Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

In support of his assertions, with regard to the comparative revenue of the two periods, Mr. Benton submitted the following tables :

Table I.-Low Revenue Duties, from 1791 to 1808.

[blocks in formation]

Table III.—Showing what ought to have been received from Customs, under the Pro

tective System, to have been equal to the Receipt under the Revenue System.

[blocks in formation]

The third table shows that the same ratio of revenue for population which existed in Mr. Jefferson's time, would, in the present day, yield an income for the treasury of 46,250,000 dollars. Mr. Benton says— These tables speak a language which cannot be misunderstood, and they place in the strongest contrast the working of the two systems during the two periods; the beauty and advantages of one, and the deformities of the other, standing out in the boldest relief. In the first period, amplitude of a nount, steadiness of the product and regularity of the increase, strike every beholder. In the second period, all this is reversed ; confusion and madness seem to reign in our treasury. Sometimes millions too much—then not half enough. Sometimes surpluses to be distributed—then deficits to be supplied. Giving away one day-begging or borrowing the next. Always a feast or a famine--never the right thing. Our poor treasury became a balloon-sometimes soaring above the clouds—then dragging in the mud—now bursting with distension-now collapsing from depletion.'

“ Again, after quoting Mr. Jefferson's last annual message to Congress, showing the prosperous condition of the treasury at that time, Mr. Benton says—. Such was the working of the low duty system-ample and steady revenue-no loans, no taxes, no paper money—33,500,000 dollars of public debt paid in eight years—a surplus of 14,000,000 dollars left in the treasury-the result, not of lands exchanged for paper, but the regular result of steady revenue, strict economy, and hard money. How different from the state of things under the high duties of the present day! Instead of paying above 30,000,000 dollars of public debt in eight years, we have created near 30,000,000 dollars in four years ; instead of a surplus in the treasury, there is a deficit; loans and taxes are the order of the day; and, to crown all, we have an illegal and fraudulent issue of federal paper money currency, issued by executive power, and sustained by bank alliances. Such is the difference between the working of the two systems after twenty-five years trial of each !'

“With regard to the second proposition, that of the superiority of low duties over high duties, in relation to their effect upon agriculture and commerce, Mr. Benton takes the ground that these two interests go together, the state of the one being an index to the other. The exports make the imports, and agriculture is at the bottom of the whole. He contrasts the exports of the two periods—that before the late war, and that succeeding the war-with a view of showing that, in consequence of the high duty system, with a population of 18,000,000, in 1842, we exported less than we did in 1807, with a population of 7,000,000, under the low duty system. In support of this, he adduces the following tables :

Table of Foreign and Domestic Exports from the United States, from 1791 to 1807.

[blocks in formation]

Table of Foreign and Domestic Exports from the United States, from 1817 to 1843.

[blocks in formation]

" As there is, in making out tables of this kind, an apparent intricacy, so far as regards re-exportations, it is proper to give Mr. Benton's explanation, that, in comparing, the two periods, it makes no difference whether the re-exports are included or not. He says, .I fully understand the nature of our neutral position during the wars of the French Revolution, and the effect which that neutrality had in promoting imports for re-exportation. We re-exported much from 1791 to 1807, and have re-exported exactly as much from 1817 to 1844! Mexico, South America, and the West Indies, have opened new markets for our re-exportations; and it is a fact, proved by the custom-house returns to be the same; 520,000,000 dollars are, as near as I can ascertain from the most careful research, the amount of re-exportations for each period; so that, in a comparison of the foreign trade in each period, they may either be both omitted or both included, as the speaker pleases. Finding them included in the tables, I choose to use them in that way. The table of revenue has already settled the question in favour of the large amount of foreign goods which remained in the country for consumption. Duties were only paid on the amount so remaining; and a revenue of 16,000,000 dollars, or 17,000,000 dollars from customs, with the low duties then paid, show that the importations for home cona sumption were greater then than now.'

"Assuming the average exports of the present day to be 100,000,000 dollars, Mr. Benton says, take from this sum the article of cotton, now forming two-thirds of our exports, and contrast the balance with that of the exports of 1807, when cotton formed an inconsiderable item, and an immense falling off' will be apparent in our exports of agricultural products. Had our exports not been checked by the high duty system, affecting imports, and had they been allowed to increase, in the ratio of the increase of population, to that increase would have been superadded the item of cotton; so that, when all this is considered Mr. Benton says, “the decline of agriculture, and of the foreign commerce founded upon it, becomes appalling. Leaving out cotton, and the agricultural exports are less now than they were in 1808. They then amounted to 48,000,000 dollars; they only amount to about 100,000,000 dollars now, of which cotton is near two-thirds.'

“ In relation to imports, Mr. Benton says, ' After this exposition of our exports under the protective system, it is hardly necessary to trouble the Senate with any detailed view of our imports during the same period. They are obliged to partake of the sa ne character, and such is the fact. They have risen as high as 190,000,000 dollars; they have fallen as low as 64,000,000 dollars ; and they have plunged and Aoundered backwards. and forwards at all amounts between these two wide extremes. They are now at about 100,000,000 dollars, which is less than they were at thirty years ago.

“Mr. Benton next proceeds to his third proposition--that manufacturers were flourishing and prosperous before the late war ; and would, under the old system of duties have so continued. To show their standing at the close of his first period of twenty-five years, he refers to the census of 1810; in which, however, he states, many imperfections occur, which induced Congress to pass a joint resolution on the 19th of March, 1812, directing the secretary of the treasury, Mr. Gallatin, to have the returns digested and perfected. For this purpose Mr. Gallatin employed Mr. Tench Coxe, of Philadelphia, an eminent advocate of manufactures and a writer of twenty-seven years' standing. He took two years to verify his statements, and after great labour and care presented them. From his report Mr. Benton read several passages, in which it appears that the manufactures of the United States in 1813, with a population of 8,000,000 amounted to 200,000,000 dollars, advancing at the rate of twenty per cent per annum. Here, says Mr. Benton, ‘are two striking facts, that manufactures had been advancing at the rate of twenty per cent, and that they amounted to 200,000,000 dollars in a population of 8,000,000. Population was only advancing at the rate of three per cent per annum; foreign commerce was only increasing at a moderate rate ; agriculture was steadily but moderately advancing; but manufactures were going ahead of all other interests, advancing twenty per cent per annum, before protection was invented, and before politicians had taken it into their heads to become their patrons. Mr. Coxe, too, in his report, compares the condition of manufactures at that time, with their condition in England at the nearest approximate period of time in which its population was at the same standard; and the result is, that England proper, in 1787, having a population of 8,500,000, had manufactures, after taking 500 years to bring them to the perfection they then had attained, amounting to 266,000,000 dollars. Here was a striking fact, that manufactures of the United States, under low duties, affording but incidental protection,

6

within thirty years after the country had achieved its independence, had nearly overtaken England, which required 500 years to reach the same goal. Mr. Coxe's work further proves, that cotton factories were well established and able to stand alone, in 1810, in Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts ; so it was with regard to all other branches of manufactures, with respect to which the statistical details gleaned by Mr. Coxe are most abundant. From his report Mr. Benton quotes very copiously in support of his general proposition. Two passages, in italics, Mr. Benton thinks deserve marked attention. They are as follows:

The facility of retaining and steadily extending this valuable branch (the manufacturing) of the national industry, is manifested by its very early and spontaneous commencement in every county and township, and by its nearly spontaneous and costless growth, with such aids only as have not occasioned any material expense or sacrifice to agriculture or commerce, since they were chiefly incidental to necessary revenue, or resulted from our distance from the foreign consumers of our productions and manufactures of our supplies.' - Page 50. Such are the principal facts which occur to recollection at this time, evincing the benefits to owners and cultivators of the soil, from the manufactures which have arisen unforced in the United States. Their principal protection by duties is incidental. Those duties were imposed to raise the necessary revenue, but greatly favoured the manufactures.”—Page 29, Introduction.

"Such,' exclaims Mr. Benton, were the causes of the growth of manufactures among us. They grew up of themselves, without the knowledge of politicians, and without any aid from federal legislation, except the incidental assistance froin the imposition of revenue duties. Their growth was natural-without injury to commerce or agriculture-without injury to revenue; and, what is not to be forgotten, not only without a word of discontent or dissatisfaction in any part of the union, but with the absolute approbation of all.' Mr. Benton then dwells upon the fact, that Mr. Coxe, looking to the future, says not one word about a tariff; the word tariff, is not once mentioned in his book. He speaks only of a safe, cheap, benevolent, and infallible method of promoting manufactures, by the diffusion of skill, multiplication of machinery, adoption of new improvements, the application of steam-power, the education of the operatives, and the cultivation of good feelings in every part of the union; · but not a word,' adds Mr. Benton, • about protective duties and minimums—not a word about the tariff.'

“Mr. Benton next adverts to the present condition of manufactures, taking the census of 1840 for reference. He adduces the statistics of products, contrasted with the capital invested in each branch of manufactures, with a view of showing that they are in various instances from 100 to 300 per cent-enormously beyond the yield of products from capital invested in agriculture or other pursuits. 'He adverts to the large semi-annual dividends, acknowledged by manufacturers under the protective system, and supposes these are not half the reality, if the reserved surpluses were brought to light. He argues that manufacturers are in no need of such enorinous protection as the act of 1842 gives them; and that, to persist longer in requiring more than thirty or thirty-three and a third per cent for a maximum, must be suicidal to themselves, as they will rouse the indignation of the mass of the people, who are already aware that they have been most magnificently humbugged and bamboozled. Under the good old system, which he recommends a return to, the manufacturers would thrive as they did in 1810, harmony would prevail, and, above all things, stability would be secured to them."

The tariff bill, prepared by the Committee of Ways and Means, was rejected, and the commercial tariff of England was as usual urged as a defence of the tariff of 1842, by the Committee on Manufactures.* We believe, however, that

* “ The committee (on Manufactures, 1844) see nothing in the policy of the other nations which would justify us in adopting the delusive theory of free trade. The new tariff of Great Britain, which has been hailed as the harbinger of a commercial millennium, is highly restrictive in its character. It contains many reductions from her old system, but most of them are of but little practical consequence to us. Some articles which were formerly prohibited she now admits, sound fiscal and commercial views will prevail in the United States, and that a liberal commercial system will be established. The recent report (Dec. 1845) of Mr. Walker, the Secretary of the Treasury (see Finances of the United States), appears in support of this belief. The greatest minds in the republic have advocated sound commercial principles : Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Mac Duffie, Mr. Woodbury, Mr. Mackay, Mr. Benton, and many others in and out of Congress; the late Mr. Rauget, and several able writers; and it is remarkable, that many of the latter writers are in the New England states. The freedom of commercial but on a duty so nearly prohibitory that they cannot be imported, except in extreme cases. Another large class of articles, on which she bias made liberal reductions, consists of raw materials used in her manufactures ; and such reductions render her policy more protective. On manufactured articles her duties are generally low, for the plain reason that she fears no competition on such fabrics. But when she comes to any article where other nations are in advance of her, she is careful to impose a duty sufficient to protect her own interests. Take silk for example ; fearing the competition of France, Italy, &c., she imposes an average duty of about thirty per cent on inported silk, which is much higlier, under the circumstances, than we impose on the same article. Our duty on silks will average about thirty-three per cent, being nominally three per cent higher than that of Great Britain. But when we take the situation of the two nations into view, her duty will be found to be much higher in effect-much more protective than ours. Labour and capital, the two great elements which go into all manufactures, are nearly as cheap in Great Britain as on the continent; and in skill she may be considered as their equal. Under these circumstances, a duty of thirty per cent is a high duty. But with us the case is certainly different. _Our capital costs one-third more, and our labour nearly three times as much, as they would in France or Italy. This, to all practical purposes, brings our duty on silks down to onehalf the rate imposed by Great Britain." In her situation, thirty per cent would be as protective as sixty would be in ours. England has the advantage of us in the cheapness of her labour and capital; and as she is compelled to impose high duties in certain cases, it cannot be thought strange that we find it necessary.

“ But what is the free trade that England tenders to us ? On what terms does she receive our staples ? Why she imposes the following rate of duties upon our products : Salted beef, sixty per cent; bacon, 109 per cent; butter, seventy per cent; Indian corn, average thirty-two per cent ; four, average thirty-two per cent; resin, seventy-six per cent; sperm oil, thirty-three per cent ; sperm candles, thirty-three per cent; tobacco, unmanufactured, 1000 per cent ; tobacco, manufactured, 1200 per cent; salted pork, thirty-three per cent; soap, 200 per cent; spirits, from grain, 500 per cent; spirits, from molasses, 1600 per cent. On these fourteen articles she imposes an average duty of 355 per cent, a duty vastly greater than we impose upon any of her fabrics. It is idle, therefore, to pretend that she extends to us any thing like free trade.

“ Her policy is also seen in the differential duties which she imposes. While Great Britain imposes a duty of 14s. per cwt. upon bacon imported from the United States, she admits it from her own provinces on a duty of 3s. 6d, ; and while she imposes a duty of 16s. per barrel upon our beef, she admits beef from her provinces on a duty of 4s. On sperm oil, from our fisheries, she imposes a duty of 15l. per tun, on oil from her colonies Is. per tun; on our rice she imposes a duty of 6s. per cwt., on rice from her provinces 6d. per cwt. On the products of the forest this principle is still more strikingly illustrated. On oars from the United States, she collects a duty of thirty-six dollars per 120, on the same from her own provinces a duty of ninety cents; on handspikes from the United States nine dollars sixty cents per 120, from her provinces twentyfour cents; on firewood from the United States two dollars forty cents per 216 cubic feet, from her provinces free. These articles will serve, as a specimen, to illustrate the policy of Great Britain ; and they show, beyond controversy, that the first object of her tariff is to sustain her own industry and promote her own interests.

“The committee, then, come to the conclusion, after all the examination they have been able to give the subject, that the corn trade with England cannot be relied upon with any degree of certainty. The sliding scale, which we cannot flatter ourselves will be removed, gives the north of Europe a decided advantage over us. When there is an improvement in the English market, the news can be conveyed to Hamburg, &c., in the space of two or three days, and a supply can be forwarded before the price has declined.' But with us it is different, Even by the steamers, we do not usually receive intelligence from England until fifteen to twenty days after date ; and then an entire month would be necessary before our wheat or flour would reach the English market. In

« EdellinenJatka »