REDUCTION OF DUTIES.--MR. VERPLANK'S BILL.
Reduction of duties to the estimated amount of three or four
millions of dollars, had been provided for in the bill of the
preceding session, passed in July, 1832, to take effect on the 4th
of March, ensuing. The amount of reduction was not such as the state
of the finances admitted, or the voice of the country demanded, but
was a step in the right direction, and a good one, considering that
the protective policy was still dominant in Congress, and on trial,
as it were, for its life, before the people, as one of the issues
of the presidential election. That election was over; the issue had
been tried; had been found against the "American system," and with
this finding, a further and larger reduction of duties was expected.
The President had recommended it, in his annual message; and the
recommendation, being referred to the Committee of Ways and Means,
quickly produced a bill, known as Mr. Verplank's, because reported
by the member of that name. It was taken up promptly by the House,
and received a very perspicuous explanation from the reporter, who
gave a brief view of the financial history of the country, since the
late war and stated that--"During the last six years, an annual
average income of 27,000,000 of dollars had been received; the far
greater part from the customs. That this sum had been appropriated,
the one half towards the necessary expenses of the government, and
the other half in the payment of the public debt. In reviewing
the regular calls upon the treasury, during the last seven years,
for the civil, naval, and military departments of the government,
including all ordinary contingencies, about 13,000,000 of dollars a
year had been expended. The amount of 13,000,000 of dollars would
seem, even now, sufficient to cover the standing necessary expenses
of government. A long delayed debt of public justice, for he would
not call it bounty, to the soldiers of the Revolution, had added,
for the present, since it could be but for a few years only, an
additional annual million. Fourteen millions of dollars then covered
the necessary expenditures of our government. But, however rigid and
economical we ought to be in actual expenditures, in providing the
sources of the revenue, which might be called upon for unforeseen
contingencies, it was wise to arrange it on a liberal scale. This
would be done by allowing an additional million, which would cover,
not only extra expenses in time of peace, but meet those of Indian
warfare, if such should arise, as well as those of increased naval
expenditure, from temporary collisions with foreign powers, short
of permanent warfare. We are not, therefore, justifiable in raising
more than 15,000,000 dollars as a permanent revenue. In other words,
at least 13,000,000 dollars of the revenue that would have been
collected, under the tariff system of 1828, may now be dispensed
with; and, in years of great importation, a much larger sum. The act
of last summer removed a large portion of this excess; yet, taking
the importation of the last year as a standard, the revenues derived
from that source, if calculated according to the act of 1832, would
produce 19,500,000, and, with the other sources of revenue, an
income of 22,000,000 dollars. This is, at least, seven millions
above the wants of the treasury."
This was a very satisfactory statement. The public debt paid
off; thirteen millions (the one half) of our revenue rendered
unnecessary; its reduction provided for in the bill; and the
tariff of duties by that reduction brought down to the standard
substantially of 1816. It was carrying back the protective
system to the year of its commencement, a little increased in
some particulars, as in the article of iron, but more than
compensated for, in this increase, in the total abolition of the
_minimums_, or arbitrary valuations--first introduced into that
act, and afterwards greatly extended--by which goods costing below
a certain sum were to be assumed to have cost that sum, and
rated for duty accordingly. Such a bill, in the judgment of the
practical and experienced legislator (General Smith, of Maryland,
himself a friend to the manufacturing interest), was entirely
sufficient for the manufacturer--the man engaged in the business,
and understanding it--though not sufficient for the capitalists
who turned their money into that channel, under the stimulus of
legislative protection, and lacked skill and care to conduct their
enterprise with the economy which gives legitimate profit, and
to such real manufacturers, it was bound to be satisfactory. To
the great opponents of the tariff (the South Carolina school), it
was also bound to be satisfactory, as it carried back the whole
system of duties to the standard at which that school had fixed
them, with the great amelioration of the total abolition of the
arbitrary and injurious minimums. The bill, then, seemed bound to
conciliate every fair interest: the government, because it gave
all the revenue it needed; the real manufacturers, because it gave
them an adequate incidental protection; the South, because it gave
them their own bill, and that ameliorated. A prompt passage of the
bill might have been expected; on the contrary, it lingered in the
House, under interminable debates on systems and theories, in which
ominous signs of conjunction were seen between the two extremes
which had been lately pitted against each other, for and against
the protective system. The immediate friends of the administration
seemed to be the only ones hearty in the support of the bill; but
they were no match, in numbers, for those who acted in concert
against it--spinning out the time in sterile and vagrant debate.
The 25th of February had arrived, and found the bill still afloat
upon the wordy sea of stormy debate, when, all of a sudden, it was
arrested, knocked over, run under, and merged and lost in a new one
which expunged the old one and took its place. It was late in the
afternoon of that day (Monday, the 25th of February), and within a
week of the end of the Congress, when Mr. Letcher, of Kentucky, the
fast friend of Mr. Clay, rose in his place, and moved to strike out
the whole Verplank bill--every word, except the enacting clause--and
insert, in lieu of it, a bill offered in the Senate by Mr. Clay,
since called the "compromise," and which lingered at the door of the
Senate, upon a question of leave for its admittance, and opposition
to its entrance there, on account of its revenue character. This
was offered in the House, without notice, without signal, without
premonitory symptom, and just as the members were preparing to
adjourn. Some were taken by surprise, and looked about in amazement;
but the majority showed consciousness, and, what was more, readiness
for action. The Northern members, from the great manufacturing
States, were astounded, and asked for delay, which, not being
granted, Mr. John Davis, of Massachusetts, one of their number, thus
gave vent to his amazed feelings:
"He was greatly surprised at the sudden movement made in this
House. One short hour ago, said he, we were collecting our
papers, and putting on our outside garments to go home, when
the gentleman from Kentucky rose, and proposed to send this
bill to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union,
with instructions to strike it all out, and insert, by way of
amendment, an entire new bill formed upon entirely different
principles; yes, to insert, I believe, the bill which the Senate
now have under consideration. This motion was carried; the
business has passed through the hands of the committee, is now
in the House, and there is a cry of question, question, around
me, upon the engrossment of the bill. Who that was not a party
to this arrangement, could one hour ago have credited this? We
have, I believe, been laboriously engaged for eight weeks upon
this topic, discussing and amending the bill which has been
before the House. Such obstacles and difficulties have been met
at every move, that, I believe, very little hope has of late
been entertained of the passage of any bill. But a gleam of
light has suddenly burst upon us; those that groped in the dark
seemed suddenly to see their course; those that halted, doubted,
hesitated, are in a moment made firm; and even some of those
that have made an immediate abandonment of the protective system
a _sine qua non_ of their approbation of any legislation, seem
almost to favor this measure. I am obliged to acknowledge that
gentlemen have sprung the proposition upon us at a moment when I
did not expect it. And as the measure is one of great interest
to the people of the United States, I must, even at this late
hour, when I know the House is both hungry and impatient, and
when I perceive distinctly it is their pleasure to vote rather
than debate, beg their indulgence for a few minutes while
I state some of the reasons which impose on me the duty of
opposing the passage of this act. [Cries from different parts of
the House, 'go on, go on, we will hear.']
"Mr. Speaker, I do not approve of hasty legislation under
any circumstances, but it is especially to be deprecated in
matters of great importance. That this is a measure of great
importance, affecting, more or less, the entire population of
the United States, will not be denied, and ought, therefore, to
be matured with care, and well understood by every gentleman who
votes upon it. And yet, sir, a copy has, for the first time,
been laid upon our tables, since I rose to address you; and this
is the first opportunity we have had even to read it. I hope
others feel well prepared to act in this precipitate matter; but
I am obliged to acknowledge I do not; for I hold even the best
of intentions will not, in legislation, excuse the errors of
haste.
"I am aware that this measure assumes an imposing attitude.
It is called a bill of compromise; a measure of harmony, of
conciliation; a measure to heal disaffection, and to save the
Union. Sir, I am aware of the imposing effect of these bland
titles; men love to be thought generous, noble, magnanimous;
but they ought to be equally anxious to acquire the reputation
of being just. While they are anxious to compose difficulties
in one direction, I entreat them not to oppress and wrong
the people in another. In their efforts to save the Union, I
hope their zeal will not go so far as to create stronger and
better-founded discontents than those they compose. Peacemakers,
mediators, men who allay excitements, and tranquillize public
feeling, should, above all considerations, study to do it by
means not offensive to the contending parties, by means which
will not inflict a deeper wound than the one which is healed.
Sir, what is demanded by those that threaten the integrity of
the Union? An abandonment of the American system; a formal
renunciation of the right to protect American industry. This
is the language of the nullification convention; they declare
they regard the abandonment of the principle as vastly more
important than any other matter; they look to that, and not to
an abatement of duties without it; and the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Davis], with his usual frankness, told us this
morning it was not a question of dollars and cents; the money
they regarded not, but they required a change of policy.
"This is a bill to tranquillize feeling, to harmonize jarring
opinions; it is oil poured into inflamed wounds; it is to
definitively settle the matters of complaint. What assurance
have we of that? Have those who threatened the Union accepted
it? Has any one here risen in his place, and announced his
satisfaction and his determination to abide by it? Not a word
has been uttered, nor any sign or assurance of satisfaction
given. Suppose they should vote for the bill, what then? They
voted for the bill of July last, and that was a bill passed
expressly to save the Union; but did they not flout at it? Did
they not spurn it with contempt? And did not South Carolina,
in derision of that compromise, nullify the law? This is a
practical illustration of the exercise of a philanthropic
spirit of condescension to save the Union. Your folly and your
imbecility was treated as a jest. It has already been said that
this law will be no more binding than any other, and may be
altered and modified at pleasure by any subsequent legislature.
In what sense then is it a compromise? Does not a compromise
imply an adjustment on terms of agreement? Suppose, then, that
South Carolina should abide by the compromise while she supposes
it beneficial to the tariff States, and injurious to her; and
when that period shall close, the friends of protection shall
then propose to re-establish the system. What honorable man, who
votes for this bill, could sustain such a measure? Would not
South Carolina say, you have no right to change this law, it was
founded on compromise; you have had the benefit of your side of
the bargains, and now I demand mine? Who could answer such a
declaration? If, under such circumstances, you were to proceed
to abolish the law, would not South Carolina have much more just
cause of complaint and disaffection than she now has?
"It has been said, we ought to legislate now, because the next
Congress will be hostile to the tariff. I am aware that such
a sentiment has been industriously circulated, and we have
been exhorted to escape from the hands of that body as from a
lion. But, sir, who knows the sentiments of that body on this
question? Do you, or does any one, possess any information which
justifies him in asserting that it is more unfriendly than this
House? There is, in my opinion, little known about this matter.
But suppose the members shall prove as ferocious towards the
tariff as those who profess to know their opinions represent,
will the passage of this bill stop their action? Can you tie
their hands? Give what pledges you please, make what bargains
you may, and that body will act its pleasure without respecting
them. If you fall short of their wishes in warring upon the
tariff, they will not stay their hand; but all attempts to limit
their power by abiding compromises, will be considered by them
as a stimulus to act upon the subject, that they may manifest
their disapprobation. It seems to me, therefore, that if the
next Congress is to be feared, we are pursuing the right course
to rouse their jealousy, and excite them to action.
"Mr. Speaker, I rose to express my views on this very important
question, I regret to say, without the slightest preparation,
as it is drawn before us at a very unexpected moment. But, as
some things in this bill are at variance with the principles of
public policy which I have uniformly maintained, I could not
suffer it to pass into a law without stating such objections as
have hastily occurred to me.
"Let me, however, before sitting down, be understood on one
point. I do not object to a reasonable adjustment of the
controversies which exist. I have said repeatedly on this floor,
that I would go for a gradual reduction on protected articles;
but it must be very gradual, so that no violence shall be done
to business; for all reduction is necessarily full of hazard. My
objections to this bill are not so much against the first seven
years, for I would take the consequences of that experiment,
if the provisions beyond that were not of that fatal character
which will at once stop all enterprise. But I do object to a
compromise which destines the East for the altar. No victim,
in my judgement, is required, none is necessary; and yet you
propose to bind us, hand and foot, to pour out our blood upon
the altar, and sacrifice us as a burnt offering, to appease the
unnatural and unfounded discontent of the South; _a discontent,
I fear, having deeper root than the tariff, and will continue
when that is forgotten_. I am far from meaning to use the
language of menace, when I say such a compromise cannot endure,
nor can any adjustment endure, which disregards the interests,
and sports with the rights of a large portion of the people of
the United States. It has been said that we shall never reach
the lowest point of reduction, before the country will become
satisfied of the folly of the experiment, and will restore the
protective policy; and it seems to me a large number in this
body act under the influence of that opinion. But I cannot vote
down my principles, on the ground that some one may come after
me who will vote them up."
This is one of the most sensible speeches ever delivered in
Congress; and, for the side on which it was delivered, perfect;
containing also much that was valuable to the other side. The
dangers of hasty legislation are well adverted to. The seductive and
treacherous nature of compromise legislation, and the probable fate
of the act of legislation then so called, so pointedly foretold,
was only writing history a few years in advance. The folly of
attempting to bind future Congresses by extending ordinary laws
years ahead, with a prohibition to touch them, was also a judicious
reflection; soon to become history; while the fear expressed that
South Carolina would not be satisfied with the overthrow of the
protective policy--"_that the root of her discontent lay deeper
than the tariff, and would continue when that was forgotten_"--was
an apprehension felt in common with many others, and to which
subsequent events gave a sad realization. But all in vain. The bill
which made its first appearance in the House late in the evening,
when members were gathering up their overcoats for a walk home to
their dinners, was passed before those coats had got on the back;
and the dinner which was waiting had but little time to cool before
the astonished members, their work done, were at the table to eat
it. A bill without precedent in the annals of our legislation, and
pretending to the sanctity of a compromise, and to settle great
questions for ever, went through to its consummation in the fragment
of an evening session, without the compliance with any form which
experience and parliamentary law have devised for the safety of
legislation. This evasion of all salutary forms was effected under
the idea of an amendment to a bill, though the substitute introduced
was an entire bill in itself, no way amending the other, or even
connecting with it, but rubbing it all out from the enacting clause,
and substituting a new bill entirely foreign, inconsistent, and
incongruous to it. The proceeding was a gross perversion of the
idea of an amendment, which always implies an improvement and not a
destruction of the bill to be amended. But there was a majority in
waiting, ready to consummate what had been agreed upon, and the vote
was immediately taken, and the substitute passed--105 to 71:--the
mass of the manufacturing interest voting against it. And this was
called a "compromise," a species of arrangement heretofore always
considered as founded in the mutual consent of adversaries--an
agreement by which contending parties voluntarily settle disputes
or questions. But here one of the parties dissented, or rather was
never asked for assent, nor had any knowledge of the compromise
by which they were to be bound, until it was revealed to their
vision, and executed upon their consciences, in the style of a
surprise from a vigilant foe upon a sleeping adversary. To call
this a "compromise" was to make sport of language--to burlesque
misfortune--to turn force into stipulation--and to confound fraud
and violence with concession and contract. It was like calling
the rape of the Romans upon the Sabine women, a marriage. The
suddenness of the movement, and the want of all time for reflection
or concert--even one night for private communion--led to the most
incongruous association of voters--to such a mixture of persons and
parties as had never been seen confounded together before, or since:
and the reading of which must be a puzzle to any man acquainted with
the political actors of that day, the unravelling of which would
set at defiance both his knowledge and his ingenuity. The following
is the list--the voters with Mr. Clay, headed by Mr. Mark Alexander
of Virginia, one of his stiffest opponents: the voters against
him, headed by Mr. John Quincy Adams, for eight years past his
indissoluble colleague in every system of policy, in every measure
of public concern, and in every enterprise of political victory or
defeat. Here is the list!
YEAS.--Messrs. Mark Alexander, Chilton Allan, Robert Allen,
John Anderson, William G. Angel, William S. Archer, John S.
Barbour, Daniel L. Barringer, James Bates, John Bell, John T.
Bergen, Laughlin Bethune, James Blair, John Blair, Ratliff
Boon, Joseph Bouck, Thomas T. Bouldin, John Branch, Henry A.
Bullard, Churchill C. Cambreleng, John Carr, Joseph W. Chinn,
Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Clement C. Clay, Augustin S. Clayton,
Richard Coke, jr., Henry W. Connor, Thomas Corwin, Richard
Coulter, Robert Craig, William Creighton, jr., Henry Daniel,
Thomas Davenport, Warren R. Davis, Ulysses F. Doubleday, Joseph
Draper, John M. Felder, James Findlay, William Fitzgerald,
Nathan Gaither, John Gilmore, William F. Gordon, Thomas H.
Hall, William Hall, Joseph M. Harper, Albert G. Hawes, Micajah
T. Hawkins, Michael Hoffman, Cornelius Holland, Henry Horn,
Benjamin C. Howard, Henry Hubbard, William W. Irvin, Jacob C.
Isaacs, Leonard Jarvis, Daniel Jenifer, Richard M. Johnson,
Cave Johnson, Joseph Johnson, Edward Kavanagh, John Leeds Kerr,
Henry G. Lamar, Garret Y. Lansing, Joseph Lecompte, Robert P.
Letcher, Dixon H. Lewis, Chittenden Lyon, Samuel W. Mardis, John
Y. Mason, Thomas A. Marshall, Lewis Maxwell, Rufus McIntire,
James McKay, Thomas Newton, William T. Nuckolls, John M. Patton,
Franklin E. Plummer, James K. Polk, Abraham Rencher, John J.
Roane, Erastus Root, Charles S. Sewall, William B. Shepard,
Augustine H. Shepperd, Samuel A. Smith, Isaac Southard, Jesse
Speight, John S. Spence, William Stanberry, James Standefer,
Francis Thomas, Wiley Thompson, John Thomson, Christopher
Tompkins, Phineas L. Tracy, Joseph Vance, Gulian C. Verplanck,
Aaron Ward, George C. Washington, James M. Wayne, John W. Weeks,
Elisha Whittlesey, Campbell P. White, Charles A. Wickliffe, John
T. H. Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. John Q. Adams, Heman Allen, Robert Allison,
Nathan Appleton, Thomas D. Arnold, William Babcock, John Banks,
Noyes Barber, Gamaliel H. Barstow, Thomas Chandler, Bates
Cooke, Richard M. Cooper, Joseph H. Crane, Thomas H. Crawford,
John Davis, Charles Dayan, Henry A. S. Dearborn, Harmar Denny,
Lewis Dewart, John Dickson, William W. Ellsworth, George Evans,
Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, George Grennell,
jr., Hiland Hall, William Heister, Michael Hoffman, Thomas
H. Hughes, Jabez W. Huntington, Peter Ihrie, jr., Ralph I.
Ingersoll, Joseph G. Kendall, Henry King, Humphrey H. Leavitt,
Robert McCoy, Thomas M. T. McKennan, John J. Milligan, Henry
A. Muhlenberg, Jeremiah Nelson, Dutee J. Pearce, Edmund H.
Pendleton, Job Pierson, David Potts, jr., James F. Randolph,
John Reed, Edward C. Reed, William Slade, Nathan Soule, William
L. Storrs, Joel B. Sutherland, John W. Taylor, Samuel F. Vinton,
Daniel Wardwell, John G. Watmough, Grattan H. Wheeler, Frederick
Whittlesey, Ebenezer Young.