Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Mr. Benton, urged that the increase of duty which the amendment obviated, rendered the originating the bill in the senate unconstitutional.

Mr. Webster said that he was opposed altogether to the bill, but the objection was one which it belonged to the house to make. It was a question of privilege, and the decision belonged solely to the house. After some further discussion, the amendment was rejected, ayes 14, nays 29. Mr. Kane then moved to exempt the duties on lead, and substances manufactured from lead, from the operation of the act, and Mr. Smith moved to add a clause exempting military munitions; but Mr. Smith's motion was negatived, ayes 14, nays 25, and Mr. Kane's shared the same fate, ayes 12, nays 27.

Mr. Forsyth then moved to amend the bill, so as expressly to permit the further discussion of the tariff before 1842, but it was rejected, ayes 13, nays 28.

Mr. Benton moved an amendment, reducing the drawbacks in proportion to the reduction of the duties, but it was negatived, ayes 18, nays 24.

Mr. Wright then moved an amendment, increasing the duty on raw wool, which was rejected, ayes 7, nays 32.

The bill was then reported, and the amendments concurred in, excepting that which provides that after 1842, such duties shall be levied "as an economical expenditure may require." It was contended by Mr. Webster, Mr. Dallas, Mr. Dickerson, and Mr.

Buckner, that these words, though not so intended, might be construed by the southern representatives in 1842, as an abandonment of the protective system, and a design on the part of those who introduced the bill, to make revenue alone the standard of future duties on imports.

Mr. Clayton, and Mr. Clay, regarded the language as authorizing no such constitution, and denied that any one would be justified in inferring that there was to be an abandonment of the system of protection. Mr. Clayton insisted that the government could not be maintained, if the principle should be abandoned, and declared that he would pause before he surrendered it, even to save the Union.

Mr. Forsyth regarded the clause as an absurdity, on which an argument might be erected, either for or against protection; but as it was the only absurdity which was agreeable to him, among the many absurditics contained in the bill, he would vote for it.

The question being taken, on striking out the words, it was negatived, ayes 14, nays 22, and the amendment was agreed to.

The bill was then ordered to a third reading, without a division being called.

The 25th of February, when the question was on its passage, Mr. Webster gave his sentiments in opposition to the bill. He paid, in the commencement, a tribute to the purity, zeal, and ability of the senator from Kentucky, for whom he had so long

entertained a high respect, and to elevate whom to a situation where his talents might be still more beneficial to his country, he had zealously laboured. He also complimented the talents and services of the senator from S. Carolina, with whom he had so often acted, and for whom he had always felt a sincere regard. He briefly reviewed his own course, when the former bills on the subject of the tariff were under consideration, and adverted to the conviction which was forced on the east, and other portions of the country, that the protective system was to be the settled policy of the government. NewEngland had resisted, in the first instance, the establishment of a high protective policy; but when that was determined on, the eastern states turned all their natural advantages, and their capital of wealth and industry, into the new channel thus marked out for them. The bill of 1826 was to carry out the promises made by the bill of 1824. He disliked the bill of 1828, yet he had voted for it on account of that feature in it which gave the woollens the protection which the government had pledged itself to give by the law of 1824. That bill decided the policy of the country, unless it was to be kept in a state of perpetual fluctuation and uncertainty.

After passing the law of last session, a law containing some features of concession and compromise, when the country was not prepared for any change,the present bill, professing to be a bill of peace, of arrangement, and

of compromise, is brought forward by the distinguished senator from Kentucky, who professes to have renounced none of his former opinions, as to the constitutionality and expediency of protection. The bill is also supported by a gentleman whose opinions are directly the reverse of those entertained by the senator from Kentucky. When it was supported by such opposite feelings, it was important to look into the provisions of the bill. He stated the various considerations which ought to weigh with those who, as friends of the protective system, voted for this bill.

He did not object to the prospective and biennial reductions made by the bill up to 1841, but he objected to the clauses which did, in effect, prohibit the repealing action of any subsequent congress upon this bill, until 1842. He also objected to the proviso in the fifth section, which was a restriction on the power of congress. He put it to the senator from Tennessee, (Mr. Grundy,) who had introduced the clause, to say if he did not intend that it should show that congress was to be considered as bound by the bill, as far as this congress could bind the future legislation of the country.

The protected articles may, by this bill, be reduced below 20 per cent. ad valorem, but cannot be raised above 20 per cent.

He opposed the bill, because it imposed a restriction on the future legislation of congress. He also opposed it, because it seemed to yield the constitutional

power of protection. Various arguments were advanced by him to show that the southern politicians would, if this bill were passed, tell every one of their constituents, that they had gained some concession to the opinions of the South. He said that he approved the sagacious silence of the southern gentlemen. They would not suffer themselves to be provoked by friend or enemy, to speak before the time should come when they ought to speak. They were masters of the game, and they knew it. He commended their policy, but he wished them to see that he understood it. In giving up specific duties, and substituting ad valorem, the bill had abandoned the policy of all wise governments, and the policy of our own government, and the policy always advocated by the senator from Kentucky. He viewed the bill as a surrender of all the interests of the smaller capitalists, and a concession in favour of overgrown monopolies. He pointed out the effects of this surrender on our own condition, and the handle which it would give to satirists, and foreign writers, and the poets laureate of all the monarchies of Europe, to turn our institutions and our pretensions into ridicule. If this principle were carried into our navigation, he stated that it would be immediately countervailed by Great Britain. By limiting our countervailing power, and leaving the countervailing power of Europe free, we put in her hands weapons to destroy us, and cast our wea

pons of defence at her feet. Under a colonial system, our manufacturers would not be more completely shackled, than they will be by this bill.

He referred to the four powers by which the senator from Kentucky had said that our protective system could be preserved. 1st, prohibition; 2dly, the free list; 3dly, incidental protection-all of which would be found inadequate, and the 4th, discrimination, or specific duties, was the only one which would avail. Discriminating and specific duties were the last resource, and if those were to be given up, there could be no longer any hope for the protective system, in war or in peace. He insisted, that not being owners of the property, but merely agents or administrators, we had no right to fetter a future congress. He regarded this bill as the last will and testament of this congress, which would be set aside by the people, but not on the ground of want of sanity in those principally engaged in making it, for he never saw gentlemen more fully in possession of that sagacity; nor on account of any undue influence, although he could not help thinking that panic had something to do with it, and that if the South Carolina ordinance and replevin law had not appeared, this bill would never have appeared in the senate.

In reference to the practical effect of the bill, he stated that he saw obstacles to the carrying this bill into effect, which appeared to him to be insurmountable.

He thought that it would be difficult to ascertain the legal value of cotton. He took a view of the different values attached to cotton, and of the professional constructions to which the clause concerning cotton would be subjected. In relation to iron, also, he thought that the difficulties in ascertaining the value would be such as to render the provision concerning that article inoperative. The duties on iron having hitherto been specific, no principle of valuation had been laid down. He considered that there was no legislative provision by which the value on iron could be assessed. The same remarks were applicable to sugar; and he stated a case to show the difficulty which exists in reaching a proper and fixed value as a basis for duty. He supposed the answer would be, that if difficulties arise, the secretary must get through them as well as he can; and if he cannot, he must come to congress.

As a measure of finance, he had no idea that the bill would be an efficient measure. He had not heard the assertion that the bill would at all reduce the revenue. He denied that the reduction of duties on boots and shoes, and clothing, would reduce the revenue. The bill would, in these branches, reduce thousands of mechanics to ruin, and by this operation would increase the revenue. In this point the bill aims a deadly blow on the poor, the young, the enterprising; on the labour and ingenuity of the country. By the introduction of foreign alcohol, at a reduced rate

of duty, the revenue would be increased; but he thought gentlemen should pause before they sanctioned this change. The entire breaking up of the printing establishments for printing calicoes, would be one of the consequences of the passage of the bill; and in proof, he read some extracts from a memorial of the Lowell manufacturers. These institutions might survive the three first reductions, but the fourth would be fatal to them. On the spinning and weaving, the effect, if not so disastrous, would scarcely be less objectionable. The large capitalists in that branch would be able to make money, by breaking down all young and enterprising establishments. In reference to woollens-with a duty of 20 per cent. on woollens, and 20 per cent on wool, it is impossible that they can stand. The depreciation of property would be the first consequence, and the depreciation of credit the next; and, by the surrender of their interests, long before this beneficent home valuation can come to their relief, their eyes will be sealed in death. As to iron, English iron, or Wales, costs $26 a ton, and the supply is inexhaustible. Iron in Russia and Sweden costs $40 a ton. English iron has been taxed at $30, and Baltic iron $18 dollars a ton. The change from specific to ad valorem duty, will work an injurious change. He believed that this surrender once made, we could never return to the present state of things, without such a struggle as would shake

the country much more than any thing has yet shaken it.

He might be wrong. There might be no pledge, no constitutional objection; but if so, why this bill? The people will not expect the passage of this bill. There was no expectation, at the commencement of this short session, that such a bill would be passed. The senate had not had time to know the pleasure of their masters. No opportunity had been offered for obtaining a knowledge of either the course of public opinion, or the effect of this measure on the public interests. It was said the next congress would pass this bill, if it was not passed now. He did not fear the next congress; but if that body should choose to undo what was now done, it would have the power so to do.

If it was true, as the senator from Kentucky believed, that the intention of South Carolina was merely to enter into a law suit with the United States, then there was no necessity for this sacrifice of great interests. He believed that if this bill should become a law, there will be an action on the part of the people at the next session to overthrow it. It will not be all requium and lullaby when this bill shall be passed. On the contrary, he believed there would be discord and discontent. He had already expressed his views as to reduction in his resolutions. He believed there ought to be a reduction to the point of necessary revenue; and that, as soon as that point could be ascertained, any congress would be able to

make a tariff which would suit the country. The estimates of the secretary of the treasury as to the point of revenue, vary materially from those of others, but if the true point could be ascertained, he thought congress might at once proceed to an adjustment of the tariff with a prospect of success.

As he had commenced with doing justice to the motives of the gentleman on the other side, he asked that equal justice might be done to him in the opposition which he was compelled to make to a measure which had been ushered in with so much profession of peace and harmony. He would do as much to satisfy South Carolina as any man. He would take this tariff and cut it down to the bone: but he did not wish to rush into untried systems. He believed that his constituents would excuse him for surrendering their interests, but they would not forgive him for a violation of the constitution.

Mr. Clay replied to the senator from Massachusetts. He paid a high tribute to the patriotism and purity of that gentleman, and said that he felt a deep and lasting regret that he had now to differ with him. He was happy, however, to find himself connected with his friend from Maine, with whom he had acted in the final adjustment of the Missouri question. He suggested that if the senator from Massachusetts could not make some appeal to a future congress for forbearance, he must be opposed to all compromise. He

« EdellinenJatka »