
ment. Thriving towns and beautiful villages
cover the whole face of the land. Millions of
capital have been withdrawn from other pur
suits and invested in manufactures. Joint
stock companies are receiving enormous divi
dcnds; and the people, (at least in the neigh
borhood of the establishments built up and
sustained by the system) are rejoicing in a
prosperity unexampled in the history of the
world. But Sir, in the midst of this univer
sal joy, we hear occasionally the voice of la
mentation and complaint.— there are those
north of the Potomac, wise and experienced
and patriotic men, well acquainted too with
the actual condition of things, who tell us that
this apparent prosperity is in a great measure
delusive; that the system has operated in
building up a favored class at the expense of
the rest of the community. I hat it has, in
fact, made the “rich richer, and Hie prorpo ir
er.” I have before me several siatein at-,all
going to prove these assertions, as to s v< rat
of the most flourishing manufacturing e;lan
lishments of the north. I will trouble toe
Senate with but one of them, and that merely
by way of illustration. The article is from
the pen of one of the ablest political econo
mists in the Union, one who has laid ois coun
try uudera lasting debt of gratitude.
[Mr. Hayne here read a statement from the
Banner of the Constitution, proving that a
flourishing cotton mannfactory at the Kalis
Village, in New Hampshire, was from their.
own showing, maintained by a tax on the com
munity; exceeding the entire profits of the
establishment, by $101,000 per annum; and
that, if a purse was made up, and every oper
etive man, woman, and child paid §100 per
annum, for standing idle or turning grindstones,
the public would be gainers by §10l,00d an
nually.]
It will be seen, therelore, that, with regard to
some, at least, of our most flourishing manufac
turing establishments, the profits derived aro
drawn from the pockets of the people. But, it
will be said, “here is a case in which the south
participates in the bountia6; here is a home mar
ket found lor three thousand bales ot Carolina
cotton.” Sir, I seize the opportunity to dispel
forever the delusion, that the south can derive
any compensation in a home market for the inju
rious operations of the protecting system. The
case before us affords a striking illustration of
this truth. The value of the raw material is
about one-fourth part of the manufactured article.
Now if the cotton goods manufactured at the
Falls village, wore imported from England m
stead of being made in New H ampshnv, we
should find a market for twelve thousand lies of
our cotton instead of three, so that instead of
gaininga market for three thousand bn os ot cot
ton, we have lost a market of mu thousand.
The home market for our cotton i- a new, or
additional, but a substituted n rket.—It die
trade were free, the goods manufactured iu this
country would be imported from England, and
paid for in our cotton; but in cutting off the im
ports, you, of course, to the same extent, dinm;
[See fourth page]