lead to an addition to our exports of one hundred and fifty millions
of dollars. The amount of one hundred and fifty millions of cotton
in the raw state, would produce four hundred and fifty millions in
the manufactured state, supposing no greater measure of value to be
communicated, in the manufactured form, than that which our industry
imparts. Now sir, where would markets be found for this vast addition
to the supply? Not in the United States, certainly, nor in any other
quarter of the globe, England having already everywhere pressed her
cotton manufactures to the utmost point of repletion. We must look out
for new worlds, seek for new and unknown races of mortals, to consume
this immense increase of cotton fabrics.
[General Hayne said, that he did not mean that the increase
of one hundred and fifty millions to the amount of our exports
would be of cotton alone, but of other articles.]
What _other articles_? Agricultural produce――bread-stuffs, beef and
pork, and so forth? _Where_ shall we find markets for them? _Whither_
shall we go? To _what_ country, whose ports are not hermetically sealed
against their admission? Break down the home-market and you are without
resource. Destroy all other interests in the country, for the imaginary
purpose of advancing the cotton-planting interest, and you inflict
a positive injury, without the smallest practical benefit to the
cotton-planter. Could Charleston, or the whole south, when all other
markets are prostrated, or shut against the reception of the surplus of
our farmers, receive that surplus? Would they buy more than they might
want for their own consumption? Could they find markets which other
parts of the union could not? Would gentlemen _force_ the freemen of
all north of James river, east and west, like the miserable slave, on
the Sabbath day, to repair to Charleston, with a turkey under his arm,
or a pack upon his back, and beg the clerk of some English or Scotch
merchant, living in his gorgeous palace, or rolling in his splendid
coach in the streets, to exchange his ‘_truck_’ for a bit of flannel to
cover his naked wife and children! No! I am sure that I do no more than
justice to their hearts, when I believe that they would reject what I
believe to be the inevitable effects of their policy.
Fifth. But it is contended, in the last place, that the south
cannot, from physical and other causes, engage in the manufacturing
arts. I deny the premises, and I deny the conclusion. I deny the fact
of inability; and, if it existed, I deny the conclusion, that we must,
therefore, break down our manufactures, and nourish those of foreign
countries. The south possesses, in an extraordinary degree, two of
the most important elements of manufacturing industry――water-power and
labor. The former gives to our whole country a most decided advantage
over Great Britain. But a single experiment, stated by the gentleman
from South Carolina, in which a faithless slave put the torch to a
manufacturing establishment, has discouraged similar enterprises. We
have in Kentucky the same description of population, and we employ
them, almost exclusively, in many of our hemp manufactories. A neighbor
of mine, one of our most opulent and respectable citizens, has had
one, two, if not three, manufactories burnt by incendiaries; but he
persevered, and his perseverance has been rewarded with wealth. We
found that it was less expensive to keep night-watches than to pay
premiums for insurance, and we employed them.
Let it be supposed, however, that the south cannot manufacture; must
those parts of the union which can, be therefore prevented? Must we
support those of foreign countries? I am sure that injustice would be
done to the generous and patriotic nature of South Carolina, if it were
believed that she envied or repined at the success of other portions of
the union in branches of industry to which she might happen not to be
adapted. Throughout her whole career she has been liberal, national,
high-minded.
The friends of the American system have been reminded by the honorable
gentleman from Maryland (general Smith), that they are the majority,
and he has admonished them to exercise their power in moderation. The
majority ought never to trample upon the feelings, or violate the just
rights, of the minority. They ought never to triumph over the fallen,
nor to make any but a temperate and equitable use of their power. But
these counsels come with an ill grace from the gentleman from Maryland.
He, too, is a member of a majority――a political majority. And how
has the administration of that majority exercised their power in this
country? Recall to your recollection the fourth of March, 1829, when
the lank, lean, famished forms, from fen and forest, and the four
quarters of the union, gathered together in the halls of patronage; or
stealing by evening’s twilight into the apartments of the president’s
mansion, cried out, with ghastly faces, and in sepulchral tones, ‘give
us bread! give us treasury pap! give us our reward!’ England’s bard
was mistaken; ghosts will sometimes come, called or uncalled. Go to
the families who were driven from the employments on which they were
dependent for subsistence, in consequence of their exercise of the
dearest right of freemen. Go to mothers, while hugging to their bosoms
their starving children. Go to fathers, who, after being disqualified
by long public service for any other business, were stripped of their
humble places, and then sought, by the minions of authority, to be
stripped of all that was left them――their good names――and ask, what
mercy was shown to them! As for myself, born in the midst of the
revolution, the first air that I ever breathed on my native soil of
Virginia having been that of liberty and independence, I never expected
justice, nor desired mercy, at their hands; and scorn the wrath and
defy the oppression of power.
I regret, Mr. President, that one topic has, I think, unnecessarily
been introduced into this debate. I allude to the charge brought
against the manufacturing system, as favoring the growth of
aristocracy. If it were true, would gentlemen prefer supporting foreign
accumulations of wealth, by that description of industry, rather than
in their own country? But is it correct? The joint stock companies of
the north, as I understand them, are nothing more than associations,
sometimes of hundreds, by means of which the small earnings of many are
brought into a common stock, and the associates, obtaining corporate
privileges, are enabled to prosecute, under one superintending head,
their business to better advantage. Nothing can be more essentially
democratic or better devised to counterpoise the influence of
individual wealth. In Kentucky, almost every manufactory known to me,
is in the hands of enterprising and self-made men, who have acquired
whatever wealth they possess by patient and diligent labor. Comparisons
are odious, and but in defence would not be made by me. But is there
more tendency to aristocracy in a manufactory, supporting hundreds of
freemen, or in a cotton plantation, with its not less numerous slaves,
sustaining perhaps only two white families――that of the master and the
overseer?
I pass, with pleasure, from this disagreeable topic, to two general
propositions which cover the entire ground of debate. The first is,
that, under the operation of the American system, the objects which it
protects and fosters are brought to the consumer at cheaper prices than
they commanded prior to its introduction, or, than they would command
if it did not exist. If that be true, ought not the country to be
contented and satisfied with the system, unless the second proposition,
which I mean presently also to consider, is unfounded? And that is,
that the tendency of the system is to sustain, and that it has upheld,
the prices of all our agricultural and other produce, including cotton.
And is the fact not indisputable, that all essential objects of
consumption affected by the tariff, are cheaper and better since the
act of 1824, than they were for several years prior to that law? I
appeal for its truth to common observation, and to all practical men.
I appeal to the farmer of the country, whether he does not purchase on
better terms his iron, salt, brown sugar, cotton goods, and woollens,
for his laboring people? And I ask the cotton-planter if he has not
been better and more cheaply supplied with his cotton-bagging? In
regard to this latter article, the gentleman from South Carolina was
mistaken, in supposing that I complained that, under the existing
duty, the Kentucky manufacturer could not compete with the Scotch. The
Kentuckian furnishes a more substantial and a cheaper article, and at
a more uniform and regular price. But it was the frauds, the violations
of law, of which I did complain; not smuggling, in the common sense
of that practice, which has something bold, daring, and enterprising
in it, but mean, barefaced cheating, by fraudulent invoices and false
denominations.
I plant myself upon this fact, of cheapness and superiority, as upon
impregnable ground. Gentlemen may tax their ingenuity, and produce
a thousand speculative solutions of the fact, but the fact itself
will remain undisturbed. Let us look into some particulars. The total
consumption of bar-iron in the United States is supposed to be about
one hundred and forty-six thousand tons, of which one hundred and
twelve thousand eight hundred and sixty-six tons are made within
the country, and the residue imported. The number of men employed in
the manufacture is estimated at twenty-nine thousand two hundred and
fifty-four, and the total number of persons subsisted by it, at one
hundred and forty-six thousand two hundred and seventy-three. The
measure of protection extended to this necessary article, was never
fully adequate until the passage of the act of 1828; and what has
been the consequence? The annual increase of quantity, since that
period, has been in a ratio of near twenty-five per centum, and the
wholesale price of bar-iron in the northern cities was, in 1828, one
hundred and five dollars per ton; in 1829, one hundred dollars; in
1830, ninety dollars; and in 1831, from eighty-five to seventy-five
dollars――constantly diminishing. We import very little English iron,
and that which we do is very inferior, and only adapted to a few
purposes. In instituting a comparison between that inferior article
and our superior iron, subjects entirely different are compared. They
are made by different processes. The English cannot make iron of equal
quality to ours, at a less price than we do. They have three classes,
best-best, and best, and ordinary. It is the latter which is imported.
Of the whole amount imported, there is only about four thousand tons
of foreign iron that pays the high duty, the residue paying only a duty
of about thirty per centum, estimated on the prices of the importation
of 1829. Our iron ore is superior to that of Great Britain, yielding
often from sixty to eighty per centum, while theirs produces only about
twenty-five. This fact is so well known, that I have heard of recent
exportations of iron ore to England.
It has been alleged, that bar iron, being a raw material, ought to be
admitted free, or with low duties, for the sake of the manufacturers
themselves. But I take this to be the true principle, that if our
country is producing a raw material of prime necessity, and with
reasonable protection, can produce it in sufficient quantity to supply
our wants, that raw material ought to be protected, although it may
be proper to protect the article also out of which it is manufactured.
The tailor will ask protection for himself, but wishes it denied to
the grower of wool and the manufacturer of broadcloth. The cotton
planter enjoys protection for the raw material, but does not desire
it to be extended to the cotton manufacturer. The ship builder will
ask protection for navigation, but does not wish it extended to the
essential articles which enter into the construction of his ship. Each
in his proper vocation solicits protection, but would have it denied to
all other interests which are supposed to come into collision with his.
Now the duty of the statesman is, to elevate himself above these petty
conflicts; calmly to survey all the various interests, and deliberately
to proportion the measures of protection to each, according to its
nature and to the general wants of society. It is quite possible that,
in the degree of protection which has been afforded to the various
workers in iron, there may be some error committed, although I have
lately read an argument of much ability, proving that no injustice has
really been done to them. If there be, it ought to be remedied.
The next article to which I would call the attention of the senate,
is that of cotton fabrics. The success of our manufacture of coarse
cottons is generally admitted. It is demonstrated by the fact that
they meet the cotton fabrics of other countries in foreign markets,
and maintain a successful competition with them. There has been a
gradual increase of the exports of this article, which is sent to
Mexico and the South American republics, to the Mediterranean, and
even to Asia. The remarkable fact was lately communicated to me, that
the same individual, who twenty-five years ago was engaged in the
importation of cotton cloth from Asia for American consumption, is
now engaged in the exportation of coarse American cottons to Asia, for
Asiatic consumption! And my honorable friend from Massachusetts, now
in my eye, (Mr. Silsbee,) informed me, that on his departure from
home, among the last orders which he gave, one was for the exportation
of coarse cottons to Sumatra, in the vicinity of Calcutta! I hold in
my hand a statement, derived from the most authentic source, showing
that the identical description of cotton cloth, which sold in 1817
at twenty-nine cents per yard, was sold in 1819 at twenty-one cents,
in 1821 at nineteen and a half cents, in 1823 at seventeen cents, in
1825 at fourteen and a half cents, in 1827 at thirteen cents, in 1829
at nine cents, in 1830 at nine and a half cents, and in 1831 at from
ten and a half to eleven. Such is the wonderful effect of protection,
competition, and improvement in skill, combined! The year 1829 was one
of some suffering to this branch of industry, probably owing to the
principle of competition being pushed too far. Hence we observe a small
rise in the article of the next two years. The introduction of calico
printing into the United States, constitutes an important era in our
manufacturing industry. It commenced about the year 1825, and has
since made such astonishing advances, that the whole quantity now
annually printed is but little short of forty millions of yards――about
two thirds of our whole consumption. It is a beautiful manufacture,
combining great mechanical skill with scientific discoveries in
chemistry. The engraved cylinders for making the impression require
much taste, and put in requisition the genius of the fine arts
of design and engraving. Are the fine graceful forms of our fair
countrywomen less lovely when enveloped in the chintzes and calicoes
produced by native industry, than when clothed in the tinsel of foreign
drapery?
Gentlemen are no doubt surprised at these facts. They should not
underrate the energies, the enterprise, and the skill of our fellow
citizens. I have no doubt they are every way competent to accomplish
whatever can be effected by any other people, if encouraged and
protected by the fostering care of our own government. Will gentlemen
believe the fact, which I am authorized now to state, that the United
States, at this time, manufacture one half the quantity of cotton
which Great Britain did in 1816! We possess three great advantages;
first, the raw material; second, water-power instead of that of steam,
generally used in England; and, third, the cheaper labor of females. In
England, males spin with the mule and weave; in this country, women and
girls spin with the throstle, and superintend the power-loom. And can
there be any employment more appropriate? Who has not been delighted
with contemplating the clock-work regularity of a large cotton
manufactory? I have often visited them at Cincinnati and other places,
and always with increased admiration. The women, separated from the
other sex, work in apartments, large, airy, well warmed, and spacious.
Neatly dressed, with ruddy complexions, and happy countenances, they
watch the work before them, mend the broken threads, and replace the
exhausted balls or broaches. At stated hours they are called to their
meals, and go and return with light and cheerful step. At night they
separate, and repair to their respective houses, under the care of
a mother, guardian, or friend. ‘Six days shalt thou labor and do all
that thou hast to do, but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord
thy God.’ Accordingly, we behold them, on that sacred day, assembled
together in His temples, and in devotional attitudes and with pious
countenances offering their prayers to heaven for all its blessings;
of which it is not the least, that a system of policy has been adopted
by their country, which admits of their obtaining a comfortable
subsistence. Manufactures have brought into profitable employment a
vast amount of female labor, which, without them, would be lost to the
country.
In respect to woollens, every gentleman’s own observation and
experience will enable him to judge of the great reduction of price
which has taken place in most of these articles, since the tariff
of 1824. It would have been still greater, but for the high duty on
the raw material, imposed for the particular benefit of the farming
interest. But, without going into particular details, I shall limit
myself to inviting the attention of the senate to a single article of
general and necessary use. The protection given to flannels in 1828
was fully adequate. It has enabled the American manufacturer to obtain
complete possession of the American market; and now, let us look at
the effect. I have before me a statement from a highly respectable
mercantile house, showing the price of four descriptions of flannel
during six years. The average price of them, in 1826, was thirty-eight
cents and three quarters; in 1827, thirty-eight; in 1828, (the year of
the tariff,) forty-six; in 1829, thirty-six; in 1830, (notwithstanding
the advance in the price of wool,) thirty-two; and in 1831, thirty-two
and one quarter. These facts require no comments. I have before me
another statement of a practical and respectable man, well versed in
the flannel manufacture in America and England, demonstrating that the
cost of manufacture is precisely the same in both countries; and that,
although a yard of flannel which would sell in England at fifteen cents,
would command here twenty-two, the difference of seven cents is the
exact difference between the cost in the two countries, of the six
ounces of wool contained in a yard of flannel.
Brown sugar, during ten years, from 1792 to 1802, with a duty of one
and a half cents per pound, averaged fourteen cents per pound. The
same article, during ten years, from 1820 to 1830, with a duty of three
cents, has averaged only eight cents per pound. Nails, with a duty of
five cents per pound, are selling at six cents. Window glass, eight by
ten, prior to the tariff of 1824, sold at twelve or thirteen dollars
per hundred feet; it now sells for three dollars seventy-five cents.
The gentleman from South Carolina, sensible of the incontestable fact
of the very great reduction in the price of the necessaries of life,
protected by the American system, has felt the full force of it, and
has presented various explanations of the causes to which he ascribes
it. The first is, the diminished production of the precious metals, in
consequence of the distressed state of the countries in which they are
extracted, and the consequent increase of their value, relative to that
of the commodities for which they are exchanged. But, if this be the
true cause of the reduction of price, its operation ought to have been
general, on all objects, and of course upon cotton among the rest. And,
in point of fact, the diminished price of that staple is not greater
than the diminution of the value of other staples of our agriculture.
Flour, which commanded some years ago, ten or twelve dollars per barrel,
is now sold for five. The fall of tobacco has been still more. The
kite-foot of Maryland, which sold at from sixteen to twenty dollars per
hundred, now produces only four or five. That of Virginia has sustained
an equal decline. Beef, pork, every article almost, produced by the
farmer, has decreased in value. Ought not South Carolina, then, to
submit quietly to a state of things which is general, and proceeds from
an uncontrollable cause? Ought she to ascribe to the ‘accursed’ tariff,
what results from the calamities of civil and foreign war, raging in
many countries?
But, sir, I do not subscribe to this doctrine, implicitly. I do not
believe that the diminished production of the precious metals, if that
be the fact, satisfactorily accounts for the fall in prices; for I
think that the augmentation of the currency of the world, by means
of banks, public stocks, and other facilities arising out of exchange
and credit, has more than supplied any deficiency in the amount of the
precious metals.
It is further urged, that the restoration of peace in Europe, after
the battle of Waterloo, and the consequent return to peaceful pursuits
of large masses of its population, by greatly increasing the aggregate
amount of effective labor, had a tendency to lower prices; and
undoubtedly such ought to have been its natural tendency. The same
cause, however, must also have operated to reduce the price of our
agricultural produce, for which there was no longer the same demand
in peace as in war; and it did so operate. But its influence on the
price of manufactured articles, between the general peace of Europe
in 1815, and the adoption of our tariff in 1824, was less sensibly
felt, because, perhaps, a much larger portion of the labor, liberated
by the disbandment of armies, was absorbed by manufactures than by
agriculture. It is also contended, that the invention and improvement
of labor-saving machinery, have tended to lessen the prices of
manufactured objects of consumption; and undoubtedly this cause has had
some effect. Ought not America to contribute her quota of this cause,
and has she not by her skill and extraordinary adaptation to the arts,
in truth, largely contributed to it?
This brings me to consider what I apprehend to have been the
most efficient of all the causes in the reduction of the prices of
manufactured articles, and that is COMPETITION. By competition, the
total amount of the supply is increased, and by increase of the supply,
a competition in the sale ensues, and this enables the consumer to buy
at lower rates. Of all human powers operating on the affairs of mankind,
none is greater than that of competition. It is action and reaction. It
operates between individuals in the same nation, and between different
nations. It resembles the meeting of the mountain torrent, grooving, by
its precipitous motion, its own channel, and ocean’s tide. Unopposed,
it sweeps every thing before it; but, counterpoised, the waters become
calm, safe, and regular. It is like the segments of a circle or an
arch; taken separately, each is nothing; but in their combination they
produce efficiency, symmetry, and perfection. By the American system
this vast power has been excited in America, and brought into being
to act in coöperation or collision with European industry. Europe
acts within itself, and with America; and America acts within itself,
and with Europe. The consequence is the reduction of prices in both
hemispheres. Nor is it fair to argue from the reduction of prices in
Europe, to her own presumed skill and labor exclusively. We affect
her prices, and she affects ours. This must always be the case, at
least in reference to any articles as to which there is not a total
non-intercourse; and if our industry, by diminishing the demand for her
supplies, should produce a diminution in the price of those supplies,
it would be very unfair to ascribe that reduction to her ingenuity,
instead of placing it to the credit of our own skill and _excited_
industry.
Practical men understand very well this state of the case, whether
they do or do not comprehend the causes which produce it. I have in my
possession a letter from a respectable merchant, well known to me, in
which he says, after complaining of the operation of the tariff of 1828,
on the articles to which it applies, some of which he had imported,
and that his purchases having been made in England, before the passage
of that tariff was known, it produced such an effect upon the English
market, that the articles could not be resold without loss, he adds:
‘for it _really_ appears that, when _additional_ duties are laid upon
an article, it then becomes _lower_ instead of _higher_.’ This would
not probably happen, where the supply of the foreign article did not
exceed the home demand, unless upon the supposition of the increased
duty having _excited_ or _stimulated_ the measure of the home
production.
The great law of _price_ is determined by supply and demand. Whatever
affects either, affects the price. If the supply is increased, the
demand remaining the same, the price declines; if the demand is
increased, the supply remaining the same, the price advances; if both
supply and demand are undiminished, the price is stationary, and the
price is influenced exactly in proportion to the degree of disturbance
to the demand or supply. It is, therefore, a great error to suppose
that an existing or new duty _necessarily_ becomes a component element
to its exact amount of price. If the proportions of demand and supply
are varied by the duty, either in augmenting the supply, or diminishing
the demand, or _vice versa_, price is affected to the extent of that
variation. But the duty never becomes an integral part of the price,
except in the instances where the demand and the supply remain after
the duty is imposed, precisely what they were before, or the demand is
increased, and the supply remains stationary.
Competition, therefore, wherever existing, whether at home or abroad,
is the parent cause of cheapness. If a high duty excites production at
home, and the quantity of the domestic article exceeds the amount which
had been previously imported, the price will fall. This accounts for
an extraordinary fact stated by a senator from Missouri. Three cents
were laid as a duty upon a pound of lead, by the act of 1828. The price
at Galena, and the other lead mines, afterwards fell to one and a half
cents per pound. Now it is obvious that the duty did not, in this case,
enter into the price; for it was twice the amount of the price. What
produced the fall? It was _stimulated_ production at home, excited by
the temptation of the exclusive possession of the home market. This
state of things could not last. Men would not continue an unprofitable
pursuit; some abandoned the business, or the total quantity produced
was diminished, and living prices have been the consequence. But break
down the domestic supply, place us again in a state of dependence on
the foreign source, and can it be doubted that we should ultimately
have to supply ourselves at dearer rates? It is not fair to credit
the foreign market with the depression of prices produced there by the
influence of our competition. Let the competition be withdrawn, and
their prices would instantly rise. On this subject, great mistakes are
committed. I have seen most erroneous reasoning in a late report of Mr.
Lee, of the free-trade convention in regard to the article of sugar. He
calculates the total amount of brown sugar produced in the world, and
then states, that what is made in Louisiana is not more than two and
a half per centum of that total. Although his data may be questioned,
let us assume their truth, and what might be the result? Price being
determined by the proportions of supply and demand, it is evident that
when the supply _exceeds_ the demand, the price will fall. And the fall
is not always regulated by the amount of that excess. If the market at
a given price, required five or fifty millions of hogsheads of sugar, a
surplus of only a few hundred might materially influence the price, and
diffuse itself throughout the whole mass. Add, therefore, the eighty
or one hundred thousand hogsheads of Louisiana sugar to the entire mass
produced in other parts of the world, and it cannot be doubted that a
material reduction of the price of the article, throughout Europe and
America, would take place. The Louisiana sugar substituting foreign
sugar in the home market, to the amount of its annual produce, would
force an equal amount of foreign sugar into other markets, which being
glutted, the price would necessarily decline, and this decline of price
would press portions of the foreign sugar into competition in the
United States with Louisiana sugar, the price of which would also be
brought down. The fact has been in exact conformity with this theory.
But now let us suppose the Louisiana sugar to be entirely withdrawn
from the general consumption, what then would happen? A new demand
would be created in America for foreign sugar, to the extent of the
eighty or one hundred thousand hogsheads made in Louisiana; a less
amount by that quantity, would be sent to the European markets, and the
price would consequently every where rise. It is not, therefore, those
who, by keeping on duties, keep down prices, that tax the people, but
those who, by repealing duties, would raise prices, that really impose
burdens upon the people.
But it is argued, that if, by the skill, experience, and perfection,
which we have acquired in certain branches of manufacture, they can
be made as cheap as similar articles abroad, and enter fairly into
competition with them, why not repeal the duties as to those articles?
And why should we? Assuming the truth of the supposition, the foreign
article would not be introduced in the regular course of trade, but
would remain excluded by the possession of the home market, which the
domestic article had obtained. The repeal, therefore, would have no
legitimate effect. But might not the foreign article be imported in
vast quantities, to glut our markets, break down our establishments,
and ultimately to enable the foreigner to monopolize the supply of
our consumption? America is the greatest foreign market for European
manufactures. It is that to which European attention is constantly
directed. If a great house becomes bankrupt there, its store-houses are
emptied, and the goods are shipped to America, where, in consequence of
our auctions, and our custom-house credits, the greatest facilities are
afforded in the sale of them. Combinations among manufacturers might
take place, or even the operations of foreign governments might be
directed to the destruction of our establishments. A repeal, therefore,
of one protecting duty, from some one or all of these causes, would be
followed by flooding the country with the foreign fabric, surcharging
the market, reducing the price, and a complete prostration of our
manufactories; after which the foreigner would leisurely look about to
indemnify himself in the increased prices which he would be enabled to
command by his monopoly of the supply of our consumption. What American
citizen, after the government had displayed this vascillating policy,
would be again tempted to place the smallest confidence in the public
faith, and adventure once more in this branch of industry?
Gentlemen have allowed to the manufacturing portions of the community
no peace; they have been constantly threatened with the overthrow of
the American system. From the year 1820, if not from 1816, down to
this time, they have been held in a condition of constant alarm and
insecurity. Nothing is more prejudicial to the great interests of a
nation than unsettled and varying policy. Although every appeal to
the national legislature has been responded to in conformity with the
wishes and sentiments of the great majority of the people, measures
of protection have only been carried by such small majorities as to
excite hopes on the one hand, and fears on the other. Let the country
breathe, let its vast resources be developed, let its energies be
fully put forth, let it have tranquillity, and my word for it, the
degree of perfection in the arts which it will exhibit, will be greater
than that which has been presented, astonishing as our progress has
been. Although some branches of our manufactures might, and in foreign
markets now do, fearlessly contend with similar foreign fabrics, there
are many others yet in their infancy, struggling with the difficulties
which encompass them. We should look at the whole system, and recollect
that time, when we contemplate the great movements of a nation, is
very different from the short period which is allotted for the duration
of individual life. The honorable gentleman from South Carolina well
and eloquently said, in 1824, ‘no great interest of any country ever
yet grew up in a day; no new branch of industry can become firmly and
profitably established but in a long course of years; every thing,
indeed, great or good, is matured by slow degrees: that which attains a
speedy maturity is of small value, and is destined to a brief existence.
It is the order of Providence, that powers gradually developed, shall
alone attain permanency and perfection. Thus must it be with our
national institutions, and national character itself.’
I feel most sensibly, Mr. President, how much I have trespassed upon
the senate. My apology is a deep and deliberate conviction, that the
great cause under debate involves the prosperity and the destiny of the
union. But the best requital I can make, for the friendly indulgence
which has been extended to me by the senate, and for which I shall ever
retain sentiments of lasting gratitude, is to proceed with as little
delay as practicable, to the conclusion of a discourse which has not
been more tedious to the senate than exhausting to me. I have now to
consider the remaining of the two propositions which I have already
announced. That is,
Second, that under the operation of the American system, the products
of our agriculture command a higher price than they would do without
it, by the creation of a home market; and by the augmentation of
wealth produced by manufacturing industry, which enlarges our powers
of consumption both of domestic and foreign articles. The importance of
the home market is among the established maxims which are universally
recognised by all writers and all men. However some may differ as to
the relative advantages of the foreign and the home market, none deny
to the latter great value and high consideration. It is nearer to us;
beyond the control of foreign legislation; and undisturbed by those
vicissitudes to which all international intercourse is more or less
exposed. The most stupid are sensible of the benefit of a residence
in the vicinity of a large manufactory, or of a market town, of a good
road, or of a navigable stream, which connects their farms with some
great capital. If the pursuits of all men were perfectly the same,
although they would be in possession of the greatest abundance of the
particular produce of their industry, they might, at the same time, be
in extreme want of other necessary articles of human subsistence. The
uniformity of the general occupation would preclude all exchanges, all
commerce. It is only in the diversity of the vocations of the members
of a community that the means can be found for those salutary exchanges
which conduce to the general prosperity. And the greater that diversity,
the more extensive and the more animating is the circle of exchange.
Even if foreign markets were freely and widely open to the reception
of our agricultural produce, from its bulky nature, and the distance of
the interior, and the dangers of the ocean, large portions of it could
never profitably reach the foreign market. But let us quit this field
of theory, clear as it is, and look at the practical operation of the
system of protection, beginning with the most valuable staple of our
agriculture.
In considering this staple, the first circumstance that excites
our surprise, is the rapidity with which the amount of it has
annually increased. Does not this fact, however, demonstrate that
the cultivation of it could not have been so very unprofitable? If the
business were ruinous, would more and more have annually engaged in it?
The quantity in 1816, was eighty-one millions of pounds; in 1826, two
hundred and four millions; and in 1830, near three hundred millions!
The ground of greatest surprise is, that it has been able to sustain
even its present price with such an enormous augmentation of quantity.
It could not have been done but for the combined operation of three
causes, by which the consumption of cotton fabrics has been greatly
extended, in consequence of their reduced prices: first, competition;
second, the improvement of labor-saving machinery; and, thirdly,
the low price of the raw material. The crop of 1819, amounting to
eighty-eight millions of pounds, produced twenty-one millions of
dollars; the crop of 1823, when the amount was swelled to one hundred
and seventy-four millions, (almost double that of 1819,) produced a
less sum by more than half a million of dollars; and the crop of 1824,
amounting to thirty millions of pounds less than that of the preceding
year, produced a million and a half of dollars more.
If there be any foundation for the established law of price, supply,
and demand, ought not the fact of this great increase of the supply
to account satisfactorily for the alleged low price of cotton? Is
it necessary to look beyond that single fact to the tariff, to the
diminished price of the mines furnishing the precious metals, or to
any other cause, for the solution? This subject is well understood
in the south, and although I cannot approve the practice which has
been introduced of quoting authority, and still less the authority of
newspapers, for favorite theories, I must ask permission of the senate
to read an article from a southern newspaper.
[Here general Hayne requested Mr. Clay to give the name of the
authority, that it might appear whether it was not some other
than a southern paper expressing southern sentiments. Mr. Clay
stated that it was from the Charleston City Gazette, one, he
believed, of the oldest and most respectable prints in that city,
although he was not sure what might be its sentiments on the
question which at present divides the people of South Carolina.
The article comprises a full explanation of the low price of
cotton, and assigns to it its true cause――increased production.]
Let us suppose that the home demand for cotton, which has been
created by the American system, were to cease, and that the two hundred
thousand[17] bales, which the home market now absorbs, were now thrown
into the glutted markets of foreign countries; would not the effect
inevitably be to produce a further and great reduction in the price of
the article? If there be any truth in the facts and principles which I
have before stated and endeavored to illustrate, it cannot be doubted
that the existence of American manufactures has tended to increase the
demand, and extend the consumption of the raw material; and that, but
for this increased demand, the price of the article would have fallen,
possibly one half lower than it now is. The error of the opposite
argument is in assuming one thing, which being denied, the whole fails;
that is, it assumes that the _whole_ labor of the United States would
be profitably employed without manufactures. Now, the truth is, that
the system _excites_ and _creates_ labor, and this labor creates wealth,
and this new wealth communicates additional ability to consume, which
acts on all the objects contributing to human comfort and enjoyment.
The amount of cotton imported into the two ports of Boston and
Providence alone during the last year, (and it was imported exclusively
for the home manufacture,) was one hundred and nine thousand five
hundred and seventeen bales.
On passing from that article to others of our agricultural productions,
we shall find not less gratifying facts. The total quantity of flour
imported into Boston, during the same year, was two hundred and
eighty-four thousand five hundred and four barrels, and three thousand
nine hundred and fifty-five half barrels; of which, there were from
Virginia, Georgetown, and Alexandria, one hundred and fourteen thousand
two hundred and twenty-two barrels; of Indian corn, six hundred and
eighty-one thousand one hundred and thirty-one bushels; of oats, two
hundred and thirty-nine thousand eight hundred and nine bushels; of
rye, about fifty thousand bushels; and of shorts, thirty-three thousand
four hundred and eighty-nine bushels; into the port of Providence,
seventy-one thousand three hundred and sixty-nine barrels of flour;
two hundred and sixteen thousand six hundred and sixty-two bushels of
Indian corn, and seven thousand seven hundred and seventy-two bushels
of rye. And there were discharged at the port of Philadelphia, four
hundred and twenty thousand three hundred and fifty-three bushels
of Indian corn; two hundred and one thousand eight hundred and
seventy-eight bushels of wheat, and one hundred and ten thousand
five hundred and fifty-seven bushels of rye and barley. There were
slaughtered in Boston during the same year, 1831, (the only northern
city from which I have obtained returns,) thirty-three thousand nine
hundred and twenty-two beef cattle; fifteen thousand and four hundred
calves; eighty-four thousand four hundred and fifty-three sheep,
and twenty-six thousand eight hundred and seventy-one swine. It is
confidently believed, that there is not a less quantity of southern
flour consumed at the north than eight hundred thousand barrels, a
greater amount, probably, than is shipped to all the foreign markets
of the world together.
What would be the condition of the farming country of the United
States――of all that portion which lies north, east, and west of James
river, including a large part of North Carolina――if a home market did
not exist for this immense amount of agricultural produce? Without
that market, where could it be sold? In foreign markets? If their
restrictive laws did not exist, their capacity would not enable them
to purchase and consume this vast addition to their present supplies,
which must be thrown in, or thrown away, but for the home market. But
their laws exclude us from their markets. I shall content myself by
calling the attention of the senate to Great Britain only. The duties
in the ports of the united kingdom on bread-stuffs are prohibitory,
except in times of dearth. On rice, the duty is fifteen shillings
sterling per hundred weight, being more than one hundred per centum. On
manufactured tobacco it is nine shillings sterling per pound, or about
two thousand per centum. On leaf tobacco three shillings per pound, or
one thousand two hundred per centum. On lumber, and some other articles,
they are from four hundred to fifteen hundred per centum more than on
similar articles imported from British colonies. In the British West
Indies the duty on beef, pork, hams, and bacon, is twelve shillings
sterling per hundred, more than one hundred per centum on the first
cost of beef and pork in the western states. And yet Great Britain is
the power in whose behalf we are called upon to legislate, so that _we_
may enable _her_ to purchase our cotton!――Great Britain, that thinks
only of herself in her own legislation! When have we experienced
justice, much less favor, at her hands? When did she shape her
legislation in reference to the interests of any foreign power? She
is a great, opulent, and powerful nation; but haughty, arrogant, and
supercilious; not more separated from the rest of the world by the
sea that girts her island, than she is separated in feeling, sympathy,
or friendly consideration of their welfare. Gentlemen, in supposing
it impracticable that we should successfully compete with her in
manufactures, do injustice to the skill and enterprise of their own
country. Gallant as Great Britain undoubtedly is, we have gloriously
contended with her, man to man, gun to gun, ship to ship, fleet to
fleet, and army to army. And I have no doubt we are destined to achieve
equal success in the more useful, if not nobler contest for superiority
in the arts of civil life.
I could extend and dwell on the long list of articles――the hemp, iron,
lead, coal, and other items――for which a demand is created in the home
market by the operation of the American system; but I should exhaust
the patience of the senate. _Where_, _where_ should we find a market
for all these articles, if it did not exist at home? What would be the
condition of the largest portion of our people, and of the territory,
if this home market were annihilated? How could they be supplied
with objects of prime necessity? What would not be the certain and
inevitable decline in the price of all these articles, but for the
home market? And allow me, Mr. President, to say, that of all the
agricultural parts of the United States which are benefited by the
operation of this system, none are equally so with those which border
the Chesapeake bay, the lower parts of North Carolina, Virginia, and
the two shores of Maryland. Their facilities of transportation, and
proximity to the north, give them decided advantages.
But if all this reasoning were totally fallacious; if the price of
manufactured articles were really higher, under the American system,
than without it; I should still argue that high or low prices were
themselves relative――relative to the ability to pay them. It is in
vain to tempt, to tantalize us with the lower prices of European
fabrics than our own, if we have nothing wherewith to purchase them.
If, by the home exchanges, we can be supplied with necessary, even
if they are dearer and worse articles of American production than the
foreign, it is better than not to be supplied at all. And how would
the large portion of our country, which I have described, be supplied,
but for the home exchanges? A poor people, destitute of wealth or of
exchangeable commodities, has nothing to purchase foreign fabrics with.
To them they are equally beyond their reach, whether their cost be a
dollar or a guinea. It is in this view of the matter that Great Britain,
by her vast wealth, her _excited_ and _protected_ industry, is enabled
to bear a burden of taxation, which, when compared to that of other
nations, appears enormous; but which, when her immense riches are
compared to theirs, is light and trivial. The gentleman from South
Carolina has drawn a lively and flattering picture of our coasts, bays,
rivers, and harbors; and he argues that these proclaimed the design
of Providence, that we should be a commercial people. I agree with
him. We differ only as to the means. He would cherish the foreign, and
neglect the internal trade. I would foster both. What is navigation
without ships, or ships without cargoes? By penetrating the bosoms
of our mountains, and extracting from them their precious treasures;
by cultivating the earth, and _securing_ a home market for its rich
and abundant products; by employing the water power with which we are
blessed; by stimulating and protecting our native industry, in all its
forms; we shall but nourish and promote the prosperity of commerce,
foreign and domestic.
I have hitherto considered the question, in reference only to a state
of peace; but a season of war ought not to be entirely overlooked.
We have enjoyed near twenty years of peace; but who can tell when the
storm of war shall again break forth? Have we forgotten, so soon, the
privations to which not merely our brave soldiers and our gallant tars
were subjected, but the whole community, during the last war, for the
want of absolute necessaries? To what an enormous price they rose! And
how inadequate the supply was, at any price! The statesman who justly
elevates his views, will look behind as well as forward, and at the
existing state of things; and he will graduate the policy, which
he recommends, to all the probable exigences which may arise in
the republic. Taking this comprehensive range, it would be easy
to show that the higher prices of peace, if prices were higher in
peace, were more than compensated by the lower prices of war, during
which, supplies of all essential articles are indispensable to its
vigorous, effectual, and glorious prosecution. I conclude this part
of the argument with the hope that my humble exertions have not been
altogether unsuccessful in showing,
First, that the policy which we have been considering ought to continue
to be regarded as the genuine American system.
Secondly, that the free trade system, which is proposed as its
substitute, ought really to be considered as the British colonial
system.
Thirdly, that the American system is beneficial to all parts of the
union, and absolutely necessary to much the larger portion.
Fourthly, that the price of the great staple of cotton, and of all our
chief productions of agriculture, has been sustained and upheld, and a
decline averted, by the protective system.
Fifthly, that if the foreign demand for cotton has been at all
diminished, by the operation of that system, the diminution has been
more than compensated, in the additional demand created at home.
Sixthly, that the constant tendency of the system, by creating
competition among ourselves, and between American and European
industry, reciprocally acting upon each other, is to reduce prices of
manufactured objects.
Seventhly, that, in point of fact, objects within the scope of the
policy of protection, have greatly fallen in price.
Eighthly, that if, in a season of peace, these benefits are experienced,
in a season of war, when the foreign supply might be cut off, they
would be much more extensively felt.
Ninthly, and finally, that the substitution of the British colonial
system for the American system, without benefiting any section of the
union, by subjecting us to a foreign legislation, regulated by foreign
interests, would lead to the prostration of our manufactories, general
impoverishment, and ultimate ruin.
And now, Mr. President, I have to make a few observations on a
delicate subject, which I approach with all the respect that is due
to its serious and grave nature. They have not, indeed, been rendered
necessary by the speech from the gentleman from South Carolina, whose
forbearance to notice the topic was commendable, as his argument
throughout was characterized by an ability and dignity worthy of him,
and of the senate. The gentleman made one declaration, which might
possibly be misinterpreted, and I submit to him whether an explanation
of it be not proper. The declaration, as reported in his printed speech,
is, ‘the instinct of self-interest might have taught us an easier way
of relieving ourselves from this oppression. It wanted but the will to
have supplied ourselves with every article embraced in the protective
system, free of duty, without any other participation on our part than
a simple consent to receive them.’
[Here general Hayne rose and remarked, that the passages which
immediately preceded and followed the paragraph cited, he
thought plainly indicated his meaning, which related to evasions
of the system, by illicit introduction of goods, which they were
not disposed to countenance in South Carolina.]
I am happy to hear this explanation. But, sir, it is impossible to
conceal from our view the facts, that there is a great excitement in
South Carolina; that the protective system is openly and violently
denounced in popular meetings; and that the legislature itself
has declared its purpose of resorting to counteracting measures, a
suspension of which has only been submitted to, for the purpose of
allowing congress time to _retrace_ its steps. With respect to this
union, Mr. President, the truth cannot be too generally proclaimed, nor
too strongly inculcated, that it is necessary to the _whole_ and to all
the _parts_――necessary to those parts, indeed, in different degrees,
but vitally necessary to _each_――and that threats to disturb or
dissolve it, coming from any of the parts, would be quite as indiscreet
and improper as would be threats from the residue to exclude those
parts from the pale of its benefits. The great principle, which lies
at the foundation of all free governments, is, that the majority must
govern; from which there is or can be no appeal but to the sword.
That majority ought to govern wisely, equitably, moderately, and
constitutionally, but govern _it must_, subject only to that terrible
appeal. If ever one or several states, being a minority, can, by
menacing a dissolution of the union, succeed in forcing an abandonment
of great measures, deemed essential to the interests and prosperity
of the whole, the union, from that moment, is practically gone. It may
linger on, in form and name, but its vital spirit has fled for ever!
Entertaining these deliberate opinions, I would entreat the patriotic
people of South Carolina――the land of Marion, Sumpter, and Pickens;
of Rutledge, Laurens, the Pinkneys and Lowndes; of living and present
names, which I would mention if they were not living or present――to
pause, solemnly pause! and contemplate the frightful precipice which
lies directly before them. To retreat may be painful and mortifying to
their gallantry and pride, but it is to retreat to the union, to safety,
and to those brethren with whom, or with whose ancestors, they, or
their ancestors, have won, on fields of glory, imperishable renown. To
advance, is to rush on certain and inevitable disgrace and destruction.
We have been told of deserted castles, of uninhabited halls, and of
mansions, once the seats of opulence and hospitality, now abandoned and
mouldering in ruins. I never had the honor of being in South Carolina,
but I have heard and read of the stories of its chivalry, and of
its generous and open-hearted liberality. I have heard, too, of the
struggles for power, between the lower and upper country. The same
causes which existed in Virginia, with which I have been acquainted, I
presume, have had their influence in Carolina. In whose hands now are
the once proud seats of Westover Curl, Maycox, Shirley,[18] and others,
on James river, and in lower Virginia? Under the operation of laws,
abolishing the principle of primogeniture, and providing the equitable
rule of an equal distribution of estates, among those in equal degree
of consanguinity, they have passed into other and stranger hands. Some
of the descendants of illustrious families have gone to the far west,
while others, lingering behind, have contrasted their present condition
with that of their venerated ancestors. They behold themselves excluded
from their fathers’ houses, now in the hands of those who were once
their fathers’ overseers, or sinking into decay; their imaginations
paint ancient renown, the fading honors of their name――glories gone
by; too poor to live, too proud to work, too high-minded and honorable
to resort to ignoble means of acquisition; brave, daring, chivalrous;
_what_ can be the cause of their present unhappy state? The ‘accursed’
tariff presents itself to their excited imaginations, and they blindly
rush into the ranks of those who, unfurling the banner of nullification,
would place a state upon its sovereignty!
The danger to our union does not lie on the side of persistence in the
American system, but on that of its abandonment. If, as I have supposed
and believe, the inhabitants of all north and east of James river, and
all west of the mountains, including Louisiana, are deeply interested
in the preservation of that system, would they be reconciled to its
overthrow? Can it be expected that two thirds, if not three fourths,
of the people of the United States, would consent to the destruction of
a policy, believed to be indispensably necessary to their prosperity?
When, too, the sacrifice is made at the instance of a single interest,
which they verily believe will not be promoted by it? In estimating the
degree of peril which may be incident to two opposite courses of human
policy, the statesman would be short-sighted who should content himself
with viewing only the evils, real or imaginary, which belong to that
course which is in practical operation. He should lift himself up
to the contemplation of those greater and more certain dangers which
might inevitably attend the adoption of the alternative course. What
would be the condition of this union, if Pennsylvania and New York,
those mammoth members of our confederacy, were firmly persuaded that
their industry was paralysed, and their prosperity blighted, by the
enforcement of the British colonial system, under the delusive name of
free trade? They are now tranquil and happy, and contented, conscious
of their welfare, and feeling a salutary and rapid circulation of the
products of home manufactures and home industry, throughout all their
great arteries. But let that be checked, let them feel that a foreign
system is to predominate, and the sources of their subsistence and
comfort dried up; let New England and the west, and the middle states,
all feel that they too are the victims of a mistaken policy, and let
these vast portions of our country despair of any favorable change,
and then indeed might we tremble for the continuance and safety of this
union!
And need I remind you, sir, that this dereliction of the duty
of protecting our domestic industry, and abandonment of it to the
fate of foreign legislation, would be directly at war with leading
considerations which prompted the adoption of the present constitution?
The states respectively surrendered to the general government the whole
power of laying imposts on foreign goods. They stripped themselves of
all power to protect their own manufactures, by the most efficacious
means of encouragment――the imposition of duties on rival foreign
fabrics. Did they create that great trust, did they voluntarily subject
themselves to this self-restriction, that the power should remain
in the federal government inactive, unexecuted, and lifeless? Mr.
Madison, at the commencement of the government, told you otherwise. In
discussing at that early period this very subject, he declared that a
failure to exercise this power would be a ‘_fraud_’ upon the northern
states, to which may now be added the middle and western states.
[Governor Miller asked to what expression of Mr. Madison’s
opinion Mr. Clay referred; and Mr. Clay replied, his opinion,
expressed in the house of representatives in 1789, as reported
in Lloyd’s Congressional Debates.]
Gentlemen are greatly deceived as to the hold which this system has
in the affections of the people of the United States. They represent
that it is the policy of New England, and that she is most benefited
by it. If there be any part of this union which has been most steady,
most unanimous, and most determined in its support, it is Pennsylvania.
Why is not that powerful state attacked? Why pass her over, and aim the
blow at New England? New England came reluctantly into the policy. In
1824, a majority of her delegation was opposed to it. From the largest
state of New England there was but a solitary vote in favor of the
bill. That enterprising people can readily accommodate their industry
to any policy, provided it be _settled_. They supposed this was fixed,
and they submitted to the decrees of government. And the progress of
public opinion has kept pace with the developments of the benefits of
the system. Now, all New England, at least in this house, (with the
exception of one small still voice,) is in favor of the system. In
1824, all Maryland was against it; now the majority is for it. Then,
Louisiana, with one exception, was opposed to it; now, without any
exception, she is in favor of it. The march of public sentiment is to
the south. Virginia will be the next convert; and in less than seven
years, if there be no obstacles from political causes, or prejudices
industriously instilled, the majority of eastern Virginia will be,
as the majority of western Virginia now is, in favor of the American
system. North Carolina will follow later, but not less certainly.
Eastern Tennessee is now in favor of the system. And, finally, its
doctrines will pervade the whole union, and the wonder will be, that
they ever should have been opposed.
I have now to proceed to notice some objections which have been
urged against the resolution under consideration. With respect to the
amendment which the gentleman from South Carolina has offered, as he
has intimated his purpose to modify it, I shall forbear for the present
to comment upon it. It is contended that the resolution proposes
the repeal of duties on luxuries, leaving those on necessaries to
remain, and that it will, therefore, relieve the rich without lessening
the burdens of the poor. And the gentleman from South Carolina has
carefully selected, for ludicrous effect, a number of the unprotected
articles, cosmetics, perfumes, oranges, and so forth. I must say, that
this exhibition of the gentleman is not in keeping with the candor
which he has generally displayed; that he knows very well that the
duties upon these articles are trifling, and that it is of little
consequence whether they are repealed or retained. Both systems, the
American and the foreign, comprehend some articles which may be deemed
luxuries. The senate knows that the unprotected articles which yield
the principal part of the revenue, with which this measure would
dispense, are coffee, tea, spices, wines, and silks. Of all these
articles, wines and silks alone can be pronounced to be luxuries; and
as to wines, we have already ratified a treaty, not yet promulgated,
by which the duties on them are to be considerably reduced. If the
universality of the use of objects of consumption determines their
classification, coffee, tea, and spices, in the present condition of
civilized society, may be considered necessaries. Even if they were
luxuries, why should not the poor, by cheapening their prices, if that
can be effected, be allowed to use them? Why should not a poor man be
allowed to tie a silk handkerchief on his neck, occasionally regale
himself with a glass of cheap French wine, or present his wife or
daughter with a silk gown, to be worn on sabbath or gala days? I am
quite sure that I do not misconstrue the feelings of the gentleman’s
heart, in supposing that he would be happy to see the poor as
well as the rich moderately indulging themselves in those innocent
gratifications. For one, I am delighted to see the condition of the
poor attracting the consideration of the opponents of the tariff. It
is for the great body of the people, and especially for the poor, that
I have ever supported the American system. It affords them profitable
employment, and supplies the means of comfortable subsistence. It
_secures_ to them, certainly, necessaries of life, manufactured at home
and places within their reach, and enables them to acquire a reasonable
share of foreign luxuries; while the system of gentlemen _promises_
them necessaries made in foreign countries, and which are beyond their
power, and _denies_ to them luxuries, which they would possess no means
to purchase.
The constant complaint of South Carolina against the tariff, is, that
it checks importations, and disables foreign powers from purchasing
the agricultural productions of the United States. The effect of
the resolution will be to increase importations, not so much, it is
true, from Great Britain, as from the other powers, but not the less
acceptable on that account. It is a misfortune that so large a portion
of our foreign commerce concentrates in one nation; it subjects us too
much to the legislation and the policy of that nation, and exposes us
to the influence of her numerous agents, factors, and merchants. And
it is not among the smallest recommendations of the measure before the
senate, that its tendency will be to expand our commerce with France,
our great revolutionary ally, the land of our Lafayette. There is much
greater probability also, of an enlargement of the present demand for
cotton in France, than in Great Britain. France engaged later in the
manufacture of cotton, and has made, therefore, less progress. She
has, moreover, no colonies producing the article in abundance, whose
industry she might be tempted to encourage.
The honorable gentleman from Maryland (general Smith), by his reply
to a speech which, on the opening of the subject of this resolution,
I had occasion to make, has rendered it necessary that I should take
some notice of his observations. The honorable gentleman stated that
he had been _accused_ of partiality to the manufacturing interest.
Never was there a more groundless and malicious charge preferred
against a calumniated man. Since this question has been agitated in the
public councils, although I have often heard from him professions of
attachment to this branch of industry, I have never known any member a
more uniform, determined, and uncompromising opponent of them, than the
honorable senator has invariably been. And if, hereafter, the calumny
should be repeated, of his friendship to the American system, I shall
be ready to furnish to him, in the most solemn manner, my testimony to
his innocence. The honorable gentleman supposed that I had advanced the
idea that the _permanent_ revenue of this country should be fixed at
eighteen millions of dollars. Certainly I had no intention to announce
such an opinion, nor do my expressions, fairly interpreted, imply it.
I stated, on the occasion referred to, that, estimating the ordinary
revenue of the country at twenty-five millions, and the amount of
the duties on the unprotected articles proposed to be repealed by the
resolution, at seven millions, the latter sum taken from the former
would leave eighteen. But I did not intimate any belief that the
revenue of the country ought, for the future, to be permanently fixed
at that or any other precise sum. I stated that, after having effected
so great a reduction, we might pause, cautiously survey the whole
ground, and deliberately determine upon other measures of reduction,
some of which I indicated. And I now say, preserve the protective
system in full vigor; give us the proceeds of the public domain for
internal improvements, or, if you please, partly for that object, and
partly for the removal of the free blacks, with their own consent, from
the United States; and for one, I have no objection to the reduction of
the public revenue to fifteen, to thirteen, or even to nine millions of
dollars.
In regard to the scheme of the secretary of the treasury for paying
off the whole of the remaining public debt, by the fourth day of March,
1833, including the three per centum, and for that purpose selling the
bank stock, I had remarked that, with the exception of the three per
centum, there were not more than about four millions of dollars of
the debt due and payable within this year, that, to meet this, the
secretary had stated in his annual report, that the treasury would
have, from the receipts of this year, fourteen millions of dollars,
applicable to the principal of the debt; that I did not perceive
any urgency for paying off the three per centum by the precise day
suggested; and that there was no necessity, according to the plans of
the treasury, assuming them to be expedient and proper, to postpone
the repeal of the duties on unprotected articles. The gentleman from
Maryland imputed to me ignorance of the act of the twenty-fourth
of April, 1830, according to which in his opinion the secretary was
obliged to purchase the three per centum. On what ground the senator
supposed I was ignorant of that act he has not stated. Although when it
passed I was at Ashland, I assure him that I was not there altogether
uninformed of what was passing in the world. I regularly received the
Register of my excellent friend (Mr. Niles), published in Baltimore,
the National Intelligencer, and other papers. There are two errors
to which gentlemen are sometimes liable; one is to magnify the amount
of knowledge which they possess themselves, and the second is to
depreciate that which others have acquired. And will the gentleman from
Maryland excuse me for thinking that no man is more prone to commit
both errors than himself? I will not say that he is ignorant of the
true meaning of the act of 1830, but I certainly place a different
construction upon it from what he does. It does not oblige the
secretary of the treasury, or rather the commissioners of the sinking
fund, to apply the surplus of any year to the purchase of the three
per centum stock particularly, but leaves them at liberty ‘to apply
such surplus to the purchase of any portion of the public debt, at such
rates as, in their opinion, may be advantageous to the United States.’
This vests a discretionary authority, to be exercised under official
responsibility. And if any secretary of the treasury, when he had the
option of purchasing a portion of the debt, bearing a higher rate of
interest at par or about par, were to execute the act by purchasing the
three per centums at their present price, he would merit impeachment.
Undoubtedly a state of fact may exist, such as there being no public
debt remaining to be paid, but the three per centum stock, with a
surplus in the treasury, idle and unproductive, in which it might
be expedient to apply that surplus to the reimbursement of the three
per centums. But whilst the interest of money is at a greater rate
than three per centum, it would not, I think, be wise to produce an
accumulation of public treasure for such a purpose. The postponement
of any reduction of the amount of the revenue, at this session, must,
however, give rise to that very accumulation; and it is, therefore,
that I cannot perceive the utility of the postponement.
We are told by the gentleman from Maryland, that offers have been
made to the secretary of the treasury to exchange three per centums,
at their market price of ninety-six per centum, for the bank stock
of the government at its market price, which is about one hundred
and twenty-six, and he thinks it would be wise to accept them. If the
charter of the bank is renewed, that stock will be probably worth much
more than its present price; if not renewed, much less. Would it be
fair in government, while the question is pending and undecided, to
make such an exchange? The difference in value between a stock bearing
three per centum and one bearing seven per centum must be really much
greater than the difference between ninety-six and one hundred and
twenty-six per centum. Supposing them to be perpetual annuities, the
one would be worth more than twice the value of the other. But my
objection to the treasury plan is, that it is not necessary to execute
it――to continue these duties as the secretary proposes. The secretary
has a debt of twenty-four millions to pay; he has from the accruing
receipts of this year fourteen millions, and we are now told by the
senator from Maryland, that this sum of fourteen millions is exclusive
of any of the duties accruing this year. He proposes to raise eight
millions by sale of the bank stock, and to anticipate from the revenue
receivable next year, two millions more. These three items, then, of
fourteen millions, eight millions, and two millions, make up the sum
required, of twenty-four millions, without the aid of the duties to
which the resolution relates.
The gentleman from Maryland insists that the general government has
been liberal towards the west in its appropriations of public lands
for internal improvements; and, as to fortifications, he contends
that the expenditures near the mouth of the Mississippi are for its
especial benefit. The appropriations of land to the states of Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, and Alabama, have been liberal; but it is not to
be overlooked, that the general government is itself the greatest
proprietor of land, and that a tendency of the improvements, which
these appropriations were to effect, is to increase the value of
the unsold public domain. The erection of the fortifications for
the defence of Louisiana, was highly proper; but the gentleman might
as well place to the account of the west, the disbursement for the
fortifications intended to defend Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York,
to all which capitals western produce is sent, and in the security of
all of which the western people feel a lively interest. They do not
object to expenditures for the army, for the navy, for fortifications,
or for any other offensive or commercial object on the Atlantic, but
they do think that their condition ought also to receive friendly
attention from the general government. With respect to the state
of Kentucky, not one cent of money, or one acre of land, has been
applied to any object of internal improvement within her limits.
The subscription to the stock of the canal at Louisville was for an
object in which many states were interested. The senator from Maryland
complains that he has been unable to obtain any aid for the railroad
which the enterprise of Baltimore has projected, and in part executed.
That was a great work, the conception of which was bold, and highly
honorable, and it deserves national encouragement. But how has the
committee of roads and canals, at this session, been constituted?
The senator from Maryland possessed a brief authority to organize it,
and, if I am not misinformed, a majority of the members composing it,
appointed by him, are opposed both to the constitutionality of the
power, and the expediency of exercising it.
And now, sir, I would address a few words to the friends of the
American system in the senate. The revenue must, ought to be reduced.
The country will not, after by the payment of the public debt ten or
twelve millions of dollars become unnecessary, bear such an annual
surplus. Its distribution would form a subject of perpetual contention.
Some of the opponents of the system understand the stratagem by which
to attack it, and are shaping their course accordingly. It is to
crush the system by the accumulation of revenue, and by the effort
to persuade the people that they are unnecessarily taxed, while those
would really tax them who would break up the native sources of supply,
and render them dependent upon the foreign. But the revenue ought
to be reduced, so as to accommodate it to the fact of the payment of
the public debt. And the alternative is or may be, to preserve the
protecting system, and repeal the duties on the unprotected articles,
or to _preserve_ the duties on _unprotected_ articles, and endanger
if not destroy the system. Let us then adopt the measure before us,
which will benefit all classes; the farmer, the professional man, the
merchant, the manufacturer, the mechanic; and the cotton planter more
than all. A few months ago there was no diversity of opinion as to the
expediency of this measure. All, then, seemed to unite in the selection
of these objects for a repeal of duties which were not produced
within the country. Such a repeal did not touch our domestic industry,
violated no principle, offended no prejudice.
Can we not all, whatever may be our favorite theories, cordially unite
on this neutral ground? When that is occupied, let us look beyond it,
and see if any thing can be done in the field of protection, to modify,
to improve it, or to satisfy those who are opposed to the system. Our
southern brethren believe that it is injurious to them, and ask its
repeal. We believe that its abandonment will be prejudicial to them,
and ruinous to every other section of the union. However strong their
convictions may be, they are not stronger than ours. Between the points
of the preservation of the system and its absolute repeal, there is
no principle of union. If it can be shown to operate immoderately
on any quarter; if the measure of protection to any article can be
demonstrated to be undue and inordinate; it would be the duty of
congress to interpose and apply a remedy. And none will coöperate
more heartily than I shall in the performance of that duty. It is
quite probable that beneficial modifications of the system may be made
without impairing its efficacy. But to make it fulfil the purposes of
its institution, the measure of protection ought to be adequate. If it
be not, all interests will be injuriously affected. The manufacturer,
crippled in his exertions, will produce less perfect and dearer
fabrics, and the consumer will feel the consequence. This is the
spirit, and these are the principles only, on which it seems to me
that a settlement of the great question can be made, satisfactorily
to all parts of our union.