[DURING the session of congress in 1832, in consequence
of the violent opposition to the protective tariff then in
operation, by South Carolina and other southern states, various
propositions were introduced for the reduction of duties on
imported articles, which finally resulted in the passage of a
new tariff law, in July, 1832. This bill, which was reported in
the house of representatives by Mr. John Quincy Adams, although
it was voted for by many southern members, on the ground of
its being a reduction of the former scale of duties, was not
satisfactory to them, and the controversy on the subject of the
tariff was not settled until the following year, when Mr. Clay’s
compromise bill was adopted, providing for a gradual diminution
of the tariff of 1832.
In the following speech, Mr. Clay, in reply to Mr. Hayne, of
South Carolina, and others, enters into a minute and careful
examination of the American system, and its effects on the
interests of the country; defending, with his usual skill and
eloquence, the doctrine of protection to domestic industry.
This effort adds another monument to his wisdom and fame, which
will, we believe, be referred to by statesmen, who seek the
true interests of the country, through all future ages of the
republic.
The resolution offered by Mr. Clay in January, proposing a
reduction of duties on certain imported articles not coming
in competition with our manufactures, which he had supported
in the foregoing speech of January eleventh, was still under
consideration.]
IN one sentiment, Mr. President, expressed by the honorable gentleman
from South Carolina (general Hayne), though perhaps not in the sense
intended by him, I entirely concur. I agree with him, that the decision
on the system of policy embraced in this debate, involves the future
destiny of this growing country. One way, I verily believe, it would
lead to deep and general distress, general bankruptcy, and national
ruin, without benefit to any part of the union; the other, the existing
prosperity will be preserved and augmented, and the nation will
continue rapidly to advance in wealth, power, and greatness, without
prejudice to any section of the confederacy.
Thus viewing the question, I stand here as the humble but zealous
advocate, not of the interests of one state, or seven states only,
but of the whole union. And never before have I felt, more intensely,
the overpowering weight of that share of responsibility which belongs
to me in these deliberations. Never before have I had more occasion
than I now have, to lament my want of those intellectual powers, the
possession of which might enable me to unfold to this senate and to
illustrate to this people great truths, intimately connected with the
lasting welfare of my country. I should, indeed, sink overwhelmed and
subdued beneath the appalling magnitude of the task which lies before
me, if I did not feel myself sustained and fortified by a thorough
consciousness of the justness of the cause which I have espoused, and
by a persuasion, I hope not presumptuous, that it has the approbation
of that Providence who has so often smiled upon these United States.
Eight years ago, it was my painful duty to present to the other house
of congress an unexaggerated picture of the general distress pervading
the whole land. We must all yet remember some of its frightful features.
We all know that the people were then oppressed, and borne down by an
enormous load of debt; that the value of property was at the lowest
point of depression; that ruinous sales and sacrifices were every where
made of real estate; that stop laws, and relief laws, and paper money
were adopted, to save the people from impending destruction; that a
deficit in the public revenue existed, which compelled government to
seize upon, and divert from its legitimate object, the appropriations
to the sinking fund, to redeem the national debt; and that our commerce
and navigation were threatened with a complete paralysis. In short, sir,
if I were to select any term of seven years since the adoption of the
present constitution which exhibited a scene of the most wide-spread
dismay and desolation, it would be exactly that term of seven years
which immediately preceded the establishment of the tariff of 1824.
I have now to perform the more pleasing task of exhibiting an imperfect
sketch of the existing state of the unparalleled prosperity of the
country. On a general survey, we behold cultivation extended, the arts
flourishing, the face of the country improved, our people fully and
profitably employed, and the public countenance exhibiting tranquillity,
contentment, and happiness. And if we descend into particulars, we have
the agreeable contemplation of a people out of debt; land rising slowly
in value, but in a secure and salutary degree; a ready though not
extravagant market for all the surplus productions of our industry;
innumerable flocks and herds browsing and gamboling on ten thousand
hills and plains, covered with rich and verdant grasses; our cities
expanded, and whole villages springing up, as it were, by enchantment;
our exports and imports increased and increasing; our tonnage,
foreign and coastwise, swelling and fully occupied; the rivers of
our interior animated by the perpetual thunder and lightning of
countless steamboats; the currency sound and abundant; the public debt
of two wars nearly redeemed; and, to crown all, the public treasury
overflowing, embarrassing congress, not to find subjects of taxation,
but to select the objects which shall be liberated from the impost. If
the term of seven years were to be selected, of the greatest prosperity
which this people have enjoyed since the establishment of their present
constitution, it would be exactly that period of seven years which
immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 1824.
This transformation of the condition of the country from gloom and
distress to brightness and prosperity, has been mainly the work of
American legislation, fostering American industry, instead of allowing
it to be controlled by foreign legislation, cherishing foreign industry.
The foes of the American system, in 1824, with great boldness and
confidence, predicted, first, the ruin of the public revenue, and the
creation of a necessity to resort to direct taxation; the gentleman
from South Carolina (general Hayne), I believe, thought that the tariff
of 1824 would operate a reduction of revenue to the large amount of
eight millions of dollars; secondly, the destruction of our navigation;
thirdly, the desolation of commercial cities; and, fourthly, the
augmentation of the price of objects of consumption, and further
decline in that of the articles of our exports. Every prediction which
they made has failed, utterly failed. Instead of the ruin of the public
revenue, with which they then sought to deter us from the adoption of
the American system, we are now threatened with its subversion, by the
vast amount of the public revenue produced by that system. Every branch
of our navigation has increased. As to the desolation of our cities,
let us take, as an example, the condition of the largest and most
commercial of all of them, the great northern capital. I have, in my
hands, the assessed value of real estate in the city of New York, from
1817 to 1831. This value is canvassed, contested, scrutinized, and
adjudged, by the proper sworn authorities. It is, therefore, entitled
to full credence. During the first term, commencing with 1817, and
ending in the year of the passage of the tariff of 1824, the amount of
the value of real estate was, the first year, fifty-seven million seven
hundred and ninety-nine thousand four hundred and thirty-five dollars,
and, after various fluctuations in the intermediate period, it settled
down at fifty-two million nineteen thousand seven hundred and thirty
dollars, exhibiting a decrease, in seven years, of five million seven
hundred and seventy-nine thousand seven hundred and five dollars.
During the first year, of 1825, after the passage of the tariff, it
rose, and, gradually ascending throughout the whole of the latter
period of seven years, it finally, in 1831, reached the astonishing
height of ninety-five million seven hundred and sixteen thousand four
hundred and eighty-five dollars! Now, if it be said, that this rapid
growth of the city of New York was the effect of _foreign commerce_,
then it was not correctly predicted, in 1824, that the tariff would
destroy foreign commerce, and desolate our commercial cities. If, on
the contrary, it be the effect of internal trade, then internal trade
cannot be justly chargeable with the evil consequences imputed to it.
The truth is, it is the joint effect of both principles, the domestic
industry nourishing the foreign trade, and the foreign commerce in
turn nourishing the domestic industry. Nowhere more than in New York
is the combination of both principles so completely developed. In the
progress of my argument, I will consider the effect upon the price of
commodities produced by the American system, and show that the very
reverse of the prediction of its foes, in 1824, actually happened.
Whilst we thus behold the entire failure of all that was foretold
against the system, it is a subject of just felicitation to its friends,
that all their anticipations of its benefits have been fulfilled,
or are in progress of fulfilment. The honorable gentleman from South
Carolina has made an allusion to a speech made by me, in 1824, in
the other house, in support of the tariff, and to which, otherwise,
I should not have particularly referred. But I would ask any one,
who can now command the courage to peruse that long production, what
principle there laid down is not true? what prediction then made has
been falsified by practical experience?
It is now proposed to abolish the system, to which we owe so much of
the public prosperity, and it is urged that the arrival of the period
of the redemption of the public debt has been confidently looked to
as presenting a suitable occasion to rid the country of the evils with
which the system is alleged to be fraught. Not an inattentive observer
of passing events, I have been aware, that, among those who were most
early pressing the payment of the public debt, and, upon that ground,
were opposing appropriations to other great interests, there were some
who cared less about the debt than the accomplishment of other objects.
But the people of the United States have not coupled the payment of
_their_ public debt with the destruction of the protection of _their_
industry, against foreign laws and foreign industry. They have been
accustomed to regard the extinction of the public debt as relief from
a burden, and not as the infliction of a curse. If it is to be attended
or followed by the subversion of the American system, and an exposure
of our establishments and our productions to the unguarded consequences
of the selfish policy of foreign powers, the payment of the public
debt will be the bitterest of curses. Its fruit will be like the fruit
‘Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden.’
If the system of protection be founded on principles erroneous in
theory, pernicious in practice, above all, if it be unconstitutional,
as is alleged, it ought to be forthwith abolished, and not a vestige
of it suffered to remain. But, before we sanction this sweeping
denunciation, let us look a little at this system, its magnitude,
its ramifications, its duration, and the high authorities which
have sustained it. We shall see that its foes will have accomplished
comparatively nothing, after having achieved their present aim of
breaking down our iron-founderies, our woollen, cotton, and hemp
manufactories, and our sugar-plantations. The destruction of these
would, undoubtedly, lead to the sacrifice of immense capital, the ruin
of many thousands of our fellow-citizens, and incalculable loss to the
whole community. But their prostration would not disfigure nor produce
greater effect upon the _whole_ system of protection, in all its
branches, than the destruction of the beautiful domes upon the capitol
would occasion to the magnificent edifice which they surmount. Why,
sir, there is scarcely an interest, scarcely a vocation in society,
which is not embraced by the beneficence of this system.
It comprehends our coasting tonnage and trade, from which all foreign
tonnage is absolutely excluded.
It includes all our foreign tonnage, with the inconsiderable exception
made by treaties of reciprocity with a few foreign powers.
It embraces our fisheries, and all our hardy and enterprising fishermen.
It extends to almost every mechanic art――to tanners, cordwainers,
tailors, cabinet-makers, hatters, tinners, brass-workers, clock-makers,
coach-makers, tallow-chandlers, trace-makers, rope-makers, cork-cutters,
tobacconists, whip-makers, paper-makers, umbrella-makers, glass-blowers,
stocking-weavers, butter-makers, saddle and harness-makers, cutlers,
brush-makers, book-binders, dairy-men, milk-farmers, black-smiths,
type-founders, musical instrument-makers, basket-makers, milliners,
potters, chocolate-makers, floor-cloth-makers, bonnet-makers,
hair-cloth-makers, copper-smiths, pencil-makers, bellows-makers,
pocket-book-makers, card-makers, glue-makers, mustard-makers,
lumber-sawyers, saw-makers, scale-beam-makers, sithe-makers,
wood-saw-makers, and many others. The mechanics enumerated, enjoy a
measure of protection adapted to their several conditions, varying from
twenty to fifty per cent. The extent and importance of some of these
artisans, may be estimated by a few particulars. The tanners, curriers,
boot and shoe makers, and other workers in hides, skins, and leather,
produce an ultimate value per annum of forty millions of dollars; the
manufacturers of hats and caps, produce an annual value of fifteen
millions; the cabinet-makers, twelve millions; the manufacturers of
bonnets and hats for the female sex, lace, artificial flowers, combs,
and so forth, seven millions; and the manufacturers of glass, five
millions.
It extends to all lower Louisiana, the delta of which might as well be
submerged again in the Gulf of Mexico, from which it has been a gradual
conquest, as now to be deprived of the protecting duty upon its great
staple.
It affects the cotton-planter[15] himself, and the tobacco-planter,
both of whom enjoy protection.
The total amount of the capital vested in sheep, the land to sustain
them, wool, woollen manufactures, and woollen fabrics, and the
subsistence of the various persons directly or indirectly employed in
the growth and manufacture of the article of wool, is estimated at one
hundred and sixty-seven millions of dollars, and the number of persons
at one hundred and fifty thousand.
The value of iron, considered as a raw material, and of its
manufactures, is estimated at twenty-six millions of dollars per annum.
Cotton goods, exclusive of the capital vested in the manufacture, and
of the cost of the raw material, are believed to amount, annually, to
about twenty millions of dollars.
These estimates have been carefully made, by practical men of
undoubted character, who have brought together and embodied their
information. Anxious to avoid the charge of exaggeration, they have
sometimes placed their estimates below what was believed to be the
actual amount of these interests. With regard to the quantity of bar
and other iron annually produced, it is derived from the known works
themselves; and I know some in western states which they have omitted
in their calculations.
Such are some of the items of this vast system of protection, which
it is now proposed to abandon. We might well pause and contemplate,
if human imagination could conceive the extent of mischief and ruin
from its total overthrow, before we proceed to the work of destruction.
Its duration is worthy also of serious consideration. Not to go behind
the constitution, its date is coeval with that instrument. It began on
the ever-memorable fourth day of July――the fourth day of July, 1789.
The second act which stands recorded in the statute-book, bearing the
illustrious signature of George Washington, laid the corner-stone of
the whole system. That there might be no mistake about the matter, it
was then solemnly proclaimed to the American people and to the world,
that it was _necessary_ for ‘the encouragement and _protection_ of
manufactures,’ that duties should be laid. It is in vain to urge the
small amount of the measure of the protection then extended. The great
principle was then established by the fathers of the constitution,
with the father of his country at their head. And it cannot now be
questioned, that, if the government had not then been new and the
subject untried, a greater measure of protection would have been
applied, if it had been supposed necessary. Shortly after, the master
minds of Jefferson and Hamilton were brought to act on this interesting
subject. Taking views of it appertaining to the departments of foreign
affairs and of the treasury, which they respectively filled, they
presented, severally, reports which yet remain monuments of their
profound wisdom, and came to the same conclusion of protection to
American industry. Mr. Jefferson argued that foreign restrictions,
foreign prohibitions, and foreign high duties, ought to be met at home
by American restrictions, American prohibitions, and American high
duties. Mr. Hamilton, surveying the entire ground, and looking at the
inherent nature of the subject, treated it with an ability, which,
if ever equalled, has not been surpassed, and earnestly recommended
protection.
The wars of the French revolution commenced about this period, and
streams of gold poured into the United States through a thousand
channels, opened or enlarged by the successful commerce which our
neutrality enabled us to prosecute. We forgot or overlooked, in
the general prosperity, the necessity of encouraging our domestic
manufactures. Then came the edicts of Napoleon, and the British orders
in council; and our embargo, non-intercourse, non-importation, and war,
followed in rapid succession. These national measures, amounting to
a total suspension, for the period of their duration, of our foreign
commerce, afforded the most efficacious encouragement to American
manufactures; and accordingly they every where sprung up. While
these measures of restriction and this state of war continued, the
manufacturers were stimulated in their enterprise by every assurance
of support, by public sentiment, and by legislative resolves. It was
about that period (1808) that South Carolina bore her high testimony
to the wisdom of the policy, in an act of her legislature, the preamble
of which, now before me, reads:
‘Whereas, the establishment and _encouragement_ of domestic
manufactures, is conducive to the interests of a state, by
adding new _incentives to industry_, and as being the means
of disposing to advantage the surplus productions of the
_agriculturist_: and whereas, in the present unexampled state
of the world, their establishment in our country is not only
_expedient_, but politic, in rendering us _independent_ of
foreign nations.’
The legislature, not being competent to afford the most efficacious aid,
by imposing duties on foreign rival articles, proceeded to incorporate
a company.
Peace, under the treaty of Ghent, returned in 1815 but there did
not return with it the golden days which preceded the edicts levelled
at our commerce by Great Britain and France. It found all Europe
tranquilly resuming the arts and the business of civil life. It found
Europe no longer the consumer of our surplus, and the employer of
our navigation, but excluding, or heavily burdening, almost all the
productions of our agriculture, and our rivals in manufactures, in
navigation, and in commerce. It found our country, in short, in a
situation totally different from all the past――new and untried. It
became necessary to adapt our laws, and especially our laws of impost,
to the new circumstances in which we found ourselves. Accordingly, that
eminent and lamented citizen, then at the head of the treasury, (Mr.
Dallas,) was required, by a resolution of the house of representatives,
under date of the twenty-third of February, 1815, to prepare and report
to the succeeding session of congress, a system of revenue conformable
with the actual condition of the country. He had the circle of a whole
year to perform the work, consulted merchants, manufacturers, and other
practical men, and opened an extensive correspondence. The report which
he made at the session of 1816, was the result of his inquiries and
reflections, and embodies the principles which he thought applicable
to the subject. It has been said, that the tariff of 1816 was a measure
of mere revenue, and that it only reduced the war duties to a peace
standard. It is true, that the question then was, how much and in
what way should the double duties of the war be reduced? Now, also,
the question is, on what articles shall the duties be reduced so
as to subject the amounts of the future revenue to the wants of the
government? Then it was deemed an inquiry of the first importance, as
it should be now, how the reduction should be made, so as to secure
proper encouragement to our domestic industry. That this was a leading
object in the arrangement of the tariff of 1816, I well remember,
and it is demonstrated by the language of Mr. Dallas. He says, in his
report:
‘There are few, if any governments, which do not regard the
establishment of domestic manufactures as a chief object of
public policy. The United States have _always_ so regarded it.
* * * * * The demands of the country, while the acquisitions
of supplies from foreign nations was either prohibited or
impracticable, may have afforded a sufficient inducement for
this investment of capital, and this application of labor: but
the inducement, in its necessary extent, must fail when the day
of _competition_ returns. Upon that change in the condition of
the country, the preservation of the manufactures, which private
citizens under favorable auspices have constituted the property
of the nation, becomes a consideration of general policy, to
be resolved by a recollection of past embarrassments; by the
certainty of an increased difficulty of reinstating, upon any
emergency, the manufactures which shall be allowed to perish and
pass away,’ and so forth.
The measure of protection which he proposed was not adopted, in
regard to some leading articles, and there was great difficulty in
ascertaining what it ought to have been. But the _principle_ was then
distinctly asserted and fully sanctioned.
The subject of the American system was again brought up in 1820, by
the bill reported by the chairman of the committee of manufactures,
now a member of the bench of the supreme court of the United States,
and the principle was successfully maintained by the representatives of
the people; but the bill which they passed was defeated in the senate.
It was revived in 1824; the whole ground carefully and deliberately
explored, and the bill then introduced, receiving all the sanctions
of the constitution, became the law of the land. An amendment of
the system was proposed in 1828, to the history of which I refer
with no agreeable recollections. The bill of that year, in some of
its provisions, was framed on principles directly adverse to the
declared wishes of the friends of the policy of protection. I have
heard, without vouching for the fact, that it was so framed, upon the
advice of a prominent citizen, now abroad, with the view of ultimately
defeating the bill, and with assurances that, being altogether
unacceptable to the friends of the American system, the bill would be
lost. Be that as it may, the most exceptionable features of the bill
were stamped upon it, against the earnest remonstrances of the friends
of the system, by the votes of southern members, upon a principle,
I think, as unsound in legislation as it is reprehensible in ethics.
The bill was passed, notwithstanding, it having been deemed better
to take the bad along with the good which it contained, than reject
it altogether. Subsequent legislation has corrected the error then
perpetrated, but still that measure is vehemently denounced by
gentlemen who contributed to make it what it was.
Thus, sir, has this great system of protection been gradually built,
stone upon stone, and step by step, from the fourth of July, 1789, down
to the present period. In every stage of its progress it has received
the deliberate sanction of congress. A vast majority of the people of
the United States has approved and continue to approve it. Every chief
magistrate of the United States, from Washington to the present, in
some form or other, has given to it the authority of his name; and,
however the opinions of the existing president are interpreted south
of Mason and Dixon’s line, on the north they are at least understood
to favor the establishment of a _judicious_ tariff.
The question, therefore, which we are now called upon to determine, is
not, whether we shall establish a new and doubtful system of policy,
just proposed, and for the first time presented to our consideration,
but whether we shall break down and destroy a long established system,
patiently and carefully built up and sanctioned, during a series of
years, again and again, by the nation and its highest and most revered
authorities. And are we not bound deliberately to consider whether
we can proceed to this work of destruction without a violation of the
public faith? The people of the United States have justly supposed that
the policy of protecting their industry against foreign legislation
and foreign industry was fully settled, not by a single act, but by
repeated and deliberate acts of government, performed at distant and
frequent intervals. In full confidence that the policy was firmly
and unchangeably fixed, thousands upon thousands have invested their
capital, purchased a vast amount of real and other estate, made
permanent establishments, and accommodated their industry. Can we
expose to utter and irretrievable ruin this countless multitude,
without justly incurring the reproach of violating the national faith?
I shall not discuss the constitutional question. Without meaning
any disrespect to those who raise it, if it be debatable, it has been
sufficiently debated. The gentleman from South Carolina suffered it
to fall unnoticed from his budget; and it was not until after he had
closed his speech and resumed his seat, that it occurred to him that he
had forgotten it, when he again addressed the senate, and, by a sort of
protestation against any conclusion from his silence, put forward the
objection. The recent free-trade convention at Philadelphia, it is well
known, were divided on the question; and although the topic is noticed
in their address to the public, they do not avow their own belief that
the American system is unconstitutional, but represent that such is
the opinion of respectable portions of the American people. Another
address to the people of the United States, from a high source, during
the past year, treating this subject, does not assert the opinion of
the distinguished author, but states that of others to be, that it is
unconstitutional. From which I infer that he did not himself believe
it to be unconstitutional.
[Here the vice-president interposed, and remarked, that, if
the senator from Kentucky alluded to him, he must say that his
opinion was, that the measure was unconstitutional.]
When, sir, I contended with you, side by side, and with perhaps less
zeal than you exhibited, in 1816, I did not understand you then to
consider the policy forbidden by the constitution.
[The vice-president again interposed, and said, that the
constitutional question was not debated at that time, and
that he had never expressed an opinion contrary to that now
intimated.]
I give way with pleasure to these explanations, which I hope will
always be made when I say any thing bearing on the individual opinions
of the chair. I know the delicacy of the position, and sympathize with
the incumbent, whoever he may be. It is true, the question was not
debated in 1816; and why not? Because it was not debatable; it was
then believed not fairly to arise. It never has been made as a distinct,
substantial, and leading point of objection. It never was made until
the discussion of the tariff of 1824, when it was rather hinted at
as against the _spirit_ of the constitution, than formally announced
as being contrary to the provisions of that instrument. What was not
dreamed of before, or in 1816, and scarcely thought of in 1824, is now
made, by excited imaginations, to assume the imposing form of a serious
constitutional barrier.
Such are the origin, duration, extent, and sanctions, of the policy
which we are now called upon to subvert. Its beneficial effects,
although they may vary in degree, have been felt in all parts of the
union. To none, I verily believe, has it been prejudicial. In the
north, every where, testimonials are borne to the high prosperity
which it has diffused. There, all branches of industry are animated
and flourishing. Commerce, foreign and domestic, active; cities and
towns springing up, enlarging and beautifying; navigation fully and
profitably employed, and the whole face of the country smiling with
improvement, cheerfulness, and abundance. The gentleman from South
Carolina has supposed that we in the west derive no advantages from
this system. He is mistaken. Let him visit us, and he will find, from
the head of La Belle Riviere, at Pittsburgh, to America, at its mouth,
the most rapid and gratifying advances. He will behold Pittsburgh
itself, Wheeling, Portsmouth, Maysville, Cincinnati, Louisville, and
numerous other towns, lining and ornamenting the banks of the noble
river, daily extending their limits, and prosecuting, with the greatest
spirit and profit, numerous branches of the manufacturing and mechanic
arts. If he will go into the interior, in the state of Ohio, he will
there perceive the most astonishing progress in agriculture, in the
useful arts, and in all the improvements to which they both directly
conduce. Then let him cross over into my own, my favorite state, and
contemplate the spectacle which is there exhibited. He will perceive
numerous villages, not large, but neat, thriving, and some of them
highly ornamented; many manufactories of hemp, cotton, wool, and
other articles. In various parts of the country, and especially in the
Elkhorn region, an endless succession of natural parks; the forests
thinned; fallen trees and undergrowth cleared away; large herds and
flocks feeding on luxuriant grasses; and interspersed with comfortable,
sometimes elegant mansions, surrounded by extensive lawns. The
honorable gentleman from South Carolina says, that a profitable trade
was carried on from the west, through the Seleuda gap, in mules, horses,
and other live stock, which has been checked by the operation of the
tariff. It is true, that such a trade was carried on between Kentucky
and South Carolina, mutually beneficial to both parties; but, several
years ago, resolutions, at popular meetings, in Carolina, were adopted,
not to purchase the produce of Kentucky, by way of punishment for
her attachment to the tariff. They must have supposed us as stupid as
the sires of one of the descriptions of the stock of which that trade
consisted, if they imagined that their resolutions would affect _our_
principles. Our drovers cracked their whips, blew their horns, and
passed the Seleuda gap, to other markets, where better humors existed,
and equal or greater profits were made. I have heard, of your successor
in the house of representatives, Mr. President, this anecdote: that he
joined in the adoption of those resolutions, but when, about Christmas,
he applied to one of his South Carolina neighbors, to purchase the
regular supply of pork for the ensuing year, he found that he had to
pay two prices for it; and he declared, if _that_ were the patriotism
on which the resolutions were based, he would not conform to them,
and, in point of fact, laid in his annual stock of pork by purchase
from the first passing Kentucky drover. The trade, now partially
resumed, was maintained by the sale of western productions, on the one
side, and Carolina money on the other. From that condition of it, the
gentleman from South Carolina might have drawn this conclusion, that
an advantageous trade may exist, although one of the parties to it pays
in specie for the production which he purchases from the other; and
consequently that it does not follow, if we did not purchase British
fabrics, that it might not be the interest of England to purchase our
raw material of cotton. The Kentucky drover received the South Carolina
specie, or, taking bills, or the evidences of deposit in the banks,
carried these home, and, disposing of them to the merchant, he brought
out goods, of foreign or domestic manufacture, in return. Such is the
circuitous nature of trade and remittance, which no nation understands
better than Great Britain.
Nor has the system which has been the parent source of so much benefit
to other parts of the union, proved injurious to the cotton-growing
country. I cannot speak of South Carolina itself, where I have never
been, with so much certainty; but of other portions of the union in
which cotton is grown, especially those bordering on the Mississippi,
I can confidently speak. If cotton-planting is less profitable than
it was, that is the result of increased production; but I believe it
to be still the most profitable investment of capital of any branch
of business in the United States. And if a committee were raised, with
power to send for persons and papers, I take it upon myself to say,
that such would be the result of the inquiry. In Kentucky, I know many
individuals who have their cotton-plantations below, and retain their
residence in that state, where they remain during the sickly season;
and they are all, I believe, without exception, doing well. Others,
tempted by their success, are constantly engaging in the business,
while scarcely any comes from the cotton region to engage in western
agriculture. A friend, now in my eye, a member of this body, upon a
capital of less than seventy thousand dollars, invested in a plantation
and slaves, made, the year before last, sixteen thousand dollars. A
member of the other house, I understand, who, without removing himself,
sent some of his slaves to Mississippi, made last year about twenty
per cent. Two friends of mine, in the latter state, whose annual income
is from thirty to sixty thousand dollars, being desirous to curtail
their business, have offered estates for sale which they are willing to
show, by regular vouchers of receipt and disbursement, yield eighteen
per cent. per annum. One of my most opulent acquaintances, in a county
adjoining that in which I reside, having married in Georgia, has
derived a large portion of his wealth from a cotton estate there
situated.
The loss of the tonnage of Charleston, which has been dwelt on, does
not proceed from the tariff; it never had a very large amount, and
it has not been able to retain what it had, in consequence of the
operation of the principle of free trade on its navigation. Its tonnage
has gone to the more enterprising and adventurous tars of the northern
states, with whom those of the city of Charleston could not maintain a
successful competition, in the freedom of the coasting trade, existing
between the different parts of the union. That this must be the true
cause, is demonstrated by the fact, that, however it may be with the
port of Charleston, our coasting tonnage, generally, is constantly
increasing. As to the foreign tonnage, about one half of that which
is engaged in the direct trade between Charleston and Great Britain,
is English; proving that the tonnage of South Carolina cannot maintain
itself in a competition, under the free and equal navigation secured by
our treaty with that power.
When gentlemen have succeeded in their design of an immediate or
gradual destruction of the American system, what is their substitute?
Free trade? Free trade! The call for free trade is as unavailing, as
the cry of a spoiled child in its nurse’s arms, for the moon, or the
stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven. It never has existed,
it never will exist. Trade implies at least two parties. To be free,
it should be fair, equal, and reciprocal. But if we throw our ports
wide open to the admission of foreign productions, free of all duty,
what ports of any other foreign nation shall we find open to the
free admission of our surplus produce? We may break down all barriers
to free trade on our part, but the work will not be complete, until
foreign powers shall have removed theirs. There would be freedom on
one side, and restrictions, prohibitions, and exclusions, on the other.
The bolts and the bars and the chains of all other nations will remain
undisturbed. It is, indeed, possible, that our industry and commerce
would accommodate themselves to this unequal and unjust state of things;
for, such is the flexibility of our nature, that it bends itself to all
circumstances. The wretched prisoner incarcerated in a jail, after a
long time, becomes reconciled to his solitude, and regularly notches
down the passing days of his confinement.
Gentlemen deceive themselves. It is not free trade that they are
recommending to our acceptance. It is, in effect, the British colonial
system that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevail, it
will lead substantially to the recolonization of these states, under
the commercial dominion of Great Britain. And whom do we find some
of the principal supporters, out of congress, of this foreign system?
Mr. President, there are some foreigners who always remain exotics,
and never become naturalized in our country; whilst, happily, there
are many others who readily attach themselves to our principles and
our institutions. The honest, patient, and industrious German, readily
unites with our people; establishes himself upon some of our fat land,
fills his capacious barn, and enjoys in tranquillity the abundant
fruits which his diligence gathers around him; always ready to fly
to the standard of his adopted country, or of its laws, when called
by the duties of patriotism. The gay, the versatile, the philosophic
Frenchman, accommodating himself cheerfully to all the vicissitudes of
life, incorporates himself without difficulty, in our society. But, of
all foreigners, none amalgamate themselves so quickly with our people
as the natives of the Emerald isle. In some of the visions which
have passed through my imagination, I have supposed that Ireland
was originally part and parcel of this continent, and that, by some
extraordinary convulsion of nature, it was torn from America, and,
drifting across the ocean, was placed in the unfortunate vicinity of
Great Britain. The same open-heartedness; the same generous hospitality;
the same careless and uncalculating indifference about human life;
characterize the inhabitants of both countries. Kentucky has been
sometimes called the Ireland of America. And I have no doubt, that
if the current of emigration were reversed, and set from America upon
the shores of Europe instead of bearing from Europe to America, every
American emigrant to Ireland would there find, as every Irish emigrant
here finds, a hearty welcome and a happy home!
But, sir, the gentleman to whom I am about to allude, although
long a resident of this country, has no feelings, no attachments,
no sympathies, no principles, in common with our people. Nearly
fifty years ago, Pennsylvania took him to her bosom, and warmed, and
cherished, and honored him; and how does he manifest his gratitude?
By aiming a vital blow at a system endeared to her by a thorough
conviction that it is indispensable to her prosperity. He has filled,
at home and abroad, some of the highest offices under this government,
during thirty years, and he is still at heart an alien. The authority
of his name has been invoked, and the labors of his pen, in the form
of a memorial to congress, have been engaged, to overthrow the American
system, and to substitute the foreign. Go home to your native Europe,
and there inculcate upon her sovereigns your Utopian doctrines of free
trade, and when you have prevailed upon them to unseal their ports, and
freely admit the produce of Pennsylvania and other states, come back,
and we shall be prepared to become converts, and to adopt your faith.
A Mr. Sarchet also makes no inconsiderable figure in the common
attack upon our system. I do not know the man, but I understand he
is an unnaturalized emigrant, from the island of Guernsey, situated in
the channel which divides France and England. The principal business
of the inhabitants is that of driving a contraband trade with the
opposite shores, and Mr. Sarchet, educated in that school, is, I have
been told, chiefly engaged in employing his wits to elude the operation
of our revenue laws, by introducing articles at less rates of duty
than they are justly chargeable with, which he effects by varying
the denominations, or slightly changing their forms. This man, at a
former session of the senate, caused to be presented a memorial, signed
by some one hundred and fifty pretended workers in iron. Of these, a
gentleman made a careful inquiry and examination, and he ascertained
that there were only about ten of the denomination represented; the
rest were tavern keepers, porters, merchants’ clerks, hackney coachmen,
and so forth. I have the most respectable authority, in black and white,
for this statement.
[Here general Hayne asked, who? and was he a manufacturer? Mr.
Clay replied, colonel Murray, of New York, a gentleman of the
highest standing, for honor, probity, and veracity; that he did
not know whether he was a manufacturer or not, but the gentleman
might take him as one.[16]]
Whether Mr. Sarchet got up the late petition presented to the senate,
from the journeymen tailors of Philadelphia, or not, I do not know.
But I should not be surprised if it were a movement of his, and if we
should find that he has _cabbaged_ from other classes of society to
swell out the number of signatures.
To the facts manufactured by Mr. Sarchet, and the theories by Mr.
Gallatin, there was yet wanting one circumstance to recommend them to
favorable consideration, and that was, the authority of some high name.
There was no difficulty in obtaining one from a British repository. The
honorable gentleman has cited a speech of my lord Goderich, addressed
to the British parliament, in favor of free trade, and full of deep
regret that old England _could not_ possibly conform her practice
of rigorous restriction and exclusion to her liberal _doctrines_ of
unfettered commerce, so earnestly recommended to foreign powers. Sir,
I know my lord Goderich very well, although my acquaintance with him
was prior to his being summoned to the British house of peers. We both
signed the convention between the United States and Great Britain, of
1815. He is an honorable man, frank, possessing but ordinary business
talents, about the stature and complexion of the honorable gentleman
from South Carolina, a few years older than he, and every drop of blood
running in his veins being pure and unadulterated Anglo-Saxon blood.
If he were to live to the age of Methuselah, he could not make a speech
of such ability and eloquence as that which the gentleman from South
Carolina recently delivered to the senate; and there would be much more
fitness in my lord Goderich making quotations from the speech of the
honorable gentleman, than his quoting, as authority, the theoretical
doctrines of my lord Goderich. We are too much in the habit of looking
abroad, not merely for manufactured articles, but for the sanction
of high names, to support favorite theories. I have seen and closely
observed the British parliament, and, without derogating from its
justly elevated character, I have no hesitation in saying, that in
all the attributes of order, dignity, patriotism, and eloquence,
the American congress would not suffer, in the smallest degree, by
a comparison with it.
I dislike this resort to authority, and especially _foreign_ and
_interested_ authority, for the support of principles of public policy.
I would greatly prefer to meet gentlemen upon the broad ground of fact,
of experience, and of reason; but, since they will appeal to British
names and authority, I feel myself compelled to imitate their bad
example. Allow me to quote from the speech of a member of the British
parliament, bearing the same family name with my lord Goderich, but
whether or not a relation of his, I do not know. The member alluded to,
was arguing against the violation of the treaty of Methuen――that treaty
not less fatal to the interests of Portugal than would be the system of
gentlemen to the best interests of America――and he went on to say:
‘_It was idle for us to endeavor to persuade other nations to
join with us in adopting the principles of what was called ‘free
trade.’ Other nations knew, as well as the noble lord opposite,
and those who acted with him, what we meant by ‘free trade’ was
nothing more nor less than, by means of the great advantages
we enjoyed, to get a monopoly of all their markets for our
manufactures, and to prevent them, one and all, from ever
becoming manufacturing nations._ When the system of reciprocity
and free trade had been proposed to a French ambassador, his
remark was, that the plan was excellent in theory, but, to
make it fair in practice, it would be necessary to defer the
attempt to put it in execution for half a century, until France
should be on the same footing with Great Britain, in marine, in
manufactures, in capital, and the many other peculiar advantages
which it now enjoyed. The policy that France acted on, was
that of encouraging its native manufactures, and it was a wise
policy; because, if it were freely to admit our manufactures,
it would speedily be reduced to the rank of an _agricultural
nation_, and _therefore_, a poor nation, as all must be that
depend _exclusively_ upon agriculture. America acted, too,
upon the same principle with France. America legislated for
futurity――legislated for an increasing population. America, too,
was prospering under this system. In twenty years, America would
be independent of England for manufactures altogether. * * * * *
But since the peace, France, Germany, America, and all the other
countries of the world, had proceeded upon the principle of
encouraging and protecting native manufactures.’
But I have said, that the system nominally called ‘free trade,’ so
earnestly and eloquently recommended to our adoption, is a mere revival
of the British colonial system, forced upon us by Great Britain during
the existence of our colonial vassalage. The whole system is fully
explained and illustrated in a work published as far back as the year
1750, entitled ‘the trade and navigation of Great Britain considered,
by Joshua Gee,’ with extracts from which I have been furnished by the
diligent researches of a friend. It will be seen from these, that the
South Carolina policy now, is identical with the long-cherished policy
of Great Britain, which remains the same as it was when the thirteen
colonies were part of the British empire. In that work the author
contends:
‘First, that manufactures, in American colonies, should be
discouraged or prohibited.
‘Great Britain, with its dependencies, is doubtless as well
able to subsist within itself, as any nation in Europe. We
have an enterprising people, fit for all the arts of peace and
war. We have provisions in abundance, and those of the best
sort, and are able to raise sufficient for double the number of
inhabitants. We have the very best materials for clothing, and
want nothing, either for use, or even for luxury, but what we
have at home, or might have from our colonies; so that we might
make such an intercourse of trade among ourselves, or between
us and them, as would maintain a vast navigation. But we ought
always to keep a watchful eye over our colonies, to restrain
them from setting up any of the manufactures which are carried
on in Great Britain; and any such attempts should be crushed in
the beginning; for if they are suffered to grow up to maturity,
it will be difficult to suppress them.’ Pages 177, 8, 9.
‘Our colonies are much in the same state Ireland was in,
when they began the woollen manufactory, and as their numbers
increase, will fall upon manufactures for clothing themselves,
if due care be not taken to find employment for them, in raising
such productions as may enable them to furnish themselves with
all their necessaries from us.’
Then it was the object of the British economists to adapt the means
or wealth of the colonists to the supply required by their necessities,
and to make the mother country the source of that supply. Now it
seems the policy is only so far to be reversed, that we must continue
to import necessaries from Great Britain, in order to enable her to
purchase raw cotton from us.
‘I should, therefore, think it worthy the care of the government,
to endeavor, by all possible means, to encourage them in raising
of silk, hemp, flax, iron, [only pig, to be hammered in England,]
potash, and so forth, by giving them competent bounties in the
beginning, and sending over judicious and skilful persons at the
public charge, to assist and instruct them in the most proper
methods of management, which, in my apprehension, would lay a
foundation for establishing the most profitable trade of any we
have. And considering the commanding situation of our colonies
along the sea-coast, the great convenience of navigable rivers
in all of them, the cheapness of land, and the easiness of
raising provisions, great numbers of people would transport
themselves thither, to settle upon such improvements. Now,
as people have been filled with fears that the colonies, if
encouraged to raise rough materials, would set up for themselves,
a _little regulation_ would remove all those jealousies out of
the way. They have never thrown or wove any silk, as yet, that
we have heard of. Therefore, if a law was made to prohibit the
use of every throwster’s mill, of doubling or horsling silk with
any machine whatever, they would then _send it to us raw_. And
as they will have the providing rough materials to themselves,
so shall we have the manufacturing of them. If encouragement
be given for raising hemp, flax, and so forth, doubtless they
will soon begin to manufacture, if not _prevented_. Therefore,
to stop the progress of any such manufacture, it is proposed,
that no weaver shall have _liberty_ to set up any looms, without
first registering, at an office kept for that purpose, and the
name and place of abode of any journeyman that shall work for
him. But if any _particular inhabitant_ shall be inclined to
have any linen or woollen made of their own spinning, they
should not be abridged of the same liberty that they now make
use of, namely, to carry to a weaver, (who shall be _licensed_
by the governor,) and have it wrought up for the use of the
family, but not to be sold to any person in a private manner,
nor exposed to any market or fair, upon pain of forfeiture.
‘And, inasmuch as they have been supplied with all their
manufactures from hence, except what is used in building of
ships, and other country work, one half of our exports being
supposed to be in NAILS――a manufacture which they allow has
never hitherto been carried on among them――it is proposed they
shall, _for time to come_, never erect the manufacture of any,
under the size of a two-shilling nail, horse-nails excepted:
that all slitting mills and engines, for drawing wire, or
weaving stockings, _be put down_, and that every smith who keeps
a common forge or shop, shall register his name and place of
abode, and the name of every _servant_ which he shall employ,
which license shall be renewed once every year, and _pay_ for
the _liberty_ of working at such trade. That all negroes shall
be prohibited from weaving either linen or woollen, or spinning
or combing of wool, or working at any manufacture of iron,
further than making it into pig or bar iron. That they also be
prohibited from manufacturing hats, stockings, or _leather_ of
any kind. This limitation will not abridge the planters of any
privilege they now enjoy. On the contrary, it will turn their
industry to promoting and raising those rough materials.’
The author then proposes, that the board of trade and plantations
should be furnished with statistical accounts of the various
_permitted_ manufactures, to enable them to encourage or depress the
industry of the colonists, and prevent the danger of interference with
British industry.
‘It is hoped that this method would allay the _heat_ that
_some people_ have shown for destroying the iron-works on the
plantations, and pulling down all their forges, taking away, in
a violent manner, their estates and properties, preventing the
husbandmen from getting their ploughshares, carts, and other
utensils mended, destroying the manufacture of ship-building,
by depriving them of the liberty of making bolts, spikes, and
other things proper for carrying on that work, by which article
returns are made for purchasing our woollen manufactures.’ Pages
87, 88, 89.
Such is the picture of colonists dependent upon the mother country
for their necessary supplies, drawn by a writer who was not among
the number of those who desired to debar them the means of building a
vessel, erecting a forge, or mending a ploughshare, but who was willing
to promote their growth and prosperity as far as was consistent with
the paramount interests of the manufacturing or parent state.
‘Secondly, the advantages to Great Britain, from keeping the
colonists dependent on her for their essential supplies.
‘If we examine into the circumstances of the inhabitants of
our plantations, and our own, it will appear, that not one
fourth part of their product redounds to their _own profit_; for,
out of all that comes here, they only carry back clothing, and
other accommodations for their families, all of which is of the
merchandise and manufacture of this kingdom.’
After showing how this system tends to concentrate all the surplus of
acquisition over absolute expenditure in England, he says:
‘All these advantages we receive by the plantations, besides
the mortgages on the planters’ estates, and the high interest
they pay us, which is very considerable; and therefore very
great care ought to be taken in regulating all the affairs of
the colonists, that the planters be not put under _too many
difficulties_, but encouraged to go on cheerfully.
‘New England, and the northern colonies, have not commodities
and products enough to send us, in return, for purchasing their
necessary clothing, but are under very great difficulties, and
therefore any ordinary sort sell with them. And when they have
grown out of _fashion_ with us, they are new-fashioned _enough_
there.’
Sir, I cannot go on with this disgusting detail. Their refuse goods,
their old shop-keepers, their cast-off clothes good enough for us! Was
there ever a scheme more artfully devised, by which the energies and
faculties of one people should be kept down, and rendered subservient
to the pride and the pomp and the power of another? The system then
proposed differs only from that which is now recommended in one
particular――that was intended to be enforced by power; this would not
be less effectually executed by the force of circumstances. A gentleman
in Boston (Mr. Lee), the agent of the free-trade convention, from
whose exhaustless mint there is a constant issue of reports, seems to
envy the blessed condition of dependent Canada, when compared to the
oppressed state of this union; and it is a fair inference from the view
which he presents, that he would have us hasten back to the golden days
of that colonial bondage, which is so well depicted in the work from
which I have been quoting. Mr. Lee exhibits two tabular statements, in
one of which he presents the high duties which he represents to be paid
in the ports of the United States, and in the other, those which are
paid in Canada, generally about two per centum _ad valorem_. But did it
not occur to him, that the duties levied in Canada are paid chiefly in
British manufactures, or on articles passing from one part to another
of a common empire? and that, to present a parallel case in the United
States, he ought to have shown, that importations made into one state
from another, which are now free, are subject to the same or higher
duties than are paid in Canada?
I will now, Mr. President, proceed to a more particular consideration
of the arguments urged against the protective system, and an inquiry
into its practical operation, especially on the cotton-growing country.
And as I wish to state and meet the argument, fairly, I invite the
correction of my statement of it, if necessary. It is alleged, that
the system operates prejudicially to the cotton planter, by diminishing
the foreign demand for his staple; that we cannot sell to Great
Britain unless we buy from her, that the import duty is equivalent
to an export duty, and falls upon the cotton grower; that South
Carolina pays a disproportionate quota of the public revenue; that
an abandonment of the protective policy would lead to an augmentation
of our exports, of an amount not less than one hundred and fifty
millions of dollars; and, finally, that the south cannot partake of
the advantages of manufacturing, if there be any. Let us examine these
various propositions in detail. First, that the foreign demand for
cotton is diminished, and that we cannot sell to Great Britain unless
we buy from her. The demand of both our great foreign customers is
constantly and annually increasing. It is true, that the ratio of the
increase may not be equal to that of production; but this is owing to
the fact, that the power of producing the raw material is much greater,
and is, therefore, constantly in advance of the power of consumption. A
single fact will illustrate. The average produce of laborers engaged in
the cultivation of cotton, may be estimated at five bales, or fifteen
hundred weight to the hand. Supposing the annual average consumption of
each individual who uses cotton cloth, to be five pounds, one hand can
produce enough of the raw material to clothe three hundred.
The argument comprehends two errors, one of fact and the other of
principle. It assumes that we do not in fact purchase of Great Britain.
What is the true state of the case? There are certain, but very few
articles which it is thought sound policy requires that we should
manufacture at home, and on these the tariff operates. But, with
respect to all the rest, and much the larger number of articles of
taste, fashion, and utility, they are subject to no other than revenue
duties, and are freely introduced. I have before me from the treasury a
statement of our imports from England, Scotland, and Ireland, including
ten years, preceding the last, and three quarters of the last year,
from which it will appear that, although there are some fluctuations in
the amount of the different years, the largest amount imported in any
one year has been since the tariff of 1824, and that the last year’s
importation, when the returns of the fourth quarter shall be received,
will probably be the greatest in the whole term of eleven years.
Now, if it be admitted that there is a less amount of the protected
articles imported from Great Britain, she may be, and probably is,
compensated for the deficiency, by the increased consumption in
America of the articles of her industry not falling within the scope
of the policy of our protection. The establishment of manufactures
among us excites the creation of wealth, and this gives new powers of
consumption, which are gratified by the purchase of foreign objects.
A poor nation can never be a great consuming nation. Its poverty will
limit its consumption to bare subsistence.
The erroneous principle which the argument includes, is, that it
devolves on us the duty of taking care that Great Britain shall be
enabled to purchase from us without exacting from Great Britain the
corresponding duty. If it be true on one side that nations are bound
to shape their policy in reference to the ability of foreign powers,
it must be true on both sides, of the Atlantic. And this reciprocal
obligation ought to be emphatically regarded towards the nation
supplying the raw material, by the manufacturing nation, because the
industry of the latter gives four or five values to what had been
produced by the industry of the former.
But, does Great Britain practice towards us upon the principles
which we are now required to observe in regard to her? The exports to
the united kingdom, as appears from the same treasury statement just
adverted to, during eleven years, from 1821 to 1831, and exclusive
of the fourth quarter of the last year, fall short of the amount of
imports by upwards of forty-six millions of dollars, and the total
amount, when the returns of that quarter are received, will exceed
fifty millions of dollars! It is surprising how we have been able to
sustain, for so long a time, a trade so very unequal. We must have
been absolutely ruined by it, if the unfavorable balance had not been
neutralized by more profitable commerce with other parts of the world.
Of all nations, Great Britain has the least cause to complain of the
trade between the two countries. Our imports from that single power
are nearly one third of the entire amount of our importations from
all foreign countries together. Great Britain constantly acts on the
maxim of buying only what she wants and cannot produce, and selling
to foreign nations the utmost amount she can. In conformity with this
maxim, she excludes articles of prime necessity produced by us, equally
if not more necessary than any of her industry which we tax, although
the admission of those articles would increase our ability to purchase
from her, according to the argument of gentlemen.
If we purchased still less from Great Britain than we do, and our
conditions were reversed, so that the value of her imports from this
country exceeded that of her exports to it, she would only then be
compelled to do what we have so long done, and what South Carolina
does, in her trade with Kentucky, make up for the unfavorable balance
by trade with other places and countries. How does she now dispose of
the one hundred and sixty millions of dollars worth of cotton fabrics,
which she annually sells? Of that amount the United States do not
purchase five per centum. What becomes of the other ninety-five per
centum? Is it not sold to other powers, and would not their markets
remain, if ours were totally shut? Would she not continue, as she now
finds it her interest, to purchase the raw material from us, to supply
those markets? Would she be guilty of the folly of depriving herself of
markets to the amount of upwards of one hundred and fifty millions of
dollars, because we refused her a market for some eight or ten millions?
But if there were a diminution of the British demand for cotton equal
to the loss of a market for the few British fabrics which are within
the scope of our protective policy, the question would still remain,
whether the cotton-planter is not amply indemnified by the creation of
additional demand elsewhere? With respect to the cotton-grower, it is
the _totality_ of the demand, and not its _distribution_, which affects
his interests. If any system of policy will augment the aggregate of
the demand, that system is favorable to his interests, although its
tendency may be to vary the theatre of the demand. It could not, for
example, be injurious to him, if, instead of Great Britain continuing
to receive the entire quantity of cotton which she now does, two or
three hundred thousand bales of it were taken to the other side of the
channel, and increased to that extent the French demand. It would be
better for him, because it is always better to have several markets
than one. Now if, instead of a transfer to the opposite side of
the channel, of those two or three hundred thousand bales, they are
transported to the northern states, can that be injurious to the
cotton-grower? Is it not better for him? Is it not better to have a
market at home, unaffected by war, or other foreign causes, for that
amount of his staple?
If the establishment of American manufactures, therefore, had the sole
effect of creating a new and an American demand for cotton, _exactly_
to the same extent in which it lessened the British demand, there would
be no just cause of complaint against the tariff. The gain in one place
would precisely equal the loss in the other. But the true state of the
matter is much more favorable to the cotton-grower. It is calculated
that the cotton manufactories of the United States absorb at least two
hundred thousand bales of cotton annually. I believe it to be more.
The two ports of Boston and Providence alone received during the last
year near one hundred and ten thousand bales. The amount is annually
increasing. The raw material of that two hundred thousand bales is
worth six millions, and there is an additional value conferred by
the manufacturer of eighteen millions; it being generally calculated
that, in such cotton fabrics as we are in the habit of making, the
manufacture constitutes three fourths of the value of the article. If,
therefore, these twenty-four millions worth of cotton fabrics were not
made in the United States, but were manufactured in Great Britain, in
order to obtain them, we should have to add to the already enormous
disproportion between the amount of our imports and exports, in the
trade with Great Britain, the further sum of twenty-four millions, or,
deducting the price of the raw material, eighteen millions! And will
gentlemen tell me how it would be possible for this country to sustain
such a ruinous trade? From all that portion of the United States
lying north and east of James river, and west of the mountains, Great
Britain receives comparatively nothing. How would it be possible for
the inhabitants of that largest portion of our territory, to supply
themselves with cotton fabrics, if they were brought from England
exclusively? They could not do it. But for the existence of the
American manufacture, they would be compelled greatly to curtail
their supplies, if not absolutely to suffer in their comforts. By
its existence at home, the circle of those exchanges is created,
which reciprocally diffuses among all who are embraced within it the
productions of their respective industry. The cotton-grower sells the
raw material to the manufacturer; he buys the iron, the bread, the meal,
the coal, and the countless number of objects of his consumption from
his fellow-citizens, and they in turn purchase his fabrics. Putting it
upon the ground merely of supplying those with necessary articles who
could not otherwise obtain them, ought there to be from any quarter an
objection to the only system by which that object can be accomplished?
But can there be any doubt, with those who will reflect, that the
actual amount of cotton consumed is increased by the home manufacture?
The main argument of gentlemen is founded upon the idea of mutual
ability resulting from mutual exchanges. They would furnish an ability
to foreign nations by purchasing from them, and I, to our own people,
by exchanges at home. If the American manufacture were discontinued,
and that of England were to take its place, how would she sell the
additional quantity of twenty-four millions of cotton goods, which
we now make? To us? That has been shown to be impracticable. To other
foreign nations? She has already pushed her supplies to them to the
utmost extent. The ultimate consequence would then be, to diminish the
total consumption of cotton, to say nothing now of the reduction of
price that would take place by throwing into the ports of Great Britain
the two hundred thousand bales, which, no longer being manufactured in
the United States, would go thither.
Second, that the import duty is equivalent to an export duty, and falls
on the producer of cotton.
[Here general Hayne explained, and said, that he never
contended that an import duty was equivalent to an export duty,
under all circumstances; he had explained in his speech his
ideas of the precise operation of the existing system. To which
Mr. Clay replied, that he had seen the argument so stated in
some of the ingenious essays from the South Carolina press, and
would therefore answer it.]
The framers of our constitution, by granting the power to congress to
lay imports, and prohibiting that of laying an export duty, manifested
that they did not regard them as equivalent. Nor does the common sense
of mankind. An export duty fastens upon, and incorporates itself with,
the article on which it is laid. The article cannot escape from it――it
pursues and follows it, wherever the article goes; and if, in the
foreign market, the supply is above or just equal to the demand, the
amount of the export duty will be a clear deduction to the exporter
from the price of the article. But an import duty on a foreign article
leaves the exporter of the domestic article free, first, to import
specie; secondly, goods which are free from the protecting duty; or,
thirdly, such goods as, being chargeable with the protecting duty, he
can sell at home, and throw the duty on the consumer.
But, it is confidently argued that the import duty falls upon the
grower of cotton; and the case has been put in debate, and again and
again in conversation, of the South Carolina planter, who exports one
hundred bales of cotton to Liverpool, exchanges them for one hundred
bales of merchandise, and when he brings them home, being compelled
to leave at the custom-house forty bales in the form of duties.
The argument is founded on the assumption that a duty of forty per
centum amounts to a subtraction of forty from the one hundred bales
of merchandise. The first objection to it is, that it supposes a case
of barter, which never occurs. If it be replied, that it nevertheless
occurs in the operations of commerce, the answer would be that, since
the export of Carolina cotton is chiefly made by New York or foreign
merchants, the loss stated, if it really accrued, would fall upon
them, and not upon the planter. But, to test the correctness of the
hypothetical case, let us suppose that the duty, instead of forty per
centum, should be one hundred and fifty, which is asserted to be the
duty in some cases. Then, the planter would not only lose the whole
hundred bales of merchandise, which he had gotten for his hundred
bales of cotton, but he would have to purchase, with other means,
an additional fifty bales, in order to enable him to pay the duties
accruing on the proceeds of the cotton. Another answer is, that if
the _producer_ of cotton in America, exchanged against English fabrics,
pays the duty, the _producer_ of those fabrics also pays it, and then
it is twice paid. Such must be the consequence, unless the principle
is true on one side of the Atlantic, and false on the other. The
true answer is, that the exporter of an article, if he invests its
proceeds in a foreign market, takes care to make the investment in such
merchandise as, when brought home, he can sell with a fair profit; and,
consequently, the consumer would pay the original cost and charges, and
profit.
Third. The next objection to the American system is, that it subjects
South Carolina to the payment of an undue proportion of the public
revenue. The basis of this objection is the assumption, shown to have
been erroneous, that the producer of the exports from this country pays
the duty on its imports, instead of the consumer of those imports. The
amount which South Carolina really contributes to the public revenue,
no more than that of any other state, can be precisely ascertained.
It depends upon her consumption of articles paying duties, and we
may make an approximation sufficient for all practical purposes.
The cotton-planters of the valley of the Mississippi with whom I am
acquainted, generally expend about one third of their income in the
support of their families and plantations. On this subject I hold in
my hands a statement from a friend of mine, of great accuracy, and a
member of the senate. According to this statement, in a crop of ten
thousand dollars, the expenses may fluctuate between two thousand eight
hundred dollars and three thousand two hundred dollars. Of this sum,
about one fourth, from seven to eight hundred dollars, may be laid out
in articles paying the protective duty; the residue is disbursed for
provisions, mules, horses, oxen, wages of overseer, &c. Estimating
the exports of South Carolina at eight millions, one third is two
million six hundred and sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty-six
dollars; of which one fourth will be six hundred and sixty-six thousand
six hundred and sixty-six and two thirds dollars. Now, supposing the
protecting duty to be fifty per centum, and that it all enters into the
price of the article, the amount paid by South Carolina would only be
three hundred and thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three
and one third dollars. But the total revenue of the United States
may be stated at twenty-five millions, of which the proportion of
South Carolina, whatever standard, whether of wealth or population,
be adopted, would be about one million. Of course, on this view of
the subject, she actually pays only about one third of her fair and
legitimate share. I repeat, that I have no personal knowledge of the
habits of actual expenditure in South Carolina; they may be greater
than I have stated, in respect to other parts of the cotton country;
but if they are, that fact does not arise from any defect in the system
of public policy.