our navigation. This great interest deserves every encouragement,
consistent with the paramount interest of agriculture. In the order
of nature it is secondary to both agriculture and manufactures. Its
business is the transportation of the productions of those two superior
branches of industry. It cannot therefore be expected, that they shall
be moulded or sacrificed to suit its purposes; but, on the contrary,
navigation must accommodate itself to the actual state of agriculture
and manufactures. If, as I believe, we have nearly reached the maximum
in value of our exports of raw produce to Europe, the effect hereafter
will be, as it respects that branch of our trade, if we persevere in
the foreign system, to retain our navigation at the point which it
has now reached. By reducing, indeed, as will probably take place,
the price of our raw materials, a further quantity of them could be
exported, and, of course, additional employment might, in that way,
be given to our tonnage; but that would be at the expense of the
agricultural interest. If I am right in supposing that no effect
will be produced by this measure upon any other branch of our export
trade, but that to Europe; that, with regard to that, there will be no
sensible diminution of our exports; and that the new direction given
to a portion of our industry will produce other objects of exportation;
the probability is, that our foreign tonnage will be even increased
under the operation of this bill. But, if I am mistaken in these views,
and it should experience any reduction, the increase in our coasting
tonnage, resulting from the greater activity of domestic exchanges,
will more than compensate the injury. Although our navigation partakes
in the general distress of the country, it is less depressed than any
other of our great interests. The foreign tonnage has been gradually,
though slowly, increasing, since 1818. And our coasting tonnage, since
1816, has increased upwards of one hundred thousand tons.
Fourth. It is next contended that the effect of the measure will be
to diminish our foreign commerce. The objection assumes, what I have
endeavored to controvert, that there will be a reduction in the value
of our exports. Commerce is an exchange of commodities. Whatever will
tend to augment the wealth of a nation must increase its capacity to
make these exchanges. By new productions, or creating new values in the
fabricated forms which shall be given to old objects of our industry,
we shall give to commerce a fresh spring, a new aliment. The foreign
commerce of the country, from causes, some of which I have endeavored
to point out, has been extended as far as it can be. And I think there
can be but little doubt that the balance of trade is, and for some
time past has been, against us. I was surprised to hear the learned
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) rejecting, as a detected
and exploded fallacy, the idea of a balance of trade. I have not time
nor inclination now to discuss that topic. But I will observe, that
all nations act upon the supposition of the reality of its existence,
and seek to avoid a trade, the balance of which is unfavorable, and
to foster that which presents a favorable balance. However the account
be made up, whatever may be the items of a trade, commodities, fishing
industry, marine labor, the carrying trade, all of which I admit should
be comprehended, there can be no doubt, I think, that the totality of
the exchanges of all descriptions made by one nation with another, or
against the totality of the exchanges of all other nations together,
may be such as to present the state of an unfavorable balance with
the one or with all. It is true that, in the long run, the measures of
these exchanges, that is, the totality in value of what is given and of
what is received, must be equal to each other. But great distress may
be felt long before the counterpoise can be effected. In the mean time,
there will be an export of the precious metals, to the deep injury of
internal trade, an unfavorable state of exchange, an export of public
securities, a resort to credit, debt, mortgages. Most of, if not all,
these circumstances, are believed now to be indicated by our country,
in its foreign commercial relations. What have we received, for example,
for the public stocks sent to England? Goods. But those stocks are our
bond, which must be paid. Although the solidity of the credit of the
English public securities is not surpassed by that of our own, strong
as it justly is, when have we seen English stocks sold in our market,
and regularly quoted in the prices current, as American stocks are in
England? An unfavorable balance with one nation, _may_ be made up by
a favorable balance with other nations; but the fact of the existence
of that unfavorable balance is strong presumptive evidence against the
trade. Commerce will regulate itself! Yes, and the extravagance of a
spendthrift heir, who squanders the rich patrimony which has descended
to him, will regulate itself ultimately. But it will be a regulation
which will exhibit him in the end safely confined within the walls of
a jail. Commerce will regulate itself! But is it not the duty of wise
governments to watch its course, and, beforehand, to provide against
even distant evils, by prudent legislation stimulating the industry
of their own people, and checking the policy of foreign powers as it
operates on them? The supply, then, of the subjects of foreign commerce,
no less than the supply of consumption at home, requires of us to give
a portion of our labor such a direction as will enable us to produce
them. That is the object of the measure under consideration, and I
cannot doubt that, if adopted, it will accomplish its object.
Fifth. The fifth objection to the tariff is, that it will diminish the
public revenue, disable us from paying the public debt, and finally
compel a resort to a system of excise and internal taxation. This
objection is founded upon the supposition that the reduction in the
importation of the subjects, on which the increased duties are to
operate, will be such as to produce the alleged effect. All this is
matter of mere conjecture, and can only be determined by experiment.
I have very little doubt, with my colleague, (Mr. Trimble,) that the
revenue will be increased considerably, for some years at least, under
the operation of this bill. The diminution in the quantity imported
will be compensated by the augmentation of the duty. In reference to
the article of molasses, for example, if the import of it should be
reduced fifty per centum, the amount of duty collected would be the
same as it now is. But it will not, in all probability, be reduced by
any thing like that proportion. And then there are some other articles
which will continue to be introduced in as large quantities as ever,
notwithstanding the increase of duty, the object in reference to them
being revenue, and not the encouragement of domestic manufactures.
Another cause will render the revenue of this year, in particular,
much more productive than it otherwise would have been; and that is,
that large quantities of goods have been introduced into the country,
in anticipation of the adoption of this measure. The eagle does not
dart a keener gaze upon his intended prey, than that with which the
British manufacturer and merchant watches the foreign market, and the
course even of our elections as well as our legislation. The passage
of this bill has been expected; and all our information is that the
importations, during this spring, have been immense. But, further, the
measure of our importations is that of our exportations. If I am right
in supposing that, in future, the amount of these, in the old or new
forms of the produce of our labor, will not be diminished, but probably
increased, then the amount of our importations, and consequently of
our revenue, will not be reduced, but may be extended. If these ideas
be correct, there will be no inability on the part of government
to extinguish the public debt. The payment of that debt, and the
consequent liberation of the public resources from the charge of it,
is extremely desirable. No one is more anxious than I am to see that
important object accomplished. But I entirely concur with the gentleman
from Virginia, (Mr. Barbour,) in thinking that no material sacrifice of
any of the great interests of the nation ought to be made to effectuate
it. Such is the elastic and accumulating nature of our public resources,
from the silent augmentation of our population, that if, in any given
state of the public revenue, we throw ourselves upon a couch and go
to sleep, we may, after a short time, awake with an ability abundantly
increased to redeem any reasonable amount of public debt with which
we may happen to be burdened. The public debt of the United States,
though nominally larger now than it was in the year 1791, bears really
no sort of discouraging comparison to its amount at that time, whatever
standard we may choose to adopt to institute the comparison. It was in
1791 about seventy-five millions of dollars. It is now about ninety.
Then we had a population of about four millions. Now we have upwards of
ten millions. Then we had a revenue short of five millions of dollars.
Now our revenue exceeds twenty. If we select population as the standard,
our present population is one hundred and fifty per centum greater than
it was in 1791; if revenue, that is four times more now than at the
former period; whilst the public debt has increased only in a ratio of
twenty per centum. A public debt of three hundred millions of dollars,
at the present day, considering our actual ability, compounded both of
the increase of population and of revenue, would not be more onerous
now than the debt of seventy-five millions of dollars was, at the
epoch of 1791, in reference to the same circumstances. If I am right
in supposing that, under the operation of the proposed measure, there
will not be any diminution, but a probable increase of the public
revenue, there will be no difficulty in defraying the current expenses
of government, and paying the principal as well as the interest of
the public debt, as it becomes due. Let us, for a moment, however,
indulge the improbable supposition of the opponents of the tariff,
that there will be a reduction of the revenue to the extent of the
most extravagant calculation which has been made, that is to say, to
the extent of five millions. That sum deducted, we shall still have
remaining a revenue of about fifteen millions. The treasury estimates
of the current service of the years 1822, 1823, and 1824, exceeds, each
year, nine millions. The lapse of revolutionary pensions, and judicious
retrenchments which might be made, without detriment to any of the
essential establishments of the country, would probably reduce them
below nine millions. Let us assume that sum, to which add about five
millions and a half for the interest of the public debt, and the wants
of government would require a revenue of fourteen and a half millions,
leaving a surplus of revenue of half a million beyond the public
expenditure. Thus, by a postponement of the payment of the principal of
the public debt, in which the public creditors would gladly acquiesce,
and confiding, for the means of redeeming it, in the necessary increase
of our revenue from the natural augmentation of our population and
consumption, we may safely adopt the proposed measure, even if it
should be attended (which is confidently denied) with the supposed
diminution of revenue. We shall not, then, have occasion to vary the
existing system of taxation; we shall be under no necessity to resort
either to direct taxes or to an excise. But, suppose the alternative
were really forced upon us of continuing the foreign system, with
its inevitable impoverishment of the country, but with the advantage
of the present mode of collecting the taxes, or of adopting the
American system, with its increase of the national wealth, but with the
disadvantage of an excise, could any one hesitate between them? Customs
and an excise agree in the essential particulars, that they are both
taxes upon consumption, and both are voluntary. They differ only in the
mode of collection. The office for the collection of one is located on
the frontier, and that for the other within the interior. I believe it
was Mr. Jefferson, who, in reply to the boast of a citizen of New York
of the amount of the public revenue paid by that city, asked who would
pay it, if the collector’s office were removed to Paulus Hook, on the
New Jersey shore? National wealth is the source of all taxation. And,
my word for it, the people are too intelligent to be deceived by mere
names, and not to give a decided preference to that system which is
based upon their wealth and prosperity, rather than to that which is
founded upon their impoverishment and ruin.
Sixth. But, according to the opponents of the domestic policy, the
proposed system will force capital and labor into new and reluctant
employments; we are not prepared, in consequence of the high price of
wages, for the successful establishment of manufactures, and we must
fail in the experiment. We have seen, that the existing occupations
of our society, those of agriculture, commerce, navigation, and the
learned professions, are overflowing with competitors, and that the
want of employment is severely felt. Now what does this bill propose?
To open a new and extensive field of business, in which all that
choose may enter. There is no compulsion upon any one to engage in
it. An option only is given to industry, to continue in the present
unprofitable pursuits, or to embark in a new and promising one. The
effect will be, to lessen the competition in the old branches of
business, and to multiply our resources for increasing our comforts,
and augmenting the national wealth. The alleged fact of the high
price of wages is not admitted. The truth is, that no class of society
suffers more, in the present stagnation of business, than the laboring
class. That is a necessary effect of the depression of agriculture, the
principal business of the community. The wages of able-bodied men vary
from five to eight dollars per month, and such has been the want of
employment, in some parts of the union, that instances have not been
unfrequent, of men working merely for the means of present subsistence.
If the wages for labor here and in England are compared, they will
be found not to be essentially different. I agree with the honorable
gentleman from Virginia, that high wages are a proof of national
prosperity; we differ only in the means by which that desirable end
shall be attained. But, if the fact were true, that the wages of labor
are high, I deny the correctness of the argument founded upon it. The
argument assumes, that natural labor is the principal element in the
business of manufacture. That was the ancient theory. But the valuable
inventions and vast improvements in machinery, which have been made
within a few past years, have produced a new era in the arts. The
effect of this change, in the powers of production, may be estimated,
from what I have already stated in relation to England, and to the
triumphs of European artificial labor over the natural labor of
Asia. In considering the fitness of a nation for the establishment of
manufactures, we must no longer limit our views to the state of its
population, and the price of wages. All circumstances must be regarded,
of which that is, perhaps, the least important. Capital, ingenuity
in the construction and adroitness in the use of machinery, and the
possession of the raw materials, are those which deserve the greatest
consideration. All these circumstances (except that of capital, of
which there is no deficiency,) exist in our country in an eminent
degree, and more than counterbalance the disadvantage, if it really
existed, of the lower wages of labor in Great Britain. The dependence
upon foreign nations for the raw material of any great manufacture,
has been ever considered as a discouraging fact. The state of our
population is peculiarly favorable to the most extensive introduction
of machinery. We have no prejudices to combat, no persons to drive out
of employment. The pamphlet, to which we have had occasion so often to
refer, in enumerating the causes which have brought in England their
manufactures to such a state of perfection, and which now enable
them, in the opinion of the writer, to defy all competition, does not
specify, as one of them, low wages. It assigns three: first, capital;
secondly, extent and costliness of machinery; and, thirdly, steady
and persevering industry. Notwithstanding the concurrence of so many
favorable causes, in our country, for the introduction of the arts, we
are earnestly dissuaded from making the experiment, and our ultimate
failure is confidently predicted. Why should we fail? Nations, like
men, fail in nothing which they boldly attempt, when sustained by
virtuous purpose and firm resolution. I am not willing to admit this
depreciation of American skill and enterprise. I am not willing to
strike before an effort is made. All our past history exhorts us
to proceed, and inspires us with animating hopes of success. Past
predictions of our incapacity have failed, and present predictions will
not be realized. At the commencement of this government, we were told
that the attempt would be idle to construct a marine adequate to the
commerce of the country, or even to the business of its coasting trade.
The founders of our government did not listen to these discouraging
counsels; and, behold the fruits of their just comprehension of our
resources. Our restrictive policy was denounced, and it was foretold
that it would utterly disappoint all our expectations. But our
restrictive policy has been eminently successful; and the share which
our navigation now enjoys in the trade with France, and with the
British West India islands, attests its victory. What were not the
disheartening predictions of the opponents of the late war? Defeat,
discomfiture, and disgrace, were to be the certain, but not the worst
effect of it. Here, again, did prophecy prove false; and the energies
of our country, and the valor and the patriotism of our people,
carried us gloriously through the war. We are now, and ever will be,
essentially an agricultural people. Without a material change in the
fixed habits of the country, the friends of this measure desire to
draw to it, as a powerful auxiliary to its industry, the manufacturing
arts. The difference between a nation with and without the arts may
be conceived, by the difference between a keel-boat and a steam-boat,
combating the rapid torrent of the Mississippi. How slow does the
former ascend, hugging the sinuosities of the shore, pushed on by her
hardy and exposed crew, now throwing themselves in vigorous concert on
their oars, and then seizing the pendant boughs of overhanging trees:
she seems hardly to move; and her scanty cargo is scarcely worth the
transportation! With what ease is she not passed by the steamboat,
laden with the riches of all quarters of the world, with a crew of gay,
cheerful, and protected passengers, now dashing into the midst of the
current, or gliding through the eddies near the shore! Nature herself
seems to survey, with astonishment, the passing wonder, and, in silent
submission, reluctantly to own the magnificent triumphs, in her own
vast dominion, of Fulton’s immortal genius.
Seventh. But it is said that, wherever there is a concurrence of
favorable circumstances, manufactures will arise of themselves, without
protection; and that we should not disturb the natural progress of
industry, but leave things to themselves. If all nations would modify
their policy on this axiom, perhaps it would be better for the common
good of the whole. Even then, in consequence of natural advantages and
a greater advance in civilization and in the arts, some nations would
enjoy a state of much higher prosperity than others. But there is no
universal legislation. The globe is divided into different communities,
each seeking to appropriate to itself all the advantages it can,
without reference to the prosperity of others. Whether this is right
or not, it has always been, and ever will be the case. Perhaps the care
of the interests of one people is sufficient for all the wisdom of one
legislature; and that it is among nations as among individuals, that
the happiness of the whole is best secured by each attending to its own
peculiar interests. The proposition to be maintained by our adversaries
is, that manufactures, without protection, will in due time spring
up in our country, and sustain themselves, in a competition with
foreign fabrics, however advanced the arts, and whatever the degree
of protection may be in foreign countries. Now I contend, that this
proposition is refuted by all experience, ancient and modern, and
in every country. If I am asked, why unprotected industry should not
succeed in a struggle with protected industry, I answer, the FACT has
ever been so, and that is sufficient; I reply, that UNIFORM EXPERIENCE
evinces that it cannot succeed in such an unequal contest, and that
is sufficient. If we speculate on the causes of this universal truth,
we may differ about them. Still the indisputable fact remains. And we
should be as unwise in not availing ourselves of the guide which it
furnishes, as a man would be, who should refuse to bask in the rays
of the sun, because he could not agree with judge Woodward as to the
nature of the substance of that planet, to which we are indebted for
heat and light. If I were to attempt to particularize the causes which
prevent the success of the manufacturing arts, without protection,
I should say that they are, first, the obduracy of fixed habits.
No nation, no individual, will easily change an established course
of business, even if it be unprofitable; and least of all is an
agricultural people prone to innovation. With what reluctance do they
not adopt improvements in the instruments of husbandry, or in modes of
cultivation! If the farmer makes a good crop, and sells it badly; or
makes a short crop; buoyed up by hope he perseveres, and trusts that a
favorable change of the market, or of the seasons, will enable him, in
the succeeding year, to repair the misfortunes of the past. Secondly,
the uncertainty, fluctuation, and unsteadiness of the home market, when
liable to an unrestricted influx of fabrics from all foreign nations;
and, thirdly, the superior advance of skill, and amount of capital,
which foreign nations have obtained, by the protection of their own
industry. From the latter, or from other causes, the unprotected
manufactures of a country are exposed to the danger of being crushed in
their infancy, either by the design or from the necessities of foreign
manufacturers. Gentlemen are incredulous as to the attempts of foreign
merchants and manufacturers to accomplish the destruction of ours.
Why should they not make such attempts? If the Scottish manufacturer,
by surcharging our market, in one year, with the article of cotton
bagging, for example, should so reduce the price as to discourage and
put down the home manufacture, he would secure to himself the monopoly
of the supply. And now, having the exclusive possession of the market,
perhaps for a long term of years, he might be more than indemnified
for his first loss, in the subsequent rise in the price of the article.
What have we not seen under our own eyes! The competition for the
transportation of the mail, between this place and Baltimore, so
excited, that to obtain it an individual offered, at great loss, to
carry it a whole year for one dollar! His calculation no doubt was,
that, by driving his competitor off the road, and securing to himself
the carriage of the mail, he would be afterwards able to repair his
original loss by new contracts with the department. But the necessities
of foreign manufacturers, without imputing to them any sinister design,
may oblige them to throw into our markets the fabrics which have
accumulated on their hands, in consequence of obstruction in the
ordinary vents, or from over-calculation; and the forced sales, at
losing prices, may prostrate our establishments. From this view of
the subject, it follows, that, if we would place the industry of our
country upon a solid and unshakable foundation, we must adopt the
protecting policy, which has every where succeeded, and reject that
which would abandon it, which has every where failed.
Eighth. But if the policy of protection be wise, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Barbour) has made some ingenious calculations, to prove
that the measure of protection, already extended, has been sufficiently
great. With some few exceptions, the existing duties, of which he has
made an estimate, were laid with the object of revenue, and without
reference to that of encouragement to our domestic industry; and
although it is admitted that the incidental effect of duties, so laid,
is to promote our manufactures, yet, if it falls short of competent
protection, the duties might as well not have been imposed, with
reference to that purpose. A moderate addition may accomplish this
desirable end; and the proposed tariff is believed to have this
character.
Ninth. The prohibitory policy, it is confidently asserted, is
condemned by the wisdom of Europe, and by her most enlightened
statesmen. Is this the fact? We call upon gentlemen to show in what
instance a nation that has enjoyed its benefits has surrendered it.
[Here Mr. Barbour rose (Mr. Clay giving way) and said, that England had
departed from it in the China trade, in allowing us to trade with her
East India possessions, and in tolerating our navigation to her West
India colonies.] With respect to the trade to China, the whole amount
of what England has done, is, to modify the monopoly of the East India
company, in behalf of one and a small part of her subjects, to increase
the commerce of another and the greater portion of them. The abolition
of the restriction, therefore, operates altogether among the subjects
of England; and does not touch at all the interests of foreign powers.
The toleration of our commerce to British India, is for the sake of the
specie, with which we mainly carry on that commerce, and which, having
performed its circuit, returns to Great Britain in exchange for British
manufactures. The relaxation from the colonial policy, in the instance
of our trade and navigation with the West Indies, is a most unfortunate
example for the honorable gentleman; for in it is an illustrious
proof of the success of our restrictive policy, when resolutely
adhered to. Great Britain had prescribed the terms on which we were
to be graciously allowed to carry on that trade. The effect of her
regulations was, to exclude our navigation altogether, and a complete
monopoly, on the part of the British navigation, was secured. We
forbade it, unless our vessels should be allowed a perfect reciprocity.
Great Britain stood out a long time, but finally yielded, and our
navigation now fairly shares with hers in the trade. Have gentlemen no
other to exhibit than these trivial relaxations from the prohibitory
policy, which do not amount to a drop in the bucket, to prove its
abandonment by Great Britain? Let them show us that her laws are
repealed which prohibit the introduction of our flour and provisions;
of French silks, laces, porcelain, manufactures of bronze, mirrors,
woollens; and of the manufactures of all other nations; and then,
we may be ready to allow that Great Britain has really abolished her
prohibitory policy. We find there, on the contrary, that system of
policy in full and rigorous operation, and a most curiously interwoven
system it is, as she enforces it. She begins by protecting all parts
of her immense dominions against foreign nations. She then protects
the parent country against the colonies; and, finally, one part of the
parent country against another. The sagacity of Scotch industry has
carried the process of distillation to a perfection, which would place
the art in England on a footing of disadvantageous competition, and
English distillation has been protected accordingly. But suppose it
were even true that Great Britain had abolished all restrictions upon
trade, and allowed the freest introduction of the produce of foreign
labor, would that prove it unwise for us to adopt the protecting
system? The object of protection is the establishment and perfection
of the arts. In England it has accomplished its purpose, fulfilled
its end. If she has not carried every branch of manufacture to the
same high state of perfection that any other nation has, she has
succeeded in so many, that she may safely challenge the most unshackled
competition in exchanges. It is upon this very ground that many of
her writers recommend an abandonment of the prohibitory system. It is
to give greater scope to British industry and enterprise. It is upon
the same selfish principle. The object of the most perfect freedom
of trade, with such a nation as Britain, and of the most rigorous
system of prohibition, with a nation whose arts are in their infancy,
may both be precisely the same. In both cases, it is to give greater
expansion to native industry. They only differ in the theatres of their
operation. The abolition of the restrictive system by Britain, if by it
she could prevail upon other nations to imitate her example, would have
the effect of extending the consumption of British produce in other
countries, where her writers boldly affirm it could maintain a fearless
competition with the produce of native labor. The adoption of the
restrictive system, on the part of the United States, by excluding
the produce of foreign labor, would extend the consumption of American
produce, unable, in the infancy and unprotected state of the arts, to
sustain a competition with foreign fabrics. Let our arts breathe under
the shade of protection; let them be perfected, as they are in England,
and we shall then be ready, as England now is said to be, to put aside
protection, and to enter upon the freest exchanges. To what other
cause, than to their whole prohibitory policy, can you ascribe British
prosperity? It will not do to assign it to that of her antiquity;
for France is no less ancient; though much less rich and powerful, in
proportion to the population and natural advantages of France. Hallam,
a sensible and highly approved writer on the middle ages, assigns the
revival of the prosperity of the north of Europe to the success of
the woollen manufactories of Flanders, and the commerce of which their
fabrics became the subject; and the commencement of that of England
to the establishment of similar manufactures there under the Edwards,
and to the prohibitions which began about the same time. As to the
poor-rates, the theme of so much reproach without England, and of so
much regret within it, among her speculative writers, the system was
a strong proof, no less of her unbounded wealth than of her pauperism.
What other nation can dispense, in the form of regulated charity,
the enormous sum, I believe, of ten or twelve millions sterling?
[Mr. Barbour stated it was reduced to six; to which Mr. Clay replied,
that he entertained no doubt, but that the benign operation of British
protection of home industry, had greatly reduced it within the last few
years, by the full employment of her subjects, of which her flourishing
trade bore evidence.] The number of British paupers was the result
of pressing the principle of population to its utmost limits, by her
protecting policy, in the creation of wealth, and in placing the rest
of the world under tribute to her industry. Doubtless the condition
of England would be better, without paupers, if in other respects it
remained the same. But in her actual circumstances, the poor system
has the salutary effect of an equalizing corrective of the tendency to
the concentration of riches, produced by the genius of her political
institutions and by her prohibitory system.
But is it true, that England is convinced of the impolicy of the
prohibitory system, and desirous to abandon it? What proof have we
to that effect? We are asked to reject the evidence deducible from the
settled and steady practice of England, and to take lessons in a school
of philosophical writers, whose visionary theories are no where adopted;
or, if adopted, bring with them inevitable distress, impoverishment,
and ruin. Let us hear the testimony of an illustrious personage,
entitled to the greatest attention, because he speaks after the full
experiment of the unrestrictive system made in his own empire. I hope
I shall give no offence in quoting from a publication issued from
‘the mint of Philadelphia;’ from a work of Mr. Carey, of whom I seize,
with great pleasure, the occasion to say, that he merits the public
gratitude, for the disinterested diligence with which he has collected
a large mass of highly useful facts, and for the clear and convincing
reasoning with which he generally illustrates them. The emperor of
Russia, in March, 1822, after about two years trial of the free system,
says, through count Nesselrode:
‘To produce happy effects, the principles of commercial freedom must be
generally adopted. The state which adopts, whilst others reject them,
must condemn its own industry and commerce, to pay a ruinous tribute to
those of other nations.’
‘From a circulation exempt from restraint, and the facility afforded
by reciprocal exchanges, almost all the governments at first resolved
to seek the means of repairing the evil which Europe had been doomed
to suffer; but experience, and more correct calculations, because they
were made from certain data, and upon the results already known of
the peace that had just taken place, forced them soon to adhere to the
prohibitory system.
‘England preserved hers. Austria remained faithful to the rule she had
laid down, to guard herself against the rivalship of foreign industry.
France, with the same views, adopted the most rigorous measures of
precaution. And Prussia published a new tariff in October last, which
proves that she found it impossible not to follow the example of the
rest of Europe.’
‘In proportion as the prohibitory system is extended and rendered
perfect in other countries, that state which pursues the contrary
system, makes, from day to day, sacrifices more extensive and more
considerable. * * * It offers a continual encouragement to the
manufactures of other countries, and its own manufactures perish in
the struggle which they are, as yet, unable to maintain.
‘It is with the most lively feelings of regret we acknowledge it is our
own proper experience which enables us to trace this picture. The evils
which it details have been realized in Russia and Poland, since the
conclusion of the act of the seventh and nineteenth of December, 1818.
_Agriculture without a market, industry without protection, languish
and decline. Specie is exported, and the most solid commercial houses
are shaken._ The public prosperity would soon feel the wound inflicted
on private fortunes, if new regulations did not promptly change the
actual state of affairs.
‘Events have proved, that our _agriculture_ and our _commerce_, as well
as our _manufacturing industry_, are not only paralysed, but _brought
to the brink of ruin_.’
The example of Spain has been properly referred to, as affording a
striking proof of the calamities which attend a state that abandons
the care of its own internal industry. Her prosperity was the greatest
when the arts, brought there by the Moors, flourished most in that
kingdom. Then she received from England her wool, and returned it in
the manufactured state; and then England was least prosperous. The two
nations have reversed conditions. Spain, after the discovery of America,
yielding to an inordinate passion for the gold of the Indies, sought in
their mines that wealth which might have been better created at home.
Can the remarkable difference in the state of the prosperity of the two
countries be otherwise explained, than by the opposite systems which
they pursued? England, by a sedulous attention to her home industry,
supplied the means of an advantageous commerce with her colonies. Spain,
by an utter neglect of her domestic resources, confided altogether in
those which she derived from her colonies, and presents an instance
of the greatest adversity. Her colonies were infinitely more valuable
than those of England; and, if she had adopted a similar policy,
is it unreasonable to suppose that, in wealth and power, she would
have surpassed that of England? I think the honorable gentleman from
Virginia does great injustice to the catholic religion, in specifying
that as one of the leading causes of the decline of Spain. It is
a religion entitled to great respect; and there is nothing in its
character incompatible with the highest degree of national prosperity.
Is not France, the most polished, in many other respects the most
distinguished state, of christendom, catholic? Is not Flanders, the
most populous part of Europe, also catholic? Are the catholic parts
of Switzerland and of Germany less prosperous than those which are
protestant?
Tenth. The next objection of the honorable gentleman from Virginia,
which I shall briefly notice, is, that the manufacturing system
is adverse to the genius of our government, in its tendency to the
accumulation of large capitals in a few hands; in the corruption
of the public morals, which is alleged to be incident to it; and in
the consequent danger to the public liberty. The first part of the
objection would apply to every lucrative business, to commerce, to
planting, and to the learned professions. Would the gentleman introduce
the system of Lycurgus? If his principle be correct, it should be
extended to any and every vocation which had a similar tendency. The
enormous fortunes in our country――the nabobs of the land――have been
chiefly made by the profitable pursuit of that foreign commerce, in
more propitious times, which the honorable gentleman would so carefully
cherish. Immense estates have also been made in the south. The
dependents are, perhaps, not more numerous upon that wealth which is
accumulated in manufactures, than they are upon that which is acquired
by commerce and by agriculture. We may safely confide in the laws of
distributions, and in the absence of the rule of primogeniture, for the
dissipation, perhaps too rapid, of large fortunes. What has become of
those which were held two or three generations back in Virginia? Many
of the descendants of the ancient aristocracy, as it was called, of
that state, are now in the most indigent condition. The best security
against the demoralization of society, is the constant and profitable
employment of its members. The greatest danger to public liberty is
from idleness and vice. If manufactures form cities, so does commerce.
And the disorders and violence which proceed from the contagion of the
passions, are as frequent in one description of those communities as
in the other. There is no doubt but that the yeomanry of a country is
the safest depository of public liberty. In all time to come, and under
any probable direction of the labor of our population, the agricultural
class must be much the most numerous and powerful, and will ever retain,
as it ought to retain, a preponderating influence in our councils. The
extent and the fertility of our lands constitute an adequate security
against an excess in manufactures, and also against oppression, on the
part of capitalists, towards the laboring portions of the community.
Eleventh. The last objection, with a notice of which I shall trouble
the committee, is, that the constitution does not authorize the passage
of the bill. The gentleman from Virginia does not assert, indeed, that
it is inconsistent with the express provisions of that instrument, but
he thinks it incompatible with the spirit of the constitution. If we
attempt to provide for the internal improvement of the country, the
constitution, according to some gentlemen, stands in our way. If we
attempt to protect American industry against foreign policy and the
rivalry of foreign industry, the constitution presents an insuperable
obstacle. This constitution must be a most singular instrument! It
seems to be made for any other people than our own. Its action is
altogether foreign. Congress has power to lay duties and imposts,
under no other limitation whatever than that of their being uniform
throughout the United States. But they can only be imposed, according
to the honorable gentleman, for the sole purpose of revenue. This
is a restriction which we do not find in the constitution. No doubt
revenue was a principal object with the framers of the constitution in
investing congress with the power. But, in executing it, may not the
duties and imposts be so laid as to secure domestic interests? Or is
congress denied all discretion as to the amount or the distribution of
the duties and imposts?
The gentleman from Virginia has, however, entirely mistaken the
clause of the constitution on which we rely. It is that which gives
to congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The
grant is plenary, without any limitation whatever, and includes the
whole power of regulation, of which the subject to be regulated is
susceptible. It is as full and complete a grant of the power, as that
is to declare war. What is a regulation of commerce? It implies the
admission or exclusion of the object of it, and the terms. Under this
power some articles, by the existing laws, are admitted freely; others
are subjected to duties so high as to amount to their prohibition, and
various rates of duties are applied to others. Under this power, laws
of total non-intercourse with some nations, embargoes, producing an
entire cessation of commerce with all foreign countries, have been,
from time to time, passed. These laws, I have no doubt, met with the
entire approbation of the gentleman from Virginia. [Mr. Barbour said
that he was not in congress.] Wherever the gentleman was, whether
on his farm or in the pursuit of that profession of which he is an
ornament, I have no doubt that he gave his zealous support to the laws
referred to.
The principle of the system under consideration, has the sanction of
some of the best and wisest men, in all ages, in foreign countries as
well as in our own――of the Edwards, of Henry the Great, of Elizabeth,
of the Colberts, abroad; of our Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton,
at home. But it comes recommended to us by a higher authority than any
of these, illustrious as they unquestionably are――by the master-spirit
of the age――that extraordinary man, who has thrown the Alexanders and
the Cæsars infinitely further behind him than they stood in advance
of the most eminent of their predecessors――that singular man, who,
whether he was seated on his imperial throne, deciding the fate of
nations and allotting kingdoms to the members of his family, with the
same composure, if not with the same affection, as that with which a
Virginia father divides his plantations among his children, or on the
miserable rock of St. Helena, to which he was condemned by the cruelty
and the injustice of his unworthy victors, is equally an object of
the most intense admiration. He appears to have comprehended, with
the rapidity of intuition, the true interests of a state, and to have
been able, by the turn of a single expression, to develope the secret
springs of the policy of cabinets. We find that Las Cases reports him
to have said:
‘He opposed the principles of economists, which he said were correct
in theory though erroneous in their application. The political
constitution of different states, continued he, must render these
principles defective; local circumstances continually call for
deviations from their uniformity. Duties, he said, which were so
severely condemned by political economists, should not, it is true, be
an object to the treasury; they should be the guaranty and protection
of a nation, and should correspond with the nature and the objects of
its trade. Holland, which is destitute of productions and manufactures,
and which was a trade only of transit and commission, should be free
of all fetters and barriers. France, on the contrary, which is rich
in every sort of production and manufactures, should incessantly guard
against the importations of a rival, who might still continue superior
to her, and also against the cupidity, egotism, and indifference, of
mere brokers.
‘I have not fallen into the error of modern systematizes,’ said the
emperor, ‘who imagine that all the wisdom of nations is centred in
themselves. Experience is the true wisdom of nations. And what does
all the reasoning of economists amount to? They incessantly extol
the prosperity of England, and hold her up as our model; but the
custom-house system is more burdensome and arbitrary in England than in
any other country. They also condemn prohibitions; yet it was England
set the example of prohibitions; and they are in fact necessary with
regard to certain objects. Duties cannot adequately supply the place
of prohibitions; there will always be found means to defeat the object
of the legislator. In France we are still very far behind on these
delicate points, which are still unperceived or ill understood by
the mass of society. Yet, what advancement have we not made; what
correctness of ideas has been introduced by my gradual classification
of agriculture, industry, and trade; objects so distinct in themselves,
and which present so great and positive a graduation!
‘First. _Agriculture_; the soul, the first basis, of the empire.
‘Second. _Industry_; the comfort and happiness of the population.
‘Third. _Foreign trade_; the superabundance, the proper application,
of the surplus of agriculture and industry.
‘Agriculture was continually improving during the whole course of the
revolution. Foreigners thought it ruined in France. In 1814, however,
the English were compelled to admit that we had little or nothing to
learn from them.
‘Industry or manufactures, and internal trade, made immense progress
during my reign. The application of chemistry to the manufactures,
caused them to advance with giant strides. I gave an impulse, the
effects of which, extended throughout Europe.
‘Foreign trade, which, in its results, is infinitely inferior to
agriculture, was an object of subordinate importance in my mind.
Foreign trade is made for agriculture and home industry, and not the
two latter for the former. The interests of these three fundamental
cases are diverging and frequently conflicting. I always promoted
them in their natural gradation, but I could not and ought not to have
ranked them all on an equality. Time will unfold what I have done,
the national resources which I created, and the emancipation from the
English which I brought about. We have now the secret of the commercial
treaty of 1783. France still exclaims against its author; but the
English demanded it on pain of resuming the war. They wished to do the
same after the treaty of Amiens, but I was then all-powerful; I was a
hundred cubits high. I replied, that if they were in possession of the
heights of Montmartre I would still refuse to sign the treaty. These
words were echoed through Europe.
‘The English will now impose some such treaty on France, at least, if
popular clamor and the opposition of the mass of the nation, do not
force them to draw back. This thraldom would be an additional disgrace
in the eyes of that nation, which is now beginning to acquire a just
perception of her own interests.
‘When I came to the head of the government, the American ships, which
were permitted to enter our ports on the score of their neutrality,
brought us raw materials, and had the impudence to sail from France
without freight, for the purpose of taking in cargoes of English
goods in London. They, moreover, had the insolence to make their
payments, when they had any to make, by giving bills on persons in
London. Hence the vast profits reaped by the English manufacturers
and brokers, entirely to our prejudice. I made a law that no American
should import goods to any amount, without immediately exporting their
exact equivalent. A loud outcry was raised against this: it was said
that I had ruined trade. But what was the consequence? Notwithstanding
the closing of my ports, and in spite of the English, who ruled the
seas, the Americans returned and submitted to my regulations. What
might I not have done under more favorable circumstances?
‘Thus I naturalized in France the manufacture of cotton, which includes,
‘First, _spun cotton_. We did not previously spin it ourselves; the
English supplied us with it, as a sort of favor.
‘Secondly, _the web_. We did not yet make it; it came to us from abroad.
‘Thirdly, _the printing_. This was the only part of the manufacture
that we performed ourselves. I wished to naturalize the two first
branches; and I proposed to the council of state, that their
importation should be prohibited. This excited great alarm. I sent for
Oberkamp, and I conversed with him a long time. I learned from him,
that this prohibition would doubtless produce a shock, but that, after
a year or two of perseverance, it would prove a triumph, whence we
should derive immense advantages. Then I issued my decree in spite of
all; this was a true piece of statesmanship.
‘I at first confined myself merely to prohibiting the web; then I
extended the prohibition to spun cotton; and we now possess, within
ourselves, the three branches of the cotton manufacture, to the great
benefit of our population, and the injury and regret of the English;
which proves that, in civil government, as well as in war, decision of
character is often indispensable to success.’
I will trouble the committee with only one other quotation, which I
shall make from Lowe; and from hearing which, the committee must share
with me in the mortification which I felt on perusing it. That author
says, ‘it is now above forty years since the United States of America
were definitely separated from us, and since, their situation has
afforded a proof that the benefit of mercantile intercourse may be
retained, in all its extent, without the care of governing, or the
expense of defending, these once regretted provinces.’ Is there not
too much truth in this observation? By adhering to the foreign policy,
which I have been discussing, do we not remain essentially British, in
every thing but the form of our government? Are not our interests, our
industry, our commerce, so modified as to swell British pride, and to
increase British power?
Mr. Chairman, our confederacy comprehends, within its vast limits,
great diversity of interests; agricultural, planting, farming,
commercial, navigating, fishing, manufacturing. No one of these
interests is felt in the same degree, and cherished with the same
solicitude, throughout all parts of the union. Some of them are
peculiar to particular sections of our common country. But all these
great interests are confided to the protection of one government――to
the fate of one ship; and a most gallant ship it is, with a noble crew.
If we prosper, and are happy, protection must be extended to all; it
is due to all. It is the great principle on which obedience is demanded
from all. If our essential interests cannot find protection from our
own government against the policy of foreign powers, where are they
to get it? We did not unite for sacrifice, but for preservation. The
inquiry should be, in reference to the great interests of every section
of the union, (I speak not of minute subdivisions,) what would be done
for those interests if that section stood alone and separated from
the residue of the republic? If the promotion of those interests would
not injuriously affect any other section, then every thing should be
done for them, which would be done if it formed a distinct government.
If they come into absolute collision with the interests of another
section, a reconciliation, if possible, should be attempted, by mutual
concession, so as to avoid a sacrifice of the prosperity of either to
that of the other. In such a case, all should not be done for one which
would be done, if it were separated and independent, but something; and,
in devising the measure, the good of each part and of the whole, should
be carefully consulted. This is the only mode by which we can preserve,
in full vigor, the harmony of the whole union. The south entertains one
opinion, and imagines that a modification of the existing policy of the
country, for the protection of American industry, involves the ruin of
the south. The north, the east, the west, hold the opposite opinion,
and feel and contemplate, in a longer adherence to the foreign policy,
as it now exists, their utter destruction. Is it true, that the
interests of these great sections of our country are irreconcilable
with each other? Are we reduced to the sad and afflicting dilemma
of determining which shall fall a victim to the prosperity of the
other? Happily, I think, there is no such distressing alternative.
If the north, the west, and the east, formed an independent state,
unassociated with the south, can there be a doubt that the restrictive
system would be carried to the point of prohibition of every foreign
fabric of which they produce the raw material, and which they could
manufacture? Such would be their policy, if they stood alone; but they
are fortunately connected with the south, which believes its interests
to require a free admission of foreign manufactures. Here then is
a case for mutual concession, for fair compromise. The bill under
consideration presents this compromise. It is a medium between the
absolute exclusion and the unrestricted admission of the produce of
foreign industry. It sacrifices the interest of neither section to
that of the other; neither, it is true, gets all that it wants, nor
is subject to all that it fears. But it has been said that the south
obtains nothing in this compromise. Does it lose any thing? is the
first question. I have endeavored to prove that it does not, by showing
that a mere transfer is effected in the source of the supply of its
consumption from Europe to America; and that the loss, whatever it
may be, of the sale of its great staple in Europe, is compensated
by the new market created in America. But does the south really gain
nothing in this compromise? The consumption of the other sections,
though somewhat restricted, is still left open by this bill, to
foreign fabrics purchased by southern staples. So far its operation is
beneficial to the south, and prejudicial to the industry of the other
sections, and that is the point of mutual concession. The south will
also gain by the extended consumption of its great staple, produced by
an increased capacity to consume it in consequence of the establishment
of the home market. But the south cannot exert its industry and
enterprise in the business of manufactures! Why not? The difficulties,
if not exaggerated, are artificial, and may, therefore, be surmounted.
But can the other sections embark in the planting occupations of the
south? The obstructions which forbid them are natural, created by the
immutable laws of God, and, therefore, unconquerable.
Other and animating considerations invite us to adopt the policy of
this system. Its importance, in connection with the general defence
in time of war, cannot fail to be duly estimated. Need I recall to our
painful recollection the sufferings, for the want of an adequate supply
of absolute necessaries, to which the defenders of their country’s
rights and our entire population, were subjected during the late war?
Or to remind the committee of the great advantage of a steady and
unfailing source of supply, unaffected alike in war and in peace? Its
importance, in reference to the stability of our union, that paramount
and greatest of all our interests, cannot fail warmly to recommend it,
or at least to conciliate the forbearance of every patriot bosom. Now
our people present the spectacle of a vast assemblage of jealous rivals,
all eagerly rushing to the sea-board, jostling each other in their
way, to hurry off to glutted foreign markets the perishable produce of
their labor. The tendency of that policy, in conformity to which this
bill is prepared, is to transform these competitors into friends and
mutual customers; and, by the reciprocal exchanges of their respective
productions, to place the confederacy upon the most solid of all
foundations, the basis of common interest. And is not government
called upon, by every stimulating motive, to adapt its policy to the
actual condition and extended growth of our great republic. At the
commencement of our constitution, almost the whole population of the
United States was confined between the Alleghany mountains and the
Atlantic ocean. Since that epoch, the western part of New York, of
Pennsylvania, of Virginia, all the western states and territories,
have been principally peopled. Prior to that period we had scarcely
any interior. An interior has sprung up, as it were by enchantment, and
along with it new interests and new relations, requiring the parental
protection of government. Our policy should be modified accordingly, so
as to comprehend all, and sacrifice none. And are we not encouraged by
the success of past experience, in respect to the only article which
has been adequately protected? Already have the predictions of the
friends of the American system, in even a shorter time than their most
sanguine hopes could have anticipated, been completely realized in
regard to that article; and consumption is now better and more cheaply
supplied with coarse cottons, than it was under the prevalence of the
foreign system.
Even if the benefits of the policy were limited to certain sections of
our country, would it not be satisfactory to behold American industry,
wherever situated, active, animated, and thrifty, rather than persevere
in a course which renders us subservient to foreign industry? But these
benefits are twofold, direct and collateral, and, in the one shape or
the other, they will diffuse themselves throughout the union. All parts
of the union will participate, more or less, in both. As to the direct
benefit, it is probable that the north and the east will enjoy the
largest share. But the west and the south will also participate in them.
Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Richmond, will divide with the northern
capitals the business of manufacturing. The latter city unites more
advantages for its successful prosecution than any other place I know;
Zanesville, in Ohio, only excepted. And where the direct benefit does
not accrue, that will be enjoyed of supplying the raw material and
provisions for the consumption of artisans. Is it not most desirable
to put at rest and prevent the annual recurrence of this unpleasant
subject, so well fitted, by the various interests to which it appeals,
to excite irritation and to produce discontent? Can that be effected
by its rejection? Behold the mass of petitions which lie on our table,
earnestly and anxiously entreating the protecting interposition of
congress against the ruinous policy which we are pursuing. Will these
petitioners, comprehending all orders of society, entire states and
communities, public companies and private individuals, spontaneously
assembling, cease in their humble prayers by your lending a deaf
ear? Can you expect that these petitioners and others, in countless
numbers, that will, if you delay the passage of this bill, supplicate
your mercy, should contemplate their substance gradually withdrawn
to foreign countries, their ruin slow, but certain and as inevitable
as death itself, without one expiring effort? You think the measure
injurious to you; we believe our preservation depends upon its adoption.
Our convictions, mutually honest, are equally strong. What is to be
done? I invoke that saving spirit of mutual concession under which
our blessed constitution was formed, and under which alone it can
be happily administered. I appeal to the south――to the high-minded,
generous, and patriotic south――with which I have so often coöperated,
in attempting to sustain the honor and to vindicate the rights of
our country. Should it not offer, upon the altar of the public good,
some sacrifice of its peculiar opinions? Of what does it complain? A
possible temporary enhancement in the objects of consumption. Of what
do we complain? A total incapacity, produced by the foreign policy,
to purchase, at any price, necessary foreign objects of consumption.
In such an alternative, inconvenient only to it, ruinous to us, can
we expect too much from southern magnanimity? The just and confident
expectation of the passage of this bill has flooded the country with
recent importations of foreign fabrics. If it should not pass, they
will complete the work of destruction of our domestic industry. If it
should pass, they will prevent any considerable rise in the price of
foreign commodities, until our own industry shall be able to supply
competent substitutes.
To the friends of the tariff I would also anxiously appeal. Every
arrangement of its provisions does not suit each of you; you desire
some further alterations; you would make it perfect. You want what
you will never get. Nothing human is perfect. And I have seen, with
great surprise, a piece signed by a member of congress, published in
the National Intelligencer, stating that this bill must be rejected,
and a judicious tariff brought in as its substitute. A _judicious_
tariff! No member of congress could have signed that piece; or, if he
did, the public ought not to be deceived. If this bill do not pass,
unquestionably no other can pass at this session or probably during
this congress. And who will go home and say that he rejected all the
benefits of this bill, because molasses has been subjected to the
enormous additional duty of five cents per gallon? I call, therefore,
upon the friends of the American policy, to yield somewhat of their own
peculiar wishes, and not to reject the practicable in the idle pursuit
after the unattainable. Let us imitate the illustrious example of the
framers of the constitution, and, always remembering that whatever
springs from man partakes of his imperfections, depend upon experience
to suggest, in future, the necessary amendments.
We have had great difficulties to encounter. First, the splendid
talents which are arrayed in this house against us. Second, we are
opposed by the rich and powerful in the land. Third, the executive
government, if any, affords us but a cold and equivocal support.
Fourth, the importing and navigating interest, I verily believe from
misconception, are adverse to us. Fifth, the British factors and the
British influence are inimical to our success. Sixth, long-established
habits and prejudices oppose us. Seventh, the reviewers and literary
speculators, foreign and domestic. And, lastly, the leading presses of
the country, including the influence of that which is established in
this city, and sustained by the public purse.
From some of these, or other causes, the bill may be postponed,
thwarted, defeated. But the cause is the cause of the country, and it
must and will prevail. It is founded in the interests and affections
of the people. It is as native as the granite deeply imbosomed in our
mountains. And, in conclusion, I would pray God, in his infinite mercy,
to avert from our country the evils which are impending over it, and,
by enlightening our councils, to conduct us into that path which leads
to riches, to greatness, to glory.