OCR Interpretation

Jeffersonian Republican. (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1840-1853, April 25, 1844, Image 1

Image and text provided by Penn State University Libraries; University Park, PA

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86053954/1844-04-25/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

The whole art ok Government consists in the art of beino honest. Jefferson.
VOL 5.
No. I.
TERMS. Two dollars per annum in advance Two dollars
and a quarter, half yearly and f not paid before the end of
'the year, two uouars anu a nan. i nosc wno receive men
papers by a carrier or stage drivers employed by the proprie
inn. vvill be charted 7 1- cts. ncr vear. extra.
No papers discontinued until ;ill arrearages are paid, except
aitano option 01 uic manors.
,lE?Advcrtiseinenls not exceeding one square (sixteen lines)
avJH be inserted three weeks for one dollar ; twenty-five cents
fin-.f.rerv su!)eQuent insertion : larcer ones in proportion. A
iujsral discount will be made to yearly advertisers
1T7AU fetters addressed to the Editors must be post paid.
(Having a general assortment of large elegant plain and orna-
uieiltM lype, we arc preparcu va mcuulc ccij
description of
, Cards, Circulars Bill Heads, Notes.
Blank Receipts,
Printed with neatr.css and despatch, on reasonable terms
JScffersoniau Republican.
t Sjpeecli of Mr. Stewart, of Penn.
Delivered in the House of Representatives of the
U. S., March 13, 1844.
But our present amount ot (foreign imports,
viz., one hundred millions, is sufficient to sup
ply the demand ; how then are you 10 make
100m for fifty millions more ? this can only be
done by destroying fifty millions of dollars of
our own domestic productions, to make way for
Jiat aimiiifcni of the productions of foreign indus
try. We must, according to this financial
Kchnmc, noionly destroy fifty Ynillions of dol
lars worth anniiwlly of our productive indus-
hut we mvtsifcend fifty millwns of dollars
oi hard cash to folreign countries, to purchase
what 'e now doh produce, can produce, and
owld to produce lat home; andifor what? to
rafsti five million:! of revenue by taxation, which
is not wanted i Now, sir, I submit, is this a
wise, i jt an American policy Is it not ra
ilicr a British policy, a plan to reduce the du
ties and open our ports to thej importation of
British goods, to the sacrifice and destruction
of our own mechanics, farmers and manufactu
rers ? Yes, sir, and this is to pe done, by an
American Congress, and by iherepresentauveri
of the American people J uart such an anu
Acnerican such a British system as this, stand
fx a moment before this free and enlightened
people! Pasi this bill, sir, tale five dollars
-off bar iron, and still more off iron in all its
ither forms, and, sir, you will go far to extin
guish the fires of every furnace and of every
lorge in Pennsylvania. By lhi bill you will
uinke down your own mechanic your hatters,
your shoemakers, your blacksmiths, your tai
Jors, your sadler ; in short, all jyour mechan
ics ; you will psralyzo and prostfate your glass
orks, paper mills, tanneries, salt works, col
lieries, lead mines your woolltn and cotton
factories; but above all, you ainj
death blow
at the American farmers, not onjy by destroy
ing their home markets, almostthe only mar
kets they now have, but what is still worse,
you will convert the mechanics.and manufactu
rers thus thrown out of employment into agri
cultures, into producers instead of consumers
of agricultural productions. When you double
production and diminish consumption one-half,
do you not ruin and destroy the farmers of this
country? And, sir, allow me lo say, that in a
country like this, where seven-eights of the en
tire populution is engaged in agriculture, when
agriculture is destroyed, the country itself is
destroyed. Agriculture is the great basis and
foundation on which every thing else depends
when lhe farmer prospers, all prosper ; when
he sink", all the rest, professional men, me
chanics, and all go down with him. It is the J were anxious for the reduction of tfie American
great object therefore to take cxre of agricul-j Whig Tariff of '42. No wonder ier Chancel
ture, make this" prosperous and the whole coun-' lor exclaims against, the Tariff, aid says it will
try will prosper; and how is agriculture to be'nblige them to send us specie unload of goods
made prosperous but by building up and sus-1 hereafter to p;iy for cotion. Ni wonder our
Uining home markets. It is therefore not for j country is rapidly recovering fiWn its late de
t he manufacturers, but for the mechanics andpression that iis courss is agafi onward and
formers, ves, sir, for the farmers, that I advo-1 upward that its former prospeiy is returning
fa'e the protective policy- There is one ira-t
'.iportant fact which lies deep at lhe foundation
Ml the whole subject, to which 1 am anxious to
.attract the attention of the farmers and politi-
jcvms of iki.s countrv. and it is this, that half'
.nd more l.bio half of the entire price of the
hhiiutired miJlions .of .dollars a year of foreign
gout! imported into ihis country is agricultural
' . y . 1 1 J'
pruuiii is rai.ed on a loreign fin, worxeu up anu
'v jnimiftiftured into' goods, and then sent here
or sale ; and ihat the farmers and people of
ihi rounit.r send in this wav fifty millions of
dollars a yar to purchase foreign agricultural
produce, in the shape ot guilds, while foreign
er take liule or noihing from us ; our whole
agricultural exports to all the world (excepting
rutton and tobacco) do not amount to ten mil
linns of dollars a year ; thus, Mr, we purchase
five dollars' worth of foreign agricultural pro
duce lo every dollar's" worih we fell ; this may
Kfieni strange, but it is strictly true ; I defy con
tradiction I challenge investigation. Let
gBtt'lemen disposed to coitteot -if eleet an aru-
cle of foreign goods, a vard of cloth, a ton 0
iron, a
hat, a coat, a pair of shoes, any thing
" from a
needle to an anchor," examine its con
stittient parts, the raw material, the clothing and
the subsistence of the Labor employed in its
manufacture, and it would be discovered that
more than half, often three-fourths, of the
whole price is made up of agricultural produce
It is a well known fact that farmers often make
hundreds of dollars worth of domestic goods,
cloths, Scc, without using a dollar's worth of
any thing not produced on their own farms
goods and cloth thus made are therefore entire
ly agricultural ; and are not the same materials
used in the manufacture of goods, whether
made on a farm or in a factory?
Mr. S. said he had ascertained the fact from
his own books kept at a furnace, that more
than three-fourths of tho price of every ton of
iron sold, was paid to tho neighboring farmers
for their domestic goods, their meat and flour,
that clothed and fed his hands ; for their hay,
corn oats, &c, that sustained bis horses, mules,
and oxen, employed about his works. In Eng
land, iron is made of the same materials that
constitute it here; well, we now import, manu
factured and unmanufactured, eight millions of
dollars worth of iron and steel; say only half
its value is agricultural produce, thus, then, we
send four millions of dollars a 3'ear to purchase
foreign agricultural produce, converted into
iron, and sent here for sale, while our own
country is filled with ore and coal, buried and
useless, and the produco of our farmers left
without markets. Will tho farmers of this
country submit to such a system as this open
ly advocated and adopted to favor foreign in
dustry at the expense of our own ? Will they
tamely and silently agree thus to be crushed
and sacrificed ? No, sir, they will not; they
will speak out against this unjust and ruinous
measure ; your tables will soon groan under the
weight of their remonstrances against it. I
call on them to do so ; 1 call on them to
to the rescue before it is loo late.
The avowed object of this bill is to open our
ports to the importation of British goods to
favor foreign farmers and mechanics, and de
stroy our own. Sir, give the people time to be
V 1 1 .1 - frit 1 . . 1 1-
ucaiu, dim whs mil cannot pass; let it oe dis
cussed, and it can never pass an American
Congress. There is one way in which it can
"pass semi ino inn uritrair rTtniarrrnt, uu it
will be passed by acclamation. England would
give millions to secure its passage. It had re
cently been staled in an official report, read in
the House of Commons, that unless tho Amer
ican Tariff of 1842 was modified and reduced,
Great Britain would have to pay the United
States cash for their cotton, instead of paying
in goods as she formerly had done ; and this
bill accordingly modifies and reduces the Tariff
of 1842 to suit the wishes of tho British Chan
cellor, who-, while he recommends freB trade
and low duties to us, takes special care to ad
here to his own prohibitory system. While
this bill proposes greatly to reduce the duties
on foreign distilled spirits, England exacts a
duty of 2,700 per cent, on ours ; and this is re
ciprocity! This bill reduces the duties on to
bacco and its manufactures, while England de
mands 1.200 per cent, on ours, audi actually
collects 22 millions dollars of revenni annually
from our tobacco, equal lo the wnol revenue
of this Government such is Briiishjreciprori
ly and free trade. Since the Tanf of 1842,
the tables with England have been 'unfed; last
year the balance of trade with Grfat Britain
exceeded $13,000,000 in our favor instead of
being about that amount against u, na in for
mer years. The imports of spccie.had in the
last year reached" the unprecedented amount,
as appears by official reports, of inre than 23
millions of dollars, mo.st of it from Great Brit-
JNo wonder England and hfr statesmen
a prosperity 11 always had am always would
have under an efficient protective sysicmj but
which it never had and never vould have with
out it. No wonder specie haj become abun
dant that tne banks nau refumeu urn ex-
changes had beco.t:e equalize! and interest re
duced that nunuficiures fid revived that
agncnhuie was recovering hat ihe mechanic
'1 .11 l.-i'.l.l : 11.
anu every
and every oilier nratien 01 uii national inuusrrv
was fully and profitably enipbyed. All tiiHe
were the necessary and undiuiable fruils of lhe
existing tariff policy resule seen, felt, and ac
knowledged throughout -ibeldtid yet, in lhe
face of all these facts hujEutg their eyes to
these greal lights blazing 1) befW.-thein the
Committee of Ways and ifeana have reported
a bill 10 repeal ih:s bnnefipl act of 1842, and
bring lis back to the lowduttes and the low
condition of 1840. Theyhave smirk a death
blow at this policy a polcy which had vindi
cated Us adoption byallls fruit, which had
fulfilled all lhe hopes of is friends, and falsified
a!! the predieiious of itslnernjes ; but shall this
blow be unavailing ? No, sir, it will recoil and
overwhelm its authors. The people who have
experienced the benefits and the blessings of
this measure, will not abandon it. Even its
enemies are now disposed to give it a fair and
full trial, and condemn it only when it fails.
Then why not, sir, wail till the people have an
opportunity to pass upon this question at the
approaching elections ? They will then settle
it one way or the other. If ihe.wiemies of the
Tariff policy prevail, they can and will repeal
if; but it you repeal it now, and its friends are
successful, it will be immediately restored.
Then why not let it abide this result ? Let it go
to the people, let them decide it, and, for one,
sir, I am prepared to acquiesce iitheir decision.
But, sir, if more revenue is wanted, why not
increase the duties on luxuries consumed by
the rich, raiher than thus strike down the poor
man's labor, and lake the bread from the mouth
of his children, to make room for the importa
tion of fifty millions of dollars worth of foreign
goods? s this, sir, an American measure,
can it receive the support of an American Con
gress, or the representatives o the American
people ? I call on tho authors of this ru'nous
measure to come forth in its defence. I call
on ihem to assign some reason for its adoption.
I can readily discover reason enough why
England should desire its adoption, but they
are the very reasons whv we jhould reject it :
just so far as it benefits them it injures us ; this
is a contest between foreign and American me
chanics, farmers, and manufacturers, for the
American market, and the question is, which
side shall we take ? The tariff of 1842 shuts
out the foreisner and gives the Americans the
market; this bill proposes to repeal the tariff of
1842, and give it to the foreigner; to open our
ports and again flood our country with foreign
goods, and export money by ship-loads to pay
for them ; and whj- ? I again ask the commit
tee upon what principle of national policy this
measure is sustained ? j
The Tariff Democratic Free Trade J
Mr. Dromgoole replied to enable bare-headed
people to buy cheap bats !
J o enable bare-headed people to buy cheap
hats ! Sir, let me tell the gentleman if he car
ries this measure, the poor peoplo of this coun
try would not only go bare-headed but bare
backed; they would bo doomed, like the pau-
The tarifiTsir, is "the poor man s law;" it 1 this
and this alone that gives him employment and
wages. Just as the tariff goes down, tha wa
ges of labor will go down with it. Repeal tho
tariffadopt the gentleman's favorite plan of
"free trade," and you will bring down the la
borer here, in every department of industry, to
the level of the serfs and paupers of Europe.
This is certain it is inevitable. As certain as
the laws of graviiaiion as inevitable as that
the romrfval of an obstruction between two un
equal bodies of water, will reduce the one to
the level of the other. Repeal the tariff, and
what is there 10 prevent our country from being
instantly inundated with the productions of the
low priced labour of Europe. When hatters,
shoemakers, blacksmiths, and all must come
down and work as cheap as they do, or give up
the market! With the present facilities of in
tercourse by steamships, you might as well at
tempt to establish higher wages and higher pri
ces on one side of a street than on the other,
as lo establish and sustain higher prices and
wages here than in Europe, under the delusive
and Europian scheme of "free-trade." But, sir,
this scheme would bring in its train oilier and
more fearful consequences. Adopt this scheme,
and you will soon bring down and degrade the
now free and prosperous laborer of this coun
try, not only to iho moral, but to iho political
condition of ihe slave and serfs of Europe.
By reducing their wages, you deprive the poor
man of ihe means of educating his children and
fitting them to be free. By thus depressing
one class of your people,, you necessarily ele
vate another. You divide society horizonially
into upper iind lower classesdistinctions and
lilies supervene jealousies and fiually hostil
ities follow, and liberty itself is in tho end swal
lowed up in monarchy. Such are the political
and moral tendencies of every step in the di
rection of free trade. The protective policy is
therefore democratic in its character and ten
dencies, it is a policy which promotes equality,
not by depressing one class, but by elevating
all by elevating, sustaining, and protecting the
labor of your own country against the ruinous
and degrading effects of a loo free competuion
with the low priced and depressed labor of E11
rope. These are views which belong to this
subject, and should not be overlookbd or disre
garded by those who, represent the free labor of
this country, and especially by those who make
professions of democracy and love oj the people
Now is the lime, and this is ihe question, to
lest trjeir sincerity. Those who represent
alaves may be excused, but those representing
frefimtn will be held to a strict accountability.
The great and leading objection to tbtt pro
tective policy is. that the duMes are added to
the price, and paid by the consumers, This
objection lies. -$ the foundation of (jie opposi
tion to this policy; and, if unfounded, this op
position ought to cease. The duly is added to
the price; this is the theory. Now, sir, how is
the fact; What says experience? All experi
ence proves that this objection has no existence,
savo in the imaginations of those who make it.
Now, sir, 1 lay it down as a general propo
sition, that there never was a high protective
duly imposed upon any article, from the foun
dation of this Government to the present day,
the price of which has not been in the end re
duced greatly reduced in many instances to
one-half, one-third, and one-fourth of what it
had been before these protective duties were
imposed. This, Bir, may seem to gentlemen
on the other sidu to be a strong declaration ;
but, sir, 1 make it deliberately, with a full con
viction of its truth, and 1 challenge gentlemen
to disprove it I defy them to point oui a sin
gle instance to the contrary. Let them exam
ine, and ihey will find invariably ihat whenever
the duties have been highest, the prices have
ultimately come down the lowest, and for a ve
ry obvious reason high duties promote compe-
iton.and -competition never fails to bring down
prices. This effect is invariable and universal;
but unfortunately ihe duties always run up as the
prices run down; hence the frightful lists of du
ties exhibited by the Committee of Ways and
Means, amounting to 200, 300, and 400 per ct.
When first imposed these duties were but 30
or 40 per cent.; but now, owing to the reduc
tion of prices, they have run up to 200 or 300
per cent. By way of illustration take the arti
cle of glass, on which a duty of S4 a box was
imposed at a time when glass cost $12; this
was then a duty of 33 per cent., but now when
home competition, induced by this protective du
ty, has brought down the price to $2 a box, the
duty, owing to this reduction of price, is 200
per cent, instead of 33; the same is true of ma
ny other articles on which the duty, when im
posed, did not exceed 20 or 30 per cent., but
now, owing to reduction of price produced by
home competition, they amount to 2 or 300 per
cent. When four cents per pound duty was
put on cut nails, the price was twelve cents per
pound, and this duty, of course was 33 per ct.;
but how, when the effect of this protective duty
has been to reduco the price of nails from 12
to 3 cents per pound-, the duty is increased to
100 ner cent: this is equally true of spikesk rods,
,id on c"nare cottona when imported
at 20 cents, -mnitg-nr-onty T)I 4U )tjr -ut hut
now, when the price has come down to 5 cents
per yard, the duty goes up lo 1G0 per cent.
Sir, I could go on and enumerate moro than
twenty such instances whero the duties, though
moderate when imposed, now actually exceed
lhe price of the article; yet we are told that in
all cases the duty is added to the price, and
paid by ihe consumer! That is, that the con
sumer pays S4 a box duty on glass that he buys
for $2; 4 cents a pound on nails that he buys
for 3; and 8 cents a yard on coarse cotton goods
that ho buys for 5. Such are the absurdities
into which "these stale ami-tariff theories involve
their votaries; but suppose what they alledge
were true in point of fact, and that the duty is
really added to the price, tho co3t of cotton
goods being 20 when the duty of 8 cents was
imposed, add the duty, iho price would be, of
course, 26 cents a yard, and the duty only 28
per cent, instead of 1G0 as stated by lhe com
mittee; hence, if you raise the price five fold,
then the duly is quite rcasonsible, and there
will be no objection whatever to its payment.
Let the manufacturer, then run up his price
from 5 to 25 cents a yard, and he at once si
lences a the objections of the Committee of
Ways and Means, as this would fix theiluiy at
30 per cent., just,what they want it. But sup
pose the manufacturer were to reduce his price
to one cent a yard, then the duty being 8 cents,
would be 800 per cent Horrid oppression !
who would submit to pay a duty of 800 per ct.?
Who could then refuse 10 go with tho Commit
tee on Ways and Moans for reducing such en
ormous duties ?
But the Committeo of Ways and Means say
that the object of this bill is to increase the rev
enue by reducing the duties; yet, in the very
same paragraph, they say, that' should lhe rev
enue be found redundant, to avoid the horrid
evils of deposites or distribution among lhe
Slates, ihe duties should be instantly reduced,
so as to reduce the revenue to the want.a oTthe
Government; at this time, the committee say,
there is not revenue enough, and ihey propose
to increase it by reducing the duties; but should
it turn out that there is too much, then ihey say
reduce it by reducing tho dulies. Thus a re
duction of dutie is alike effectual with the
Committee for a reduction or for an increase f
revenue. Excellent duciplss of Dr. Sangrado,
who had but one remedy for all diseases,
"bleeding and warm water." How such a pal
;Mr.ii i m hn reconciled or ex-
jvutjiu i;uuiiauiiiiuii i ii1
plained I am at a loss to conjecture,
I'ho ommiiicp nroeeed next to say tlflfffOTs
X tl w UUHIMII"-' J W
the true policy of every interest in the country,
except manufacturers, to adocate the proposed
reduction of duties, and they especially name
Mmw. sir. in mv opinion tne re-
verse of this proposition s true;
much more interested in the maintenance of the
present protective tariff than the manufacturer,
and for the most obvious reasons; hijh pnnec1
live duties are calculated to induce increased
investment in manvifacuirers; the effect of this
is clearly to increase the demand for ihr. raw
material and bread stuffs produced by the far
mers; and the necessary consequence of thiS
increased demand is to incrcane the price of
every thing the former has lo sell, and. by in
creasing the quantity, reduce the price .f man
ufactured goods. Thus the protective p ihcv
enables the farmers to sell higher and buy low
er; while, on the other hand, liicraid compe
tion obliges the manufacturer to sell loner and
buy his supplies at higher rales; yet it is as
serted in this report, and in every nmi-iariir
speech, hat high protective duties are imposed
for the benefit of the manufacturer at tb x
pense of tho fanner. Now I submit whuther
practically the opposite oi this propnition is
not the truth; and whether such is not tho-ne-cessary
and unavoidable result of the great laws
of demand and supply which regulate and coni
trol prices throughout the world.
But agriculture is still further benefited by
the protective policy. By increasing manufac
turers, it withholds a portion of lhe capital and,
hands from agriculture, and converts them into
customers instead of producers, into customer
instead of rivals; thus diminishing ihe quarnity
and increasing the demand for agricultural sup
plies, and at the same time increasing ih sup
ply and reducing the price of the manufactured,
goods which they get in exchange. Thus, iiv
every point of view in which ihe snbjct .can.
be considered, ihs farmer is more bunefited thai
the manufacturer by the adoption and mainte
nance of the protective policy. By way of il
lustration uppo9e in a village there is onn
manufacturing establishment of woollen goods;
here ihe surrounding farmsrs sell their wool
and other agricultural, supplios; the manufactur
ed having a monopoly, regulates his own pri
cesi as well as those of the farmers he de
mands Vvhat he pleases, and gives what he will;
but suppose a high protective lariff on woollen
goods is passed) and instead of one woollen
factory there springs into existence five or six
in this village, the existing monopoly is at onco
destroyed; there is six time the demand for
, , 111 1 1 r ' 1 1 1 , 1
wool anu provjato'- . , , -
Unbincreases mepn u, ctC,j .u...g ...
farmer has t au oy giuuing iub marKcu
with six times the quantity of woollen goods
the price is necessarily reduced. Such are the
plain and obvious bnefits of tha protective pol
icy to the farmers; yet politician would havtf
them believe that ihey are oppressed and ru
ined by ihia policy, which can alone render
them prosperous
And here, sir, it may not be improper to re
mark, that Mr. Van Buren entirely concurs with
the Com. of Ways and Means. In his letter
to the Indiana convention'he says : " The great,
body of mechanics and laborers in every branch
of business, whose welfare should be an object
of unceasing solicitude on the part of every
public man, have been the greatest sufferers by
our high protective tariff, and would continue s
to be were that policy persisted in, is to my
mind too clear to require further elucidation ;
but he further says, what is much noarer tho
truth, that high duties .10 injurious 10 the man
ufacturers themselves, for whose especial ben
efit we are told by tho committee iheso high
duties are imposed. Mr. Van Buren Fays :
"Excess of duties, which tempt to an undue
and ruinous investment of capital in their busi
nessis injurious to the manufacturers ;" and
how by promoting competition, and reducing
prices? but is not this for the benefit of lhe
consumers ?
Tm tlii ? nn oil fr Van T?nnn savs against.
the protective policy he says, " the period'Kas
passed awry when a protective tariff can ,b
kept up in this country," that the tarif "increases
A.J I t uuk nit l'A . - f - r - - , -
the poor man s taxts in an inverse ratio 10 uv
ability to pay," and that direct taxation is a
mora equal and just system of revenue than du
tica on foreign goods. Thtse, sir, are Mr. Van
Buren's opinions upon the tariff, as proclaimed
to the world in his Indiana letter.
But let us look a little into the details and
practical operatian of this bill on tke great ag
ricultural, manufacturing, and mechanical inter
ests of our country.
In the first place it greatly reduces the dnties
on wool and woollens of all kinds ; three-fourths
of the duties, and more, ar taken from coarso
cotlons and calicoes ; lead is robbed of more
than nine-tenths of itsrdtection. But Pnn
sylvania seems to bo iinjled out for destruction.
Her iron, hr ceal, her glass, her paper, her
salt, and leather, are all struck down together,
and we are to go to England for iron, coal, glass,
&c. Yei, sir, in 1842 we imported more than
four millions of buihela of coal, under a duty
of $1 75 per ton. This bill reduces it to on
dollar. Of course you must double, and doubt
less you will liable the quantity imported ; and
for what? To increase tho levenue. A few
daya ago Pennsylvania passed a resolution
unanimously instructing us to je for protection
" without ragard to revenue." Yes, sir, thesa
is I are tne voiu, jhuimsuwh nmu v..-

xml | txt