Richmond enquirer. [volume], September 22, 1846, Image 1

About Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
POETICAL.
"Tbeku^'a? graceful verges by Mr. Field,
weIi8d in the Boston Transcript:
^ WELCOME TO SAMUEL LOVER,
welcome, Sam, throughout the land,
While roaming is your lot?
Reception trarrt we give to some,
To iwu we give it hoi!
For >hipsarc scarce that anchor here,
Can N a?! a lad like you?
What is there, Sara, you never tried,
Tna; cratt can doT
Your voice, we know it well, Sam?
We heard it long ago
]n thesweei-souled "Angel's Whisper,"
Where the ' four-leaved shamrocks"grow.
^tui vour merry laugh we've heard, Sam?
The hearty Irish roar?
Wi- split out sides with Ritij, Sam,
And now we cry lor More.
Ti* a greeting, Sam, unstinted,
That we offer to the true?
Ami welcome strong and hearty, Sam,
' Should meet a man like you.
For Iht Enquirer.
[faith* Of thf <ith nml t)|h Of Mnj't
7Vte?"Old Din Tucker."
i.
Tne Mexicans, both near and lar,
Seutit 10 have a glorious war;
Old Arista, and Ampudia, too,
Bixii gathered up a moiley crew.
Ch.scs?Get out of the way, you're all unsteady,
Clear the way, Old Rough and Ready.
Get out, &c.
ii.
Tnev took their men, and marched along,
And thought they had a gallant throng;
And when they reached the Rio Grande,
'Twas there they took a noble stand.
Get out ol the way, 4c.
in.
They promised much, to raise the wind,
And told their men to "go it blind;"
To take old Taylor, and his troop,
And then to raise the joyful whoop,
Get out of the way, &c.
IV.
But "Old Rough and Ready," wi:h his boys,
Just scattered them like children's toys;
They killed their men, and took their money,
An! had a least on bread and honey.
Get out of the way, you're all unsteady,
Clear the way for Rough and Ready.
v.
Oli Vega, fixed behind his fort,
Just thought he'd have some noble sport?
Until :he troops of gallant Mav
Made him yield up the woiul day.
Get out of the way, &c.
VI.
The leader's men, both one and all,
Art und, on every side, did fall;
When Rough and Ready raised the breeze,
Tne spangled banner then did seize.
Ge: out of the way, &c.
VII.
Atnpudia ran, and left the ground,
And ihen to Mexico was bound;
And, as he van, they raised a crack,
And hit him low down on the back.
Get out ol the way, &c.
VIII.
01?! Tavlor cried, the battle's won?
The condictnow. with all, is done;?
We'll raise the standard to the sky,
And sing the song of victory!
Get out of the way, &c.
September 10th, 1S46. WYl'HE.
POLITICAL.
SPEECH OF THOMAS H. BAYLY,
OK VIRGINIA,
J' lirocd in the House of Representatives, Tuesday,
J^ne 31). 1846.?In Committee of the Whole
on the stale ol the Tlmon, on ine Dill reporteu
lrom the Committee ot Ways and Mean*,
amendatory ol the Tariff law of 1842.
Mr. BAYLY addressed the Committee as fol
lows :
Mr. Chairman: Unlike the gentleman from
Ohio, (Mr. Brinkerhoff,) 1 shall vote with great
pleasure for the bill reported Iroin the Committee
ol Ways and Means, wiih such amendments as
it is understood the chairman of that committee
will propose, although it may not be precisely
such a bill as 1 could desire. But it is a great, a
very great improvement upon the Tariff act ol
1812, and is in every respect a much betier bill
than 1 had hoped we should he able to pass at so
eaily a date. It is true I never doubted that
sooner or later we would return to correct princi
ples of legislation on this subject. Bui I had
hardly hoped that the day ol regeneration would
have arrived so soon. In the act ol 1842, reve
nue principles the most universally recognized
were disregarded. 1 hold it to be an incontrovert
ible principle that the burdens of taxation should
be principally borne by the wealthy, and not by
the poor. Government is instituted lor the joint
protection of persons and property. The wealthy
enjoy a greater amount ol" protection, and ought
to pay more for it. Besides, a tax falls more ea
sily upon them, as they make a smaller sacrifice
in paying it. It is a kindred principle, equally
well recognised, that taxes should rather be im
posed upon luxuries which may be dispensed
with, than upon necessaries which cannot. In
the loriuer case the tax is voluntary; in the latter
it is unavoidable. Both of these principles are
glaringly violated in the act referred to. The
highest duties are placed upon necessaries and
articles principally consumed by the poor, and
the lowest upon luxuries and such as are mostly
consumed by the rich. This has been so frequent
ly and incontestably proven, that it would be su
perfluous tor mc to go into detail to establish it
now. This condemns the law as a revenue mea
sure. But it was enacted lor the purposes ol pro
tection. Protection is stamped upon every fea
ture of it. Nor is it necessary to stop to prove
this. It is defended as a protective tariff; and so
lar from any one's denying that it is such, we are
told throughout the debate, that a law framed up
on any other principle would be destructive to the
best interests of the people, it beins conceded to
be a tariff levied lor the purposes of profection,
the first que-.tion which suggests itsell is, had the
Congress which enacted it any wat rant in the con
stitution for doing so 1
1 approach, Mr. Chairman, this branch of the
argument with reluctance. I know that there is a
great and growing indisposition in ihis House to
listen to an argument against any measure based
upon the denial of the constitutional authority of
Congress to pass it. We have been told by a
gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. Collamer,) a ju
rist, standing high in the confidence of his party,
that the Constitution is of no avail as a restraint
on Congress, or any farther than as it prescribes
the foriii9 of government. I knew that his party
for a long lime had acted upon this idea, but I
did not expect to bear it ?o soon, and so authorita
tively announced.
[Mr. Collamer here interposed, and said that
he had not expressed an opinion that such ought
lo be the case, but only that such was the case.]
Mr. Bayly. That only makes the matter
worse. It is not announced as the opinion of a
very intelligent and observant gentleman, but by
such an one as a fact. I hope he is mistaken. I
hope, at so early a period in our national exist
ence, the Constitution has not already ceased to
be what its framers designed it, a limitation of
Power in Congress, and a restraint upon it. I
hope the time has not already arrived when the
tovretion of Congress, and not the Constitution,
>*'be measure ol its power. If so, a revolution
already taken place?stealthily and unobserv
by the people, it is true, but no less mighty on
thai account. But, Sir, although I cannot ad
mit that events have already carried us to this
Point, yet I see that they are rapidly tending to it.
?ii.?Vm'soses upon sucn us as value the Con
ner, morp|han a book of forms,
iinn? ,,s.c*,ecl{s and balances, its limita
w the d fit flS' M ,he Palladi'?n o' our lilwr
__h' ?c far aPPeal">? t?> and proclaiming,
cv ' sir X r-CiTn/>f 5UslainiDS ',s suprema
* v ridicule, and being point
ed at as a Virginia abstractionist, I mean as
long as I remain in public lite, ,0 sn'pporl and*dV
fend the Constitution as the fathers ol ih? Repub
ic made and construed it, and as the administra
tion ol the Government has more than once been
revolutionized to maintain it. Sir, on this occa
sion I appeal to the Cjnstitution, not as a dead
in?!' \a? slilJ * ,iviDS thiDS; aDd ,hus appeal
clauvJ1' e its',a" ^ shown in which of its i
ProieSVia'^^ fi0?" deIe?a!eJ 10 enact a '
roust be aWn 2 r less thU can be done'il 1
All ol the ^'us see "'it can t* '"one.!
derivative h? the General Government are i
legated. Bv anC^ses no Power which it not de
lion itself.it is('ecb^Sprovijion oi ,be Constitu
gated to the U.S bvth?r? "lhe Powers not dele
by it to the Statesare ^'"u/'ou, nor prohibited
spectively, or to the p5?Sd lbe States re
act only contains a delJla,i(J , CoDSlltut,on
"great extent of the
be executed, and the ends for which they are to
be exercised. It, therefore, the clause cannot be
pointed out in which this power is delegated, ei
ther in express terms or by necessary implica
tion as a means or an end, it cannot be main
tained. The power in question is claimed by
some as conlerred in the power to lay and col
led taxes, duties, &c.; and l>y others as an inci
dent to the power to regulate commerce. Beiore
1 proceed to examine these two clauses in detail |
| '"ink it proper to submit a few general remarks.
It will scarcely be disputed that, in exetcising a
power expressly granted, you must not lose sight
ol the purpose lor which it was granted. If you
exercise such a power for purposes not contem
plated, you as eflectually violate the Constitution
as il you usurp a power altogether. And it is
equally clear, upon every principle of construc
tion applicable to our Constitution, that a power
claimed as an incidental one must not be a dis
tinct, independent and substantive prerogative, ol
equal consequence, and more especially ol supe
rior consequence, to others expressly granted.?
For you cannot suppose that when thelramers ol
the Constitution look the pains to make a minute
enumeration ol such powers, it meant to confer
others, by mere implication, of as great impor
tance.
Bearing these principles in mind, which will
scarcely he contested, let us examine the two
clauses under which the power to enact a pro
tective tariffis sought to be derived. The first is
in these words:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay
the debts and provide lor the common defence and
general wellare of the United States; but all du
ties, imposts and excises shall be uniform through
out the United States."
Here, it is said, is an express authority to lay
and collect taxes, duties and imposts; and the
tariff of 1S49 is nothing more than a law doing
it. This is true. But it must not be forgotten
that the purposes for which the power is given
are as explicitly stated as the power itself. The
power is to raise money, and the purpose, to dis
charge the pecuniary liabilities and engagements
of the Government. This is the purpose, and
not to encourage manufactures. But to this it is
answered, that the purpose lor which the power
is delegated is not only to pay the debts, but to
provide lor the common defence and general wel
fare; and it is contended, that il Congress shall
be of opinion that these objects will be pro
moted by a protective tariff, it has the pow
er expressly given to enact it for that pur
pose. In other words, th? power is claimed un
der what is familiarly called the "general welfare
doctrine." This doctrine has been so frequently
exploded, that I leel indisposed to say much in
reference to it. Admit il to be true, and you
make almost every other clause ol the Constitu
tion surplusage. There is very little pertaining
to government which may not be done under the
sweeping power to provide lor the general wel
fare. But there is nothing superfluous in the
Constitution. It is as remarkable fur its literary
execution, as for political wisdom. ?
Grant this doctrine and you subvert the whole
character ol the Government. In place of being
one ol lew and delegated powers, it would be one
possessing them to the most sweeping and ab<>o.
lute extent. Consider for a moment that the Con
stitution confers upon Congress the power to
make all laws necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the granted powers, and declares
upon its very face that all State laws and consti
tutions at variance with them shall be superseded;
and do you not see that the doctrines contended
for, if conceded, would strip the States of all
powers and centre them in the General Govern
ment f
It is impossible that such a suicidal construc
tion can be correct. No construction of a par
ticular clause which subverts the character of the
whole instrument can by possibility be correct.
It is very clear that the term? referred to are not
designed as conferring any distinct power, but as
a general designation of the purposes for which
the powers delegated are to be executed. The ef
fect is precisely the same as if the words used had
been added at the end ol each clause of the sec
tion conferring powers upon Congress, in place
of being added at the end of but one. This was
Hie V,.? mW in I hp Rlatc cxarrntioTiA whifh
adopted the Constitution by all its friends, par
ticularly by Mr Madison and Mr. George Nich
olas, in the Virginia Convention. Speaking of
this clause, the latter gentleman said:
"He had endeavored to show the Committee
that it only empowered Congress to make such
laws as would be necessarv to enable them to pay
he public debts and provide for the common de
fence; that this general welfare was united not to
the general power of legislation, but to the parti
cular power of laying and collecting taxes, im
posts and excises, for the purpose of paying the
debts and providing lor the common defence?
that is, that they could raise as much money as
Wi'uld pay the debts and provide lor the common
defence in consequence of this power. The
clause which had been affectedly called the
sweeping clause, contained no new grant of power.
To illustrate this position, he observed, il it had
been added at the end of every one of the enume
rated powers, instead ol being inserted at the end
of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was
no augmentation of power. As it would grant
no new power if inserltd at the end of each clause,
it could not when subjoined to the whole."
This is obviously the correct view. In fact,
the words in question,so far from being designed
as an enlargement ol the powers of Congress,
were designed as a lestriction. Congress n -t on
ly may not do whatever it may fancy will provide
lor the general wellare, but it may not even ex
ercise the powers expressly granted for any oilier
purpose than to promote the general welfare.?
The powers granted are not to be used for spe
cial, but general purposes-not for sectional, but
for national purposes. This view alone is fa
tal, as will be hereafter shown, to the tariff act of
1312, the operation ol which is particularly sec
tional.
It is ihua shown that the terms general wel
fare" do not enlarge the purposes for which duties
may be levied; and that the encouragement ol
manufactures is not one of them. This being
clear, you cannot, without committing a fraud up
on the Constiiution, levy them (or the purpose ol
projection, unJerthe pretext ol doing it lor revenue.
[ repeat, the object for which the power is exer
cised must not be lost sight of. Under the clause
in question you tnay lax the land. But will any
one maintain that you may do so, constitutionally,
for the purpose of discouraging agriculture and
driving people into other pursuits 1 You can do
that as legitimately as yon can tax commerce and
agriculture lor the benefit ol manufactures, and
thus entice the people into that pursuit.
If these views require confirmation, it will he
found in the proceedings of the Federal Conven
tion. On the 28th ol Au<>ust, near the close ol
the convention, when most of the provisions of the
Constitution had been agreed upon?
"Mr. Madison moved ihat the words 'nor lay
imposts or duties on imports,' be transferred Irom
article 13, where the consent of the general l^gis
lature may license the act, into article 12, which
will make the prohibition on the States absolute.
He observed, that as the States interested in this
power, by which they could tax the imports of
their neighbors passing through their markets,
were a majority, they could give the consent ol
the Legislature to the injury of New Jersey,
North Carolina, &c.
"Mr. Williamson seconded the motion.
"Mr. Sherman thought the power might safely
be lelt to the Legislature of the new United
States.
"Col. Mason observed, that particular States
might wish to encourage, by impost duties, cer
tain manufactures, for which they enjoyed natu
ral advantages?as Virginia, the manufacture of
hemp, &c.
"Mr. Madison. The encouragement of ma
nufactures in thai mode requires duties, not only
on imports directly from loreign countries, but
from the other States in the Union, which would
revive all the mischiefs experienced lrom the
want of a seneral government over commerce."
Mr. Madison's proposition was lost by a vote
of four States to seven.
The proposition ol Mr. Madison to make the
prohibition on the States absolute was voted
down. But to obviate the objection, that as the
States interested in the power by which they could
levy duties upon the imports of their neighbors
passing through their markets were a majority,
they could give the consent of the Legislature,
and, under the pretext of encouraging their ma
nufactures, tax the others, Mr. Sherman moved
to add after the word "exports," in iKe 10th sec
tion of the 1st article of the Constitution as it
now stands, the words "nor with such consent but
for the use ol the United States." What was
said in the Convention upon this occasion is so
important, I consider it proper to present it entire:
"Mr. Sherman moved to add afler the word
'exports' the words 'nor with such consent but
for the use of the United States,' so as to carry the
proceeds of all State duties on imports or exports
into the common treasury.
"Mr. Madison liked the notion, as preventing
all State imports, but lamented the complexity we
were giving to the commercial sytem.
"Mr. Gouverneur Morris thought the regula
tion necessary to prevent the Atlantic States liom
endeavoring to tax the western Slates, and pro
mote their interest by opposing the navigation of
llie Mississippi, which would drive the western
people into the ar.ns of Great Britain.
"Mr. Clymer thought the encouragement ol
the western country was suicide on the part ol
the old States. If the Stales have such different in
terests /hat they cannot be left to regulate their own
manufactures without encountering the interests
ol other States, it is proof they are not fit to com
pose one nation.
4'Mr. King wasafraidthat the regulation moved
by Mr. Sherman would loo much interfere with the
policy of the States r specling their manufactures,
which may be necessary. Revenue, hp. reminded
the House, was the o ;ect or the oeneual. LE
GISLATURE."
Here we And that the motion to make the pro
hibition upon the States to lay impo>ts, 01 duties
on imports, absolute, was resisted upon the
ground that particular States might desire to lay
them lor the encouragement of certain manufac
tures, lor which they enjoyed natural advanta
ges. Well, what was the reply? Was it that
power was already conlerred upon the General
Government to levy imposts lor that purpose??
that when levied by Congress they would be
much more efficacious, and therefore there was
no occasion to reserve the power to the States!?
This unquestionably would have been the con
clusive reply it the facts would have justified it.
A like reply was always a favorite one in the
Convention in similar cases. Very many exam
ples might be given of this; the debates are lull
ofthein. In the proceeding which took place
immediately before the one to which I am refer
ring, this reply was given.
Mr. Madison moved to insert alter the word
"reprisal," in the 10;h section of the 1st article ol
the Constitution as it now stands, the words "nor
lay embargoes." "He insisted that such acts by
the States would be unnecessary, impolitic and
unjust."
"Mr. Sherman thought the States ought to re
tain this power in order to prevent suffering and
injury to their poor."
"Mr. Gouverneur Morris considered the pro
vision as unnecessary; the power ol regulating
trade between State and State, already vested in
the geneta) legislature being sufficient."
And inihecaseweareconsidering.il the mem
bers of the Convention had supposed that the Ge
neral Government pi*??ssed the power to levy im
posts lor the purposes ol protection, the reply to
Colonel Mason would have been, not only that the
power already conferred upon the general legisla
ture was sufficient for that purpose, but that, be
ing vested there, it could be much more efficient
ly exercised by it than the States?so much more
so, that even if reserved to the States it would not
b? exerted. But so far lrom this being the answer,
one is given which shows in the clearest manner
the inexpediency of conferring upon the General
Government any such power; and that the power
actually conferred was for revenue purposes, and
for revenue purposes only.
Mr. Madison knew that the several States were
suited for manufactures, and prepared to engage
in them in different degrees. And he saw that
such of thein as enjoyed great natural advantages,
and were in other tespects better fitted to com
mence manufacturing, would get the start of those
who were not so much favored; alter which, any
protection to the latter by imposts would be un
availing, which did not secure them as well
against the competition of the former as of fo
reign nations. Our subsequent experience has
demonstrated the soundness of these views. Let
me put it to any member whose constituents have
no', yet entered upon manulacturing, if they de
sire to do it, against whom will they most require
protection?other States of this Union, or foreign
nations? If Ohio desired to-day to engage in
manufactures, whose competition would she have
most cause to fear?that ol Old England, or New
England? As to my own State, and more parti
cularly as to my own district, I can speak with
confiience. We manufactured to a much greater
extent?including household manufacture?be
fore the era of Protective Tariff's than we do now;
and the trades and mechanic arts wete much
more flourishing. As young a man a< I am, I
can recollect when the poor women in the country
made a good living by spinning and weaving?
the only way almost in which they can be suitably
and comfortably employed, as long ?.s they remain
in the country, where they ought 10 be permitted
to remain; ana ?r?,.
was not, to a great extent, clothed?and most neat
ly and well clothed?in linens and woollens ol
household manufacture; whereas now 1 scarcely
ever see a roll of homa-made linens or woollens,
and none in the stores for sale, where formerly
they were constantly found. And as to the me
chanics, their business is almost entirely broken
up by Yankee competition. 1 can recollect when
every neighborhood hail i.s shoemaker, its tailor,
its saddler, its hatter; but now our shoes, our
clothes, our hats, our saddles, our axes, hoes?al
most everything made in a blacksmith's shop; in
tact, almost everything made by the mechanic?is
brought from the North.
Mr. Madison and the framers of the Constitu
lion foresaw that protection by the General Go
vernment would not operate equally throughout
the Union, and that to make it effectual in many
ol the States, it would be necessary to levy du
ties not only upon importations from foreign na
tions, but from the sister States. This latter he
was unwilling to do, lor the reasons assigned.
From these proceedings, it appeats that Mr.
Madison desired to make the prohibition on the
States lor laying impost* absolute. But it was
objected that some of the States might desire to
impose them for the purpose ol en ouraging their
manufactures. To this it was not replied?as it
would have been if it could have been with truth
?that the power to do that was vested in the Ge
neral Government, where it would be much moie
effectual. On the contrary, Mr. King, who was
triendly to retaining the power for the States, said
expressly that revenue was ihe object of the pow
er in the General Government. The convention
relused to make the prohibition absolute. But to
obviate the objection that some of the Slates, un
derthe pretext of encouraging iheir manufactures,
would tax their neighbors who imported through
their ports?as New Jersey, for instance, through
Philadelphia, and North Carolina through Nor
folk?lhev were required not only to get the con
sent of Congress, but to carry ihe proceeds of the
duties into the common treasury, find this was
done in the teeth of the argument of Mr. Ciymer,
already quoted, and the objection of Mr. King,
that it "would too much interfere with the policy
of the Slates respeciing their manufactures."
Colonel Mason, who was one of the greatest
men in that age of s;reat men, and who was as
remarkable for his republican simplicity as for
his great political sagacity and wisdom, agreed
with Mr. King. He knew that ihe power to levy
imposts, delegated to the General Government,
was only for revenue purposes; and he thought
that the restrictions proposed would so trammel
the Staies as in fact to extinguish the power to
levy duties on imports for the encouragement of
manufactures. He had shown himself through
out the convention to be friendly to that object;
and after he had found, as he thought, that all
other modes had failed, he proposed, as will here
after appear,a voluntary association of members
of the convention for the purpose. From all
this, it is clear thai the power to levy imposts for
the purpose of protection is not vested in the Ge
neral Government, but that it was reserved to the
Stales to enable them to encourage their manu
factures; and the restrictions contained in the
Constitution were designed to prevent the perver
sion of the power. Now, if the protectionists in
this House are willing to confine themselves to
this only constitutional mode, I am sure that we,
on this side, will interpose no obstacle. We will
give them at once the consent of Congress to le
vy, under the restrictions of the Constitution, as
high duties in their own ports as they please.? '
And as it is for the encouragement of their ma
nufactures, and not ours,they ought to regard
this proposition as reasonable. It is true, the du
ties collected will go into the Federal Treasury;
but as ihese gentlemen have assured us through
out this debate thai these duties come out of ihe
foreigner, and not the home consumer, they will I
not object to this. Of course not, if they believe in
the truth of their argument.
But they will object 10 it. It will not answei
their purpose to tax solely their own people to en
courage their own manufacturers. No; what
they desire is, to tax our people for their benefit. !
They want to compel us to purchase their fabrics
at a higher price than we can get them elsewhere;
and If they can do that, it is a matier of indiffer
ence to them if they destroy our commerce, im
pair the value of our exports, and injure our ag
riculture.
The power to enact a protective tariff is also
claimed under the power to regulate commerce.
I greatly fear this clause is fast becoming what
the one we have been discussing was styled in
the Federal Convention?1"theswkefi.vocladse."
Almost every imaginable power is claimed un
der it. But, thank God, there is no "sweeping
clause in the Constitution. The framers of it
placed no such clause there ; and I hope others
may not be permitted to do it by construction.?
I admit, at once, the power of Congress to levy
countervailing duties for the purpose of regulat
ing commerce. But 1 repeat again, the purpose
must not be Jc-sf sight of. Discriminating duties
cannot be levied, under the clause in question, for
any other purpose than to regulate commerce.?
And when they are levied for this purpose, it is
not to impost permanent burdens and restrictions,
but with the view of resisting, as the belt way to
procure the removal of restrictions and obstruc
tions. With this view we consent to submit to a
temporary inconvenience, for tfie purple offorc
ing the concession ?f a permanent good. And
when they are thus levied, it is to resist injustice,
the remedy lor which is injurious to us, and
which ought not to he enforced a day longer than
the necessity exists. As soon as it accomplishes
its purpose, it should be abandoned. This is the
view which Mr, Jefferson ar.d Madison always
took of the subject. In his celebrated report on
commercial privileges and restrictions, made on
the 1 Glli ol December, 171)3, niter showing the i
extent of the restrictions on the c>inn|eiee and
navigation of the U. States, M r. Jefk rson said:
"Thequestion is, in what way they way best
be removed, modified, or counteracted.
"As to commerce, two methods occur: 1. By
friendly arrangements with the several nations
with whom 'hese restrictions exist; or, jj. By the
separate aci of our own legislatures for counter
vailing their cflecls.
'?There can be no doubt but that, of'.hese two,
friendly arrangement is the most eligible. Instead
of embarrassing commerce under piles of regu
lating laws, duties, and prohibitions, could it be
telieved from all its shaclfbs in all partsof the
world; could cverv country l>c employed in pro
ducing that which nature has best fitted it to
produce, and each be free to exchange with
others mutual surpluses tor mutn.,1 wants, the
greatest mass possible would then be produce! ol
those things which contribute to human life and
human happine-s;the numbers of mankind would
be increased and their condition bettered.
" ll'imld tnn <> single nation begin with, the
United States this sustcm of free comncr <, i would
he advisable to In gin it with that vat ion, stnee it is
one bn one only thai if ran he extended b all.?
Where the circumstances of either part' render
it expedient to levy a revenue by way oi impost
on commerce, in freedom might be moiified in
that particular, by mutual and equivalrnt mea
sures, preserving it entire in all others."
in this connexion permit me to remark, that
one nation at least has shown a disposition to
commence a system of free commerce with the
United States, as wc will hereafter see, and that
the nation, loo, which takes nearly ott-hail of
our entire exports, and more than ore-half of
our agricultural exports. Shall wc meet her
hall way?
Subseonently, in the same report, Ml Jefferson
says:
"Hut should any nation, contrary to our wish
es, suppose it may better liml its advantages bv
continuing its system of prohibitions, imics, and
regulations, it behooves ib to proteu our citi
zens. their commerce, and naviga>ioi, by cotin
tt?r prohibitions, duties, and regulations, also.?
Free commerce and navigation aie not t ? ? l<: gi
ven in exchange lor restric'ions and vexations;
nor aie they likely to produce a relaxation ol
them."
"When once i: shall be perceived tiat we are
either in the system or in the habit <>l irivinc; equal
ad vantages tt? those who extinguish 'tit oinmeree
and navigation by duties sn l pr?'hi!ut:??!?, as to
j those who tie.'it Ik?Ii with iiberali y :si<l ju-'ic,
liberality an<J justice will be converted y aii into
duties and prohibitions."
On the 4:h of January, 1791, Mr. Madison in
troduced into the Hou?e of Represennti.es his
celebrated resolutions upon the .same sibjcct, de
signed to cariy out Mr. Jefferson's views, and in
the speech which he made on the occasioi, he thus
endorsed them:
"He prolessed himself to be a friend u the the
ory which gives to industry a fiee course, under
the impulse of individual interest, ani the gui
dance of individual sagacity. lie was persuaded
that it would be happy for all nations, if the bar
riers erected by prejudice, by avarice, and by
despotism, were broken down, and a free inter
course established among them."
These were the views of those two fathers of
the republican faith, and vet they are sometimes
quoted as the friends of levying duties discrimina
ting lor protection. I admit they conceded the
power of laying discriminating duties tinder the
power toregulatecommercc, but only lor commer
cial purposes. It is true, in some cases, they went
so far as to admit, wnere any particular nation
"l.iv.1. U;.l rinerra.' ??Ifupon our iradfi
was extensively engacerl fn a particular branch
of manufactures, we might levy heavy duties up
on their productions. Hut not lor ilie purpose ol
permanently obstructing commercial intercourse
with her, but to cause lier to relax her rest! jctions
In other words, for the pmpose in the end of se
curing free trade, and not for the purpose of ob
structing it permanently.
Having thus seen for what purpose, under the
! power to regulate commerce, discriminating duties
inav be laid, let us inquire il the Tariti Act of
181:2 levies them for any such purpose. In thai
act commercial principles areas distincily lost
sight of as revenue principles are. It gives com
paratively free trade, on our pan, to some nations
in exchange for restrictions; and restrictions to
j others in exchange for comparative iree trade, j
I And this is done by a nation whose policy it
should be to encourage the most unrestricted com
merce w ith the world; and done, loo, under the
pretext of regulating commerce I I w ill not de
tain the committee by going through a calculation
as to all the nations with whom we have com
mercial intercourse. But it would prove the truth
of what I have asserted. As an illustration.il
take the case of Great Btitainand Brazil. We
exported to the latter place, ot our own products, j
for the years l838-'39, and MO, $'>,371817. The
duties levied and collected upon which, in her
ports, were SI,46(1,207. Of these exports, S3,- !
599,132 were of flour, principally from Baltimore
and Richmond, and made of wheat, to a large ex
tent. from my own district. The duty upon this
(lour, levied in the ports of Brazil, is48j per cent |
upon a fixed minimum value ol Si' 28 per barrel; j
which, as the commercial document of last year
shows, is near double its real price. In other i
words, the duty levied is upwards of 80 per ccnt. ;
Our imports for the same time were 513.411,489, :
of which 312 089,933 were entirely free of duty,
and the balance bearing a very light duty. I have
taken these three years, because they were the
last three preceding the Tariti Act of 1812, lor
which, at ihat time, we had returns; and they
show the spirit in which that act was passed. But
i I have examined the commercial document of
j last year, and the trade of that year does not vary i
I materially from that of the thsce years referred j
: to; and the variation, such as it is, makes the in
! equality and want of recipiocity still greater,
j Now let us turn to our trade with Great Britain.
! For the year 1840?I take that year alone, be
! cause it will avoid too great a complication of
calculation; the others do not materially vary the
i result, and, as lar as they vary it at all, it is in la
j vorof my argument?forthat year our exports to j
Great Britain, exclusive of tobacco, were $50,
621,981; the duties collected $5,8*22,946, or a lit- J
tie upwards of ten per cent. The rate ol these ;
duties wer?, in many instances, reduced before the
enactment of out Tariff Law of 1842; and most ;
of them have since been entirely removed, or at .
any rale very much modified.
For instance: Of the $5,822,916 of duties col- j
lecled,?$3,247,880 29 were from cotton, th ? duty ;
upon which was removed, even before the late j
modification of her tariff was proposed; and
much of the balance was from articles upon i
which there was a reduction before that time.?.
But without including Ihese last, the average 1
British duty upon our exports, exclusive of to
bacco, was about five per cent. And this was )
j the law as it stood liclore the late modification
| proposed by the British Ministry. That modifi
I cation, which, before this time, is doubtless the
law of the land, abolishes, or very much reduces,
al! the remainingdwies, except upon tobacco; and,
except as to that article, our trade with Great Bri
tain is already as free as she can make it. But j
I may be asked why I except that article! In
the first place, the duty she levies upon it is not
to raise up a rival production in her own terri
tories, to exclude ours. It is not a protective,
but purely a revenue duly, levied upon whatshe
considers a pernicious luxury; to enable her to t
I collect which, she prohibits its cultivation, under
| severe penal enactments, in the United Kingdom;
I but for which enactment* it would be cultivated at
1 home to nearly, or quite, a sufficient extent lo
! supply her demand. Perfectly good tobacco can
be made in the Southern counties of England,
and most of Ireland. Indeed, before the cultiva
tion of it was prohibited, it was grown in Ireland
to a very large extent. Thu?, to enable her to ,
raise a large revenue from it, she gives the tobac
co growers a monopoly of her market, and some
of the best informed merchants, engaged in the ?
tobacco trade, are of opinion this monopoly more ;
than compensates the tobacco grower for the
heavy duty which is collected.
Let us now see upon what footing our trade
with her American colonies stands. To them our
exports in 1840, including tobacco, of which there ;
was a considerable export, were ol the value of
$5,537,056. Total amount of duties levied, $187,
920?between three and four per cent, only on
their imports from us.
Now let us see what amount of duties we levy
upon our imports f rom Great Britain under the j
present law. The average rate of duty, under the j
law of 1842, upon dutiable articles, as calculated
at the treasury, is 35 per cent, and a fraction.?
(See Annual Report, page 71.) But the average
duty imposed upon imports from Gieat Britain is
much higher, as most of the articles bearing a
very high duly are imported from that country.
Let us lake a lew leading articles:
Imported from England. Rate of iliity.
Value. Percent.
Cloths and cassimeres, $3,815,853 -10
Cotton goods, colored, 7,117,301 43|
Cotton goods, uncol'd, 1 ,G6fi,I(12 47
Iron, &c., 3,730,407
Articles in the must common use, viz:
Wood screws, 60
Spikes, cut or wrought, ]G8
Chain cables, " 87
Other chains, 101
Hoop iron, 115
Band iron, &c., 70
Bar, manufactured by rolling, 75
I have not had time to make an average for
Great Britain ; but I can safely sav it is much
higher than the general average aI 35 per cent.?
And, in this connection, it is proper to mention
that we lake a much smaller amount of our free
articles irotn Great Britain ihan any other na
tion, in proportion to our aggregate imports. We
imported from Great Britain l ist year 544.687,
851), of which only .?1,621,801 were of free arti
cles; and, excluding gold, silver and copper, only
$175,341) were of tree articles, out of an entire
import of 82*2,147,*40 of free articles, or only a
little above two per cent. Weexpoited to Great
Britain last yeai 84(5,286,178, and imported from
her J 14,687,85'J, of which Inn a little more than
two per cent were free articles. I have already
shown the exports and imports to and from Bra
zil, and the proportion which tree articles bear to
ihe latter. Prom this statement the Committee
can see how every thing like a legitimate regula
tion ol eommcrce is discarded in the taiill of
1842.
Sir, there is no disguising or disputing the fact,
that the tarid'of 1812 was not designed as a com
mercial law. But if so, every correct principle
o) commercial legislation is lost sight of. No,
sir, it was enacted for the purpose of encourag
ing manufactures. And 1 deny that you have
any power to do that under the power "to regu
late commerce." I cannot conceive by what pro
cess of reasoning manufactures arc made an in
cident to commerce. It is a distinct branch of
business, as much so as commerce itself. The
three great branches of industry are agriculture,
manufactures and commerce. By an express
provision of the Constitution, jurisdiction is gi
ven to Congress over the last, bin not over the
two first. Anil when you see the power over
commerce expressly delegated, yon cannot con
clude that it is designed to be conferred over the
others by implication. On the contrary, the rules
of construction to which I have adverted ar? fa
tal to any such conclusion. And. sir, it was not
by accident or inadvertence that the power over
commerce was delegated, and that over agricul
ture and manufactures wa< reserved. It was by
design; and the reason is obvious.
In the division of powers between the General
Government and the States, all such as relate to
ihe external relations of the States are delegated
to the former, and all such as relate to their do
mestic concerns are reserved to themselves. Com
merce with foreign n?.tionsan I between Ihe Slates
belonging to the lir?t class, If nee jurisdiction over
it is delegated to ihe General Government. Ag
liculitue and manufactures belong toihe last,and
hence jurisdiction over tliem is reserved to the
States.
On ihe 20th ol August, Gouverneur Morris,
who was one of ihe most eminent men in the con
vention which framed the Constituiion, and the
member who cave ihe finish to the siyle and ar
rangement ol it, submitted, seconded by Mr.
Pincknev, another eminent member, a series of
proposition*, by which it was proposed lo consti
tute several public otlicers, viz :
'?2. The Secretary ol Domestic Affair?, who
shall be appointed by the President, ami hold his
office during pleasure. It shall be his duty lo at
tend to matters of general police, the staJc nf ag
riculture mid m.inufnchiTCt, Ihe opining of loads
anil nmiieniton, nv<! thr farilitaJi>i? communica
tions t1trough thr United States; and lie shall from
tiinelo lime recommend such measures and es
tablishments as may tend lo promote those ob
JCCiS.
".'1. The Secretary ol Commerce an I Finance,
wh'i shall be appointed by the President, during
it shall be his'dutv to superintend all
rnatieis relating to Hie piunK'Himu- v-., iu
and report plans ol revenue, and lor the regula
linn cil expenditure, and also to recommend such
tilings as may, in his judgment, promote the com
mercial interests ot the United Slates.
"4. The Secretary ol Foreign A/Iairs, wh?>*e
duty it shall lie to comspond with foreign mi
nister-. prepare plans of treaties,
?5. The Secretary of War, whose dutv shall
he to superintend everything relating to the de
partment of war, &c.
' G. The Secretary of Marine, whose duty it
shall he to superintend the public ships, dock
yard-, naval stores, &c."
These several proposition*, thus imposingly
submitted, were referred to the commitite ot de
tail; and we find in the Constitution, as it came
from the committee, of which the mover of the
propositions was the lea in? member, express
power is conferred upon Congress over each of
the subjects referred to in them, except those in
the second. As 1 have already said, this omis
sion was not accidental. The men who com
posed that Convention were not the men lo be
suilty of inadvertence of that sort. It is true the
Constitution did not provide for the organization
of these departments, but it couleried authority
upon Congress over the subjects, and left it to
Congress to organize the departments to take
charge ol them.
From these proceedings, it appears that the
leading members of the convention considered the
several subjects referred to in these propositions
as equals in point of impoitance?as subjects
"cjtisilm "tntris"?of the same class. And when
it is evident that they so regarded them, an ! con
ferred authority upon Congress over all ol them
but two, in express terms, can you, upon any just
principle of construction, inler that they meant to
confer it over the others by mere implication 1 It
is impossible. And in confirmation ol this view,
we find that when the first Congress came to or
ganize the departments,they substantially*adopted
the suggestions of Mr. Morris, with the exception
of the second, which shows that they did not sup
pose that jurisdiction over the subject referred to
in it was confided to Congress. Otherwise bow
can you account for the omission to organize such
a department 1
To show that the wise men of the convention
did not understand that power was conferred up
on the General Government to protect manufac
tures, either expressly, under the power to lay
impost, or as an incident to any other power, I
refer to a proceeding ot the convention, which is
very significant. On the 13th of September,only
three legislative days before the adjournment,
when the business of the convention was through,
in convention Col.Mason said:
"He had moved, without success, for a power
to make sumptuary regulations. He had not yet
lost sight ol his objects. After descanting on the
extravagance of our maimers, the excessive con
suinptionof foreign superfluities, on the necessi
ty ol restricting it, as well with economical as re
publican views, he moved that a committee be
appointed to report articles of association fur en
couraging, by lie advice, Ihe influence and the ex- '
ample ol ihe members ot the convention, economy, i
frugality, and American manufacture."
Can anything be more conclusive than this!? ;
Had so wise a man as Col. Mason thought that ?
the power was vested in the General Government ;
tor this purpose, he would certainly have looked
to legislation, rather than the voluntary associa
tion of gentlemen, to effect it. LJis movement
was obviously the last effort of a gentleman reluc
tant to abandon a cherished object. To all ibis,
the protectionists can only reply, that if the pow
er to lay protective duties is not vested in the
United Stales, it is so trammelled in the States as
to be in fact extinguished; and that the first reve- ;
nue bill imposing duties on imports recogniscd*
in its preamble the right of the General Govern- j
ment to levy them for the purpose ol protection, j
In answer to this, all I can sav i-, that I think j
1 have shown that the power to levy imposts lor
the purposes of protection does not exist any
where except in the States under the restriction of
the Constitution. But the levying ol imposts is j
not the only mode by which manufactures can be j
cncouraged. It tnay be done by bounties. It may j
he done in a variety ol other ways, all wiihin the j
legislative competency of the States. Oseofrhe
first and most effectual laws passed in Great Bri- |
tain tor the encouragement ot the woollen manu
facture was the one requiring the dead to be bu
ried in woollens. But suppose the power were
entirely extinguished, it would not be without ma
ny examples in our system.
As to the coteraporaneous construction, so lar
from the tariff of 1789 recognizing the principle j
of protection, it does precisely the reverse. It is ;
true, in the preamble of the act, the necessity of j
encouraging manufactures is recited as one ot its ;
objects. Bui it must be borne in mind that a pre- j
amble is no part of a law, and that it is not legi
timate to reter to, even as an aid in construction,
unless the provisions jof the law are obscure.?
Where they are clear, you cannot refer to the
preamble at all. Before 1 reler to the provisions
of the tariff of 178D, to show that it was any thing
bui a protective tariff, I desire to premise a tew
remarks.
''?hea-ever wasatime when a high protective ,
Duwer?Si? 7 Pr"Prieti' have been laid, i! the '
power existed, it was in 17^9. Wc had but a '
war oi'th^ r? '?r(iconie ol!' ol lhe lonS and blood v
th? mn, ReVolu[lon- 11 l,ad beeu 'he policy oY
in tl.Tr ,I.er CHUDtry to discourage manufactures i
in in A CS; th"e had consequently lew grown i
jp in America. During the war, our people had
suffered intensely for the want of their products
w?hn,aS Very natoral|y al tbat l'me a strong
'hihat in any subsequent war we might not be i
?n the same situation. In addition to this, we had '
deb"ea?nJt i?i' th<? War loa icd wi,h a h"avv national
the laid .If ,"reat wilh Patriots of
'e'and was to rai>e a revenue to meet the en
fnenf 'inh0" il,Main the.cretlit ot ^Govern
' ? , ,f t,'?-;re ever was a time when a hi?h tariff
were bJffn " U)lera"*li'il was lkcn- As there
were but few manufactures in the country the
or ign articles would not have been surpers'eded
in the market by domestic products. A hitrhtaril!
at mat time would have produced a large teve
n.Ue'uH ? was 80 ,uuch Besides it
would a: ine same time have given protection to
he manufactures w-hiie they were in their intan
)- iei, with all these inducements to enact a
high protective tariff, the average rate tf duty in
And Z h*yh Dacl was 5 12 Per cent. only
Hes not Br,S| ,ratCS..,a5p0Sed Were ?r?n luxu
ries not produced at all in this cocintry. Yes, sir
( r il n ?r. !hc act lhe fa'hers
iL LT10 enatW'1 at ? w'hen
pecuniary wants of the Government
were such that it was compelled to resort to
direct taxation at the expense of domestic dis
content and actual insurrection. And this they
did rather than enact a fatirf with an average
higher loan 5} percent. Thisisthe law, a casual
expression in the preamble of which is seized hold
ol as a recognition ol the power of Congress
to enact a protective tariff! But here is a prac
tical test of the character of that law. Gentle
men say it was a protec'ive tariff It was pass
ed when our manufactures were in their infancy
and when they were weak. They are now in
he lull vigor ol manhood, and of course require
.^support than they did then. Will gentlemen
now take for their manufactures the protection
which was accorded them then? Sir we all
know they will not. Why,sir, il we were now
to propose such a rate of duty as was adopted in
' . 6 5;fn,|emen would he readv for open
rebellion. 1 hey are not satisfied with a rate id
duties on an average five times as hisjh. And
\et the / tell Uj about the act of 17"!' being a pro
tective tariff Such a thing as a protective tariff
never was heard of until 1816.
Bui sir, the pow*r to levy a protective tariff
not only is without warrant in the Constitution
but it is most palpably in derogation of its spirit.'
In construing the Constitution of the U. States,
li?e all other instruments, you must not look to
its letttr only, but to the spirit in which it was
framed?to the mischiefs designed to be avoided
by it; and you must so construe it as to advance
us object, and to suppress the mischief. What
were the abuses against which our Constitution
was designed to provide'! The whole of that
grand movement, commencing with the dawn ol
our revolution, and ending with the adoption ol
the Constitution of the United States, was set on
j foot to get clear ol the piles of regulations, tram
mels, restrictions, an I monopolies with which the
private ptirsnits of man were burdened and ha
rassed. It is a very narrow and contracted view
of that movement to suppose that it was against
any particular statute of the British Government.
It was against the abus- s of the British system?
against the relics of feudal and darkages?anion"
which were the legislative claim of interfering
| with the religion, the commerce, and the private
pursuits ij! the people. All this our fathers thought
j wrong Thev were of opinion that when Govern
! ment t0?k effectual means to encourage industry,
j bv securing to it its fruits, to secure property, re
I press violence, and discountenance fraud?when
: ij had taken ellectual means ol securing man in
i ine unmolested libeity in his person and property,
j that it had exhausted its function. Form'
I r.ately, the right of Government to interfere
| with our religion is taken away in the most
? emphatic manner. But religion is a universal
truth. It is unaffected by time, place, or cir
cumstances. 1 he true religion for one man is
the trut religion of all. It ii was not, therefore,
!>??. "S 1,n"'Ceti !ent importance, concerning as it
fitter s~u! ?j ect Kir * leg is I a ifo n" i h atf t he pu7sl5\i^tff
inducry, which are affect*! by soil, climate, ha
nits, lasies, and a thousand things which make
it peculiarly proper that individuals should not
>< interfered with in them hv Government. In
<jiviuu.il tastes, habits a?,f interests wm always
??ireet them to the pursuits which they had better
follow without the interlerence of Government
And I am in favor of leaving every man in his
iiicJiistna 1 pursuits, as in his religion, to workout
his own salvation in his oun way. Government
is incompetent to this business, and it cannot
| undertake it without mischief. What one ol my
i constituents would allow me to regulate his pri
j va:e pursuits? It he would not allow me, how
much more reluctant would he be to allow a He
presentative from Maine or Texas? And the
same would be the cas* with them. If no on*
?iisinct would consent that its own member ac
quainted with their wants and habits, should con
iro. them in their private puisuits, why should
they be more willing that we should collectively
There is no policy on earth so fatal, particu
larly in a free government, as that by which the
people are taught to look up to ami lean upon
government too much. Adversity will sooner or
later befall all pursuits. Teach the people, on
such occasions, to rely upon themselves, and you
make them good citizen-; but learn them to look
up to, and lean upon, the government, and when
disaster curses, they call upon the Government,
which is powerless to aid without wrong to others,
and you breed discontent and disaffection. This
is particularly the ca-e with manulactures. In
them there is a constant tendency in production
tooutrun consumption. There is a constant ten
dency to embarrassment; and if government in
teiiere.s at all, whenever it occurs there is a cla
mor, and it is appealed to lor more protection.
Be lure Congress determines to adhere to the ju
risdiction ot protection, I desire it to consider to
what it will lead. If you legislate at all upon
this matter, your legislation must, and ought to
be complete. If you take control of the subject
of manufactures, you must sooner or later pass
all the laws incident to it. Well, what are they?
More than half ol the legislation ot Great Bri
tain, and other manufacturing nations, relative
to manufactures, is in regulating the hours ol
labor, the ages at which persons shall engage in
them, &c., iVc. There is no necessity lor such
legislation here as yet, but it will come. The
time will rapidly approach, if you persevere in
your present policy. When it does, what will
you do? Have you any power to entertain any
such legislation? No one will pretend t'iat we
have. Well, will you by legislation drive and
entice labor into a pursuit, the natural, indeed I
may say the inevitable tendency of which is to J
make such legislation necessary, when you have i
no authority to resort to it? Can this be righi?
Is it right to legislate for the protection o! the ca
pital connected with this pursuit, when you have
uo p.'Wer to legislate lor the security ol the labor
engaged in it? Will you say, we ?ill leave this
to the States? Then, I say, leave the whole sub
ject.
These views are so obviously correct, and they
are in such eract keeping with our system of go
vernment, that I do not believe any one not per
sonally interested would controvert them, if it
were not for a series of fallacies which the inge
nuity of these persons have enabled them to fas
ten upon the public mind. As disagreeable as is
the task, 1 desire to expose some ol them. And
the first which I shall notice are two advocated
by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr.
Win'hrop.] I notice them first, as they are more
immediately connected with the question of con- !
stitutional power which I have been discussing. !
That gendeman maintains that "rbe real revenue 1
TarifT is the reasonable protective Tarifl;" and, i
to sustain this position, he assigns these reasons:
"The productiveness of a revenue system de
pends not on any abstract principles, or arbi- !
trary arrangement of duties, but on the ability of
the people to import and pay for whatever they |
want tiom abroad. The consuming ability ol
the people is what constitutes or causes the great
difference between the operation of one tarill and
another tariff, or between the operation of the
same tariff at different periods."
And to corroborate them b-reads the following
extract from the London Banker's Circular:
"It is the amount which the aggregate imports
into aDy country may realize, that constitutes the
means of reciprocal and beneficial exchange; and
the amount which the imports will realize, de
pends entirely on the condition and power of the
community at large to consume. The primary
object of the Government of every country should
be, to devise means of enlarging the power of con
sumption bran adequate remuneration for labor."
Now, sir, I readily concede the proposition that
"the productiveness of a reven ue system depend*
on the ability of the people to i-uport and pay for
whatever they want from abroad." And I also
admit, that the .-ourse of policy which confers this
ability upon the greate-t number of people pro
motes that productiveness to the gtea'est extent.
And I maintain that the converse ol this propo
sirion is true. About these propositions the gen
i email and myself do not Ueln l0 diirere % t
es he not see, when he as-omes that i"e profec
t.ve poJ.cy confers this ability io consume umn
the greatest number, that he bess the quei
and assumes the very point in debate 1 Now sir'
I contend that the lree-trade policy conters'this
ability to the greatest extent. And it I am ri"ht
in ihis, I show ihat as unrestricted a system?as
possib.e is "the real revenue tariff." J admit that
a protect,ve tariff will create a larger capacity it,
ti'r wha"," ?nng ca'1,tali!,IS 10 import and pay
lor whatever they want from abroad, bv increas
ing ibeir prosperity and it they were the country
S,S"le'Uans1ar?um1tUl ucuId t* conclusive!
Lut, unfortunately lor the argument, they are I ut
a?Vfo?n"nu 11 P?nion of lhe country. The crnsu,
of 1640 showed, that out of a population of up
wards of seventeen millions, only 75)1,719 were
engaged in manulafactures and trades; and as I
proved in my argument on a lormer occasion,
(on the Harbor bill,) in reply to another gentle
man from Massachusetts, (Mr. Hudson.) more
nan hall of the whole number of these is ol this
Utter class, who are not benefitted by a protective
artff; and a very large portion ol the other halt
s composod ol (Up operatives, who, as has been
Uequently shown in this debate, get no better
wages under a protective tar,if than without k
! increasedehvaifaC,.'y !? ?Tume',herf ,ore' is
increased bv it. 1 admit that tin* capacity i>i \Uc
capitalist to consume is augmented by a protec
I l\vo ^,u( 'hey are an exceedingly small
class, and a class, too, w/,osr obiii,y I() consume,
| even under small profits, is sucli as to enaNe
I ihern to supply all their wants. And an increase
of those profits rather adds to their clear gain,
lhan to their consumption. They make more
money, but they expend but little more. Bv a
j protective tariiJ, they are enabled to add to their
I capital rather than their consumption. So the
gentleman must see that such a tarii] adds very
inconsiderably to the capacity, even of the manu
facturing class, lor consumption. As to all the
rest, who compose the great mass ol the commu
nity, their capacity lor consumption is greatly im
paired in the depression of their prosperity. Hut
| the gentleman may say, that here, too, 1 am beg
ging the question. 1 will prove my position by
his own admission, "tie maintains that the as
tern which bring* with it the greatest amount tit
prosperity, creates the largest capacity for con
sumption. I admit the truth of the proposition.
Hut he cannot avoid admitting that the converse
ol it is true, ami that the system under which the
largest steady "ability of the people to import
and pay /or whatever they want from abroad"
has uniformly existed, i? the one which bruits
with it the greaiest prosperity tothe greatest num
j ber. The truth ol these positions cannot be de
nied. The gentleman virtually admits them.?
Now, let us turn to the facts, and see under which
system this greatest capacity lor consumption
; has existed. The records prove, that from I7t?9,
? w hen the first taritl was passed, down to this
1 day, the imports retained for home consumption
j have been comparatively smaller under high dtt
j ties, and comparatively larger under low. How
j will the gentleman accout.t lur ihis upon any
j other supposition than that the people enjoyed
I more prosperity and had a larger capacity for
I consumption under the latter system than the lor
mer'? Will he say that the ci nsumption was
| not less during the petiods ol protcciion, though
! the imports were 1?thai the deficiency ol ihe lat
I ter was more than supplied by the produeis ot
1 our own factories, brought into existence by the
tariff? He will find that the import- were con
stantly increasing, as theduties were going down,
under the Compromise, although, as 1 shall here
atter show, the building ol factories con'imifd to
progress at the same time. And he will find,
too, that the imports tell off immediately after the
passage of the taritl of I81i, and much sooner
lhan it was possible lor factories to have grown
up to supply the deficiency. No, sir, the true
ieason lor the tailing off ol imports i-, that the
prosperity and ability of the great mass ol the
community has regularly risen or fallen as
the duties have. The great mass of the com
munity are agriculturists, and those whose pios
perily is dependent upon that id the agriculturist;
and the amount of the export and the price ot his
products have regulaily ri>eti or fallen as the du
ties have. 1 showed ihi* in my speech on the
Harbor bill, and I have no disposition to repeat
now uiK-r I ?ni.l ili.-n 1 J,avc thus.shown iiniiH
ihe gentleman s own premises, that his conclusion
that "the real revenue tariff" is the protective ta
riff," is not sustained, and that the ruvursc of tho
proposition is true.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr.
Winthrop.J in reply to the argument, that the Ta
riff policy is partial in its operation, and therefori"
unjust, savs that the business of manufacturing
is not confined to any particular locality; and he
refers to a few factories in Virginia, North Caro
lina, Georgia, and even South Carolina. Jt is
true, there are a few straggling factories in those
States; but still, does he not know that it is a bu
siness essentially local, anil consequently that the
advantages of protection are sectional? Tt:is I
showed in a speech whieh I delivered in the
House of Delegates of Virginia on the 5th ot
March, 1812. On thai occasion I -aid:
"Let there be no mistake on this point. He
was aware that many supposed that the dispro
portion between the number of manufactures
which are benefitted by a Taiiffof protection, in
the South and the North, is no: very great. We
have in Virginia, for instance, a few cotton fac
tories, which are a matter of curiosity to the com
munity, and for that reason are visited by almost
everybody. It is very natural, therefore, that the
ex'ent of these establishments should be over
rated. He had made some calculations, based
upon the late census, the result of which lie would
present to the House. In Massachusetts there
arc 87,837 persons engaged in agriculture, and
85,17(1 in manufactures and trades?about an
equal number in each pursuit. In Khode island
there are Id,623 engaged in agriculture, and
2i,000 in manufactures and Hades; being more
than one-fourth more engaged in the latter pur
suit than the former. In Virginia there arc
H18,771 engaged in agriculture, and 21,476 in
manufactures and trades?upwards of fourteen
to one. And it must be borne in mind, that those
engaged in manufactures and trades in Virginia
are not of that class which are bent fitted by a"Ta
riff ol protection. They are principally joineis,
smiths, shoemakers, &c., whose interest, as far as
a Tariff gots, is identical with the agriculturist,
as their pursuit is not interfered with by foreign
competition?and they are themselves the con
sumers of the fabrics of the manufacturer. That
they are of this class is shown by the fact, that in
H istern Virginia, where our cotton manufactures
exist, there are 222,827 engaged in agricultute,
and only 4,M)0 in manufactures and trades?up
wards of forty-five to one; whereas, in Western
Virginia, where there are scarcely any manufac
luring establishments, there are 93,94i, engaged
in agriculture, and 16,676 in manufactures and
trades?not quite six for one. He had extended
the calculation to the entire manufacturing dis
trict, comprising Massachusetts, Uhode Island,
Connecticut, the Southern district of New York,'
New Jersey, and East Pennsylvania; and he
found that there were a little upwards ot two en
gaged in agriculture to one engaged in manufac
tures and trades; whereas, in the staple States,
Comprising Virginia, North Carolina, South Ca
rolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Loui-i
ana, and Arkansas, there are eighteen and nine
ty-nine hundredths, or near nineteen, engaged in
agriculture, for every one engaged in inanufac
lures and trade-; and doubtless those engaged in
the latter pursuits were principally of the class of
joiners, smiths, Ac , who are not benefitted by a
Tariff' ol protection."
[Concluded on 4th page.J
We lake great pleasure (says the Norfolk He
ralil) in calling afention to the advertisement ol
Mr. James C. White, laie Agent of the Ports
mouth and Roanoke Railroad, io another column,
by which it will be seen thai he has made ar
rangements for continuing the lunning of thecals
on the road which now, in conformity to ihe Act
of Assembly, takes the name of ' The Seaboard
and Roanoke Railroad'' Mr. White i??at this lime
actively engaged in making all needful repaits
on the road, *nd with ihe experienced and careful
agents he has employed, the public have the best
assurance of increased facility and confidence in
the travel on it.
Capt. Talbot has returned home, be ins, we
regret to say, unsuccessful in his pursuit of Epes,
the murderer. He went as tar as Galveston,
Texas,at which place he lo?t ail trace of him -
He had paid hi* bill and left, with his bageag**,
one of the hotels of that city some days b**lorr
Capt. T.'s arrival there, but it was not known
in wharmoie, or in which direction, he travel
led. Capt. T. had printed and distributed several
hundred hand bills, which may, perhaps, yet se
cure his apprehension by someone.
[Lynchburg RrpuMican.
THE T A P PAH A N .NOCK FEMALE SE
MINARY,
UNDER the superintendence <( Mrs. LUCY V.
GRAY, will be re oj>ened fru the reception of
I pupils on the first Monday in October, I84*i. The courn
, of tn-truction which has been so successfully pursued
for many years post will he continued by lw, aided by
well (juililied teacher* of both sexes. Applications
may he made for Boarding or Day Scholars to the Prut
cipal. Terms as heretofore.
Tappahannock, Va., t?ept. 4, ie46? c2aw4w