REDUCTION OF DUTIES.--MR. CLAY'S BILL.
On the 12th of February Mr. Clay asked leave to introduce a bill
for the reduction of duties, styled by him a "compromise" measure;
and prefaced the question with a speech, of which the following are
parts:
"In presenting the modification of the tariff laws which I
am now about to submit, I have two great objects in view. My
first object looks to the tariff. I am compelled to express the
opinion, formed after the most deliberate reflection, and on a
full survey of the whole country, that, whether rightfully or
wrongfully, the tariff stands in imminent danger. If it should
even be preserved during this session, it must fall at the
next session. By what circumstances, and through what causes,
has arisen the necessity for this change in the policy of our
country, I will not pretend now to elucidate. Others there are
who may differ from the impressions which my mind has received
upon this point. Owing, however, to a variety of concurrent
causes, the tariff, as it now exists, is in imminent danger; and
if the system can be preserved beyond the next session, it must
be by some means not now within the reach of human sagacity. The
fall of that policy, sir, would be productive of consequences
calamitous indeed. When I look to the variety of interests which
are involved, to the number of individuals interested, the
amount of capital invested, the value of the buildings erected,
and the whole arrangement of the business for the prosecution
of the various branches of the manufacturing art which have
sprung up under the fostering care of this government, I cannot
contemplate any evil equal to the sudden overthrow of all those
interests. History can produce no parallel to the extent of the
mischief which would be produced by such a disaster. The repeal
of the Edict of Nantes itself was nothing in comparison with
it. That condemned to exile and brought to ruin a great number
of persons. The most respectable portion of the population of
France were condemned to exile and ruin by that measure. But in
my opinion, sir, the sudden repeal of the tariff policy would
bring ruin and destruction on the whole people of this country.
There is no evil, in my opinion, equal to the consequences which
would result from such a catastrophe.
"I believe the American system to be in the greatest danger;
and I believe it can be placed on a better and safer foundation
at this session than at the next. I heard, with surprise,
my friend from Massachusetts say that nothing had occurred
within the last six months to increase its hazard. I entreat
him to review that opinion. Is it correct? Is the issue of
numerous elections, including that of the highest officer of
the government, nothing? Is the explicit recommendation of that
officer, in his message at the opening of the session sustained,
as he is, by a recent triumphant election, nothing? Is his
declaration in his proclamation, that the burdens of the South
ought to be relieved, nothing? Is the introduction of the bill
in the House of Representatives during this session, sanctioned
by the head of the treasury and the administration, prostrating
the greater part of the manufactures of the country, nothing?
Are the increasing discontents, nothing? Is the tendency of
recent events to unite the whole South, nothing? What have we
not witnessed in this chamber? Friends of the administration
bursting all the ties which seemed indissolubly to unite them
to its chief, and, with few exceptions south of the Potomac,
opposing, and vehemently opposing, a favorite measure of that
administration, which three short months ago they contributed
to establish? Let us not deceive ourselves. Now is the time to
adjust the question in a manner satisfactory to both parties.
Put it off until the next session, and the alternative may, and
probably then would be, a speedy and ruinous reduction of the
tariff, or a civil war with the entire South.
"It is well known that the majority of the dominant party is
adverse to the tariff. There are many honorable exceptions, the
senator from New Jersey [Mr. Dickerson] among them. But for the
exertions of the other party, the tariff would have been long
since sacrificed. Now let us look at the composition of the two
branches of Congress at the next session. In this body we lose
three friends of the protective policy, without being sure of
gaining one. Here, judging from the present appearances, we
shall, at the next session, be in the minority. In the House
it is notorious that there is a considerable accession to the
number of the dominant party. How, then, I ask, is the system
to be sustained against numbers, against the whole weight of
the administration, against the united South, and against the
increased impending danger of civil war?
"I have been represented as the father of the system, and I am
charged with an unnatural abandonment of my own offspring. I
have never arrogated to myself any such intimate relation to
it. I have, indeed, cherished it with parental fondness, and my
affection is undiminished. But in what condition do I find this
child? It is in the hands of the Philistines, who would strangle
it. I fly to its rescue, to snatch it from their custody, and
to place it on a bed of security and repose for nine years,
where it may grow and strengthen, and become acceptable to the
whole people. I behold a torch about being applied to a favorite
edifice, and I would save it, if possible, before it was wrapt
in flames, or at least preserve the precious furniture which it
contains."
Mr. Clay further advanced another reason for his bill, and which
was a wish to separate the tariff from politics and elections--a
wish which admitted their connection--and which, being afterwards
interpreted by events, was supposed to be the basis of the coalition
with Mr. Calhoun; both of them having tried the virtue of the
tariff question in elections, and found it unavailing either to
friends or foes. Mr. Clay, its champion, could not become President
upon its support. Mr. Calhoun, its antagonist, could not become
President upon its opposition. To both it was equally desirable, as
an unavailable element in elections, and as a stumbling-block to
both in future, that it should be withdrawn for some years from the
political arena; and Mr. Clay thus expressed himself in relation to
that withdrawal:
"_I wish to see the tariff separated from the politics of the
country, that business men may go to work in security, with some
prospect of stability in our laws, and without every thing being
staked on the issue of elections, as it were on the hazards of
the die._"
Mr. Clay then explained the principle of his bill, which was a
series of annual reductions of one tenth per cent. on the value
of all duties above twenty per cent. for eight successive years;
and after that, the reduction of all the remainder above twenty
per centum to that rate by two annual reductions of the excess:
so as to complete the reduction to twenty per centum on the value
of all imported goods on the 30th day of September, 1842; with
a total abolition of duties on about one hundred articles after
that time; and with a proviso in favor of the right of Congress,
in the event of war with any foreign power to impose such duties
as might be necessary to prosecute the war. And this was called
a "_compromise_," although there was no stipulation for the
permanency of the reduced, and of the abolished duties; and no such
stipulation could be made to bind future Congresses; and the only
equivalent which the South received from the party of protection,
was the stipulated surrender of their principle in the clause which
provided that after the said 30th of September, 1842, "_duties
should only be laid for raising such revenue as might be necessary
for an economical administration of the government_;" an attempt
to bind future Congresses, the value of which was seen before the
time was out. Mr. Clay proceeded to touch the tender parts of his
plan--the number of years the protective policy had to run, and
the guaranties for its abandonment at the end of the stipulated
protection. On these points he said:
"Viewing it in this light, it appeared that there were eight
years and a half, and nine years and a half, taking the
ultimate time, which would be an efficient protection; the
remaining duties would be withdrawn by a biennial reduction.
The protective principle must be said to be, in some measure,
relinquished at the end of eight years and a half. This period
could not appear unreasonable, and he thought that no member
of the Senate, or any portion of the country, ought to make
the slightest objection. It now remained for him to consider
the other objection--the want of a guaranty to there being an
ulterior continuance of the duties imposed by the bill, on the
expiration of the term which it prescribes. The best guaranties
would be found in the circumstances under which the measure
would be passed. If it were passed by common consent; if it were
passed with the assent of a portion, a considerable portion, of
those who had hitherto directly supported this system, and by a
considerable portion of those who opposed it; if they declared
their satisfaction with the measure, he had no doubt the rate of
duties guarantied would be continued after the expiration of the
term, if the country continued at peace."
Here was a stipulation to continue the protective principle for
nine years and a half, and the bill contained no stipulation to
abandon it at that time, and consequently no guaranty that it would
be abandoned; and certainly the guaranty would have been void if
stipulated, as it is not in the power of one Congress to abridge by
law the constitutional power of its successors. Mr. Clay, therefore,
had recourse to moral guaranties; and found them good, and best
in the circumstances in which the bill would be passed, and the
common consent with which it was expected to be done--a calculation
which found its value, as to the "common consent," before the bill
was passed, as to its binding force before the time fixed for its
efficacy to begin.
Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, replied to Mr. Clay, and said:
"The avowed object of the bill would meet with universal
approbation. It was a project to harmonize the people, and it
could have come from no better source than from the gentleman
from Kentucky: for to no one were we more indebted than to him
for the discord and discontent which agitate us. But a few
months ago it was in the power of the gentleman, and those with
whom he acted, to settle this question at once and for ever.
The opportunity was not seized, but he hoped it was not passed.
In the project now offered, he could not see the elements of
success. The time was not auspicious. But fourteen days remained
to the session; and we had better wait the action of the House
on the bill before them, than by taking up this new measure
here, produce a cessation of their action. Was there not danger
that the fourteen days would be exhausted in useless debate?
Why, twenty men, with a sufficiency of breath (for words they
would not want), could annihilate the bill, though a majority
in both Houses were in favor of it. He objected, too, that the
bill was a violation of the constitution, because the Senate
had no power to raise revenue. Two years ago, the same senator
made a proposition, which was rejected on this very ground.
The offer, however, would not be useless; it would be attended
with all the advantages which could follow its discussion here.
We shall see it, and take it into consideration as the offer
of the manufacturers. The other party, as we are called, will
view it as a scheme of diplomacy; not as their _ultimatum_,
but as their first offer. But the bargain was all on one side.
After they are defeated, and can no longer sustain a conflict,
they come to make the best bargain they can. The senator from
Kentucky says, the tariff is in danger; aye, sir, it is at its
last gasp. It has received the immedicable wound; no hellebore
can cure it. He considered the confession of the gentleman to
be of immense importance. Yes, sir, the whole feeling of the
country is opposed to the high protective system. The wily
serpent that crept into our Eden has been touched by the spear
of Ithuriel. The senator is anxious to prevent the ruin which a
sudden abolition of the system will produce. No one desires to
inflict ruin upon the manufacturers; but suppose the Southern
people, having the power to control the subject, should totally
and suddenly abolish the system; what right would those have
to complain who had combined to oppress the South? What has
the tariff led us to already? From one end of the country
to the other, it has produced evils which are worse than a
thousand tariffs. The necessity of appealing now to fraternal
feeling shows that that feeling is not sleeping, but nearly
extinguished. He opposed the introduction of the bill as a
revenue measure, and upon it demanded the yeas and nays: which
were ordered."
The practical, clear-headed, straightforward Gen. Smith, of
Maryland, put his finger at once upon the fallacy and insecurity
of the whole scheme, and used a word, the point and application of
which was more visible afterwards than at the time it was uttered.
He said:
"That the bill was no cure at all for the evils complained
of by the South. They wished to try the constitutionality
of protecting duties. In this bill there was nothing but
protection, from beginning to end. We had been told that if the
bill passed with common consent, the system established by it
would not be touched. But he had once been _cheated_ in that
way, and would not be _cheated_ again. In 1816 it was said the
manufacturers would be satisfied with the protection afforded by
the bill of that year; but in a few years after they came and
insisted for more, and got more. After the first four years, an
attempt would be made to repeal all the balance of this bill. He
would go no further than four years in prospective reduction.
The reduction was on some articles too great."
He spoke history, except in the time. The manufacturers retained
the benefits of the bill to the end of the protection which it
gave them, and then re-established the protective system in more
amplitude than ever.
"Mr. Calhoun rose and said, he would make but one or two
observations. Entirely approving of the object for which
this bill was introduced, he should give his vote in favor
of the motion for leave to introduce it. He who loved the
Union must desire to see this agitating question brought to a
termination. Until it should be terminated, we could not expect
the restoration of peace or harmony, or a sound condition of
things, throughout the country. He believed that to the unhappy
divisions which had kept the Northern and Southern States apart
from each other, the present entirely degraded condition of the
country (for entirely degraded he believed it to be) was solely
attributable. The general principles of this bill received his
approbation. He believed that if the present difficulties were
to be adjusted, they must be adjusted on the principles embraced
in the bill, of fixing ad valorem duties, except in the few
cases in the bill to which specific duties were assigned. He
said that it had been his fate to occupy a position as hostile
as any one could, in reference to the protecting policy; but,
if it depended on his will, he would not give his vote for
the prostration of the manufacturing interest. A very large
capital had been invested in manufactures, which had been of
great service to the country; and he would never give his vote
to suddenly withdraw all those duties by which that capital was
sustained in the channel into which it had been directed. But
he would only vote for the ad valorem system of duties, which
he deemed the most beneficial and the most equitable. At this
time, he did not rise to go into a consideration of any of the
details of this bill, as such a course would be premature, and
contrary to the practice of the Senate. There were some of the
provisions which had his entire approbation, and there were some
to which he objected. But he looked upon these minor points of
difference as points in the settlement of which no difficulty
would occur, when gentlemen meet together in that spirit of
mutual compromise which, he doubted not, would be brought into
their deliberations, without at all yielding the constitutional
question as to the right of protection."
This union of Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay in the belief of the harmony
and brotherly affection which this bill would produce, professing
as it did, and bearing on its face the termination of the American
system, afforded a strong instance of the fallibility of political
opinions. It was only six months before that the dissolution of the
Union would be the effect, in the opinion of one of them, of the
continuance of the American system--and of its abandonment in the
opinion of the other. Now, both agreed that the bill which professed
to destroy it would restore peace and harmony to a distracted
country. How far Mr. Clay then saw the preservation, and not the
destruction, of the American system in the compromise he was making,
may be judged by what he said two weeks later, when he declared that
he looked forward to a re-action which would restore the protective
system at the end of the time.
The first news of Mr. Clay's bill was heard with dismay by the
manufacturers. Niles' Register, the most authentic organ and devoted
advocate of that class, heralded it thus: "_Mr. Clay's new tariff
project will be received like a crash of thunder in the winter
season, and some will hardly trust the evidence of their senses on
a first examination of it--so radical and sudden is the change of
policy proposed because of a combination of circumstances which, in
the judgment of Mr. Clay, has rendered such a change necessary. It
may be that our favorite systems are all to be destroyed. If so
the majority determine--so be it._" The manufacturers flocked in
crowds to Washington City--leaving home to stop the bill--arriving
at Washington to promote it. Those practical men soon saw that they
had gained a reprieve of nine years and a half in the benefits of
protection, with a certainty of the re-establishment of the system
at the end of that time, from the revulsion which would be made in
the revenue--in the abrupt plunge at the end of that time in the
scale of duties from a high rate to an ad valorem of twenty per
centum; and that leaving one hundred articles free. This nine years
and a half reprieve, with the certain chance for the revulsion,
they found to be a good escape from the possible passage of Mr.
Verplank's bill, or its equivalent, at that session; and its
certain passage, if it failed then, at the ensuing session of the
new Congress. They found the protective system dead without this
reprieve, and now received as a deliverance what had been viewed as
a sentence of execution; and having helped the bill through, they
went home rejoicing, and more devoted to Mr. Clay than ever.
Mr. Webster had not been consulted, in the formation of this bill,
and was strongly opposed to it, as well as naturally dissatisfied
at the neglect with which he had been treated. As the ablest
champion of the tariff, and the representative of the chief seat of
manufactures, he would naturally have been consulted, and made a
party, and a leading one, in any scheme of tariff adjustment; on the
contrary, the whole concoction of the bill between Mr. Clay and Mr.
Calhoun had been entirely concealed from him. Symptoms of discontent
appeared, at times, in their speeches; and, on the night of the 23d,
some sharp words passed--composed the next day by their friends: but
it was a strange idea of a "compromise," from which the main party
was to be excluded in its formation, and bound in its conclusion.
And Mr. Webster took an immediate opportunity to show that he had
not been consulted, and would not be bound by the arrangement that
had been made. He said:
"It is impossible that this proposition of the honorable member
from Kentucky should not excite in the country a very strong
sensation; and, in the relation in which I stand to the subject,
I am anxious at an early moment, to say, that, as far as I
understand the bill, from the gentleman's statement of it, there
are principles in it to which I do not at present see how I can
ever concur. If I understand the plan, the result of it will
be a well-understood surrender of the power of discrimination,
or a stipulation not to use that power, in the laying duties
on imports, after the eight or nine years have expired. This
appears to me to be matter of great moment. I hesitate to be a
party to any such stipulation. The honorable member admits, that
though there will be no positive surrender of the power, there
will be a stipulation not to exercise it; a treaty of peace and
amity, as he says, which no American statesman can, hereafter,
stand up to violate. For one, sir, I am not ready to enter into
the treaty. I propose, so far as depends on me, to leave all our
successors in Congress as free to act as we are ourselves.
"The honorable member from Kentucky says the tariff is in
imminent danger; that, if not destroyed this session, it cannot
hope to survive the next. This may be so, sir. This may be so.
But, if it be so, it is because the American people will not
sanction the tariff; and, if they will not, why, then, sir, it
cannot be sustained at all. I am not quite so despairing as the
honorable member seems to be. I know nothing which has happened,
within the last six or eight months, changing so materially the
prospects of the tariff. I do not despair of the success of an
appeal to the American people, to take a just care of their own
interest, and not to sacrifice those vast interests which have
grown up under the laws of Congress."
There was a significant intimation in these few remarks, that Mr.
Webster had not been consulted in the preparation of this bill.
He shows that he had no knowledge of it, except from Mr. Clay's
statement of its contents, on the floor, for it had not then been
read; and the statement made by Mr. Clay was his only means of
understanding it. This is the only public intimation which he gave
of that exclusion of himself from all knowledge of what Mr. Clay and
Mr. Calhoun were doing; but, on the Sunday after the sharp words
between him and Mr. Clay, the fact was fully communicated to me, by
a mutual friend, and as an injurious exclusion which Mr. Webster
naturally and sensibly felt. On the next day, he delivered his
opinions of the bill, in an unusually formal manner--in a set of
resolutions, instead of a speech--thus:
"_Resolved_, That the annual revenues of the country ought not
to be allowed to exceed a just estimate of the wants of the
government; and that, as soon as it shall be ascertained, with
reasonable certainty, that the rates of duties on imports, as
established by the act of July, 1832, will yield an excess over
those wants, provision ought to be made for their reduction;
and that, in making this reduction, just regard should be had
to the various interests and opinions of different parts of the
country, so as most effectually to preserve the integrity and
harmony of the Union, and to provide for the common defence, and
promote the general welfare of the whole.
"But, whereas it is certain that the diminution of the rates of
duties on some articles would increase, instead of reducing, the
aggregate amount of revenue on such articles; and whereas, in
regard to such articles as it has been the policy of the country
to protect, a slight reduction on one might produce essential
injury, and even distress, to large classes of the community,
while another might bear a larger reduction without any such
consequences; and whereas, also, there are many articles, the
duties on which might be reduced, or altogether abolished,
without producing any other effect than the reduction of
revenue: Therefore,
"_Resolved_, That, in reducing the rates of duties imposed
on imports, by the act of the 14th of July aforesaid, it is
not wise or judicious to proceed by way of an equal reduction
per centum on all articles; but that, as well the amount as
the time of reduction ought to be fixed, in respect to the
several articles, distinctly, having due regard, in each case,
to the questions whether the proposed reduction will affect
revenue alone, or how far it will operate injuriously on those
domestic manufactures hitherto protected; especially such as
are essential in time of war, and such, also, as have been
established on the faith of existing laws; and, above all, how
far such proposed reduction will affect the rates of wages and
the earnings of American manual labor.
"_Resolved_, That it is unwise and injudicious, in regulating
imposts, to adopt a plan, hitherto equally unknown in the
history of this government, and in the practice of all
enlightened nations, which shall, either immediately or
prospectively, reject all discrimination on articles to be
taxed, whether they be articles of necessity or of luxury, of
general consumption or of limited consumption; and whether they
be or be not such as are manufactured and produced at home, and
which shall confine all duties to one equal rate per centum on
all articles.
"_Resolved_, That, since the people of the United States have
deprived the State governments of all power of fostering
manufactures, however indispensable in peace or in war, or
however important to national independence, by commercial
regulations, or by laying duties on imports, and have
transferred the whole authority to make such regulations, and to
lay such duties, to the Congress of the United States, Congress
cannot surrender or abandon such power, compatibly with its
constitutional duty; and, therefore,
"_Resolved_, That no law ought to be passed on the subject
of imposts, containing any stipulation, express or implied,
or giving any pledge or assurance, direct or indirect, which
shall tend to restrain Congress from the full exercise, at all
times hereafter, of all its constitutional powers, in giving
reasonable protection to American industry, countervailing the
policy of foreign nations, and maintaining the substantial
independence of the United States."
These resolutions brought the sentiments of Mr. Webster, on the
tariff and federal revenue, very nearly to the standard recommended
by General Jackson, in his annual message; which was a limitation
of the revenue to the wants of the government, with incidental
protection to essential articles; and this approximation of
policy, with that which had already taken place on the doctrine
of nullification and its measures, and his present support of the
"Force Bill," may have occasioned the exclusion of Mr. Webster from
all knowledge of this "compromise." Certain it is, that, with these
sentiments on the subject of the tariff and the revenue, and with
the decision of the people, in their late elections against the
American system, that Mr. Webster and his friends would have acted
with the friends of General Jackson and the democratic party, in the
ensuing Congress, in reducing the duties in a way to be satisfactory
to every reasonable interest; and, above all, to be stable; and to
free the country from the agitation of the tariff question, the
manufacturers from uncertainty, and the revenue from fluctuations
which alternately gave overflowing and empty treasuries. It was
a consummation devoutly to be wished; and frustrated by the
intervention of the delusive "compromise," concocted out of doors,
and in conclave by two senators; and to be carried through Congress
by their joint adherents, and by the fears of some and the interests
of others.
Mr. Wright, of New-York, saw objections to the bill, which would be
insurmountable in other circumstances. He proceeded to state these
objections, and the reason which would outweigh them in his mind:
"He thought the reduction too slow for the first eight years,
and vastly too rapid afterwards. Again, he objected to the
inequality of the rule of reduction which had been adopted.
It will be seen, at once, that on articles paying one hundred
per cent. duty, the reduction is dangerously rapid. There was
uniformity in the rule adopted by the bill, as regards its
operation on existing laws. The first object of the bill was to
effect a compromise between the conflicting views of the friends
and the opponents of protection. It purports to extend relief to
Southern interest; and yet it enhances the duty on one of the
most material articles of Southern consumption--negro cloths.
Again, while it increases this duty, it imposes no corresponding
duty on the raw material from which the fabric is made.
"Another objection arose from his mature conviction that the
principle of home valuation was absurd, impracticable, and
of very unequal operation. The reduction on some articles of
prime necessity--iron, for example--was so great and so rapid,
that he was perfectly satisfied that it would stop all further
production before the expiration of eight years. The principle
of discrimination was one of the points introduced into the
discussion; and, as to this, he would say that the bill did
not recognize, after a limited period, the power of Congress
to afford protection by discriminating duties. It provides
protection for a certain length of time, but does not ultimately
recognize the principle of protection. The bill proposes
ultimately to reduce all articles which pay duty to the same
rate of duty. This principle of revenue was entirely unknown to
our laws, and, in his opinion, was an unwarrantable innovation.
Gentlemen advocating the principle and policy of free trade
admit the power of Congress to lay and collect such duties as
are necessary for the purpose of revenue; and to that extent
they will incidentally afford protection to manufactures. He
would, upon all occasions, contend that no more money should
be raised from duties on imports than the government needs;
and this principle he wished now to state in plain terms. He
adverted to the proceedings of the Free Trade Convention to
show that, by a large majority, (120 to 7,) they recognized
the constitutional power of Congress to afford incidental
protection to domestic manufactures. They expressly agreed that
the principle of discrimination was in consonance with the
constitution.
"Still another objection he had to the bill. It proposed on
its face, and, as he thought, directly, to restrict the action
of our successors. We had no power, he contended, to bind our
successors. We might legislate prospectively, and a future
Congress could stop the course of this prospective legislation.
He had, however, no alternative but to vote for the bill, with
all its defects, because it contained some provisions which the
state of the country rendered indispensably necessary."
He then stated the reason which would induce him to vote for the
bill notwithstanding these objections. It was found in the attitude
of South Carolina, and in the extreme desire which he had to remove
all cause of discontent in that State, and to enable her to return
to the state of feeling which belonged to an affectionate member of
the Union. For that reason he would do what was satisfactory to her,
though not agreeable to himself.
While the bill was still depending before the Senate, the bill
itself for which the leave was being asked, made its appearance at
the door of the chamber, with a right to enter it, in the shape of
an act passed by the House, and sent to the Senate for concurrence.
This was a new feature in the game, and occasioned the Senate bill
to be immediately dropped, and the House bill put in its place; and
which, being quickly put to the vote, was passed, 29 to 16.
"YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay,
Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Forsyth, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hill,
Holmes, Johnston, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Maudain,
Poindexter, Rives, Robinson, Sprague, Tomlinson, Tyler,
Waggaman, White, Wright.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley,
Hendricks, Knight, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee,
Smith, Tipton, Webster, Wilkins."
And the bill was then called a "compromise," which the
dictionaries define to be an "agreement without the intervention
of arbitrators;" and so called, it was immediately proclaimed to
be sacred and inviolable, as founded on mutual consent, although
the only share which the manufacturing States (Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont) had in
making this "compromise," was to see it sprung upon them without
notice, executed upon them as a surprise, and forced upon them
by anti-tariff votes, against the strenuous resistance of their
senators and representatives in both Houses of Congress.
An incident which attended the discussion of this bill shows
the manner in which great measures--especially a bill of many
particulars, like the tariff, which affords an opportunity of
gratifying small interests--may be worked through a legislative
body, even the Senate of the United States, by other reasons than
those derived from its merits. The case was this: There were a
few small manufactories in Connecticut and some other New England
States, of a coarse cloth called, not Kendall green, but Kendall
cotton--quite antithetically, as the article was made wholly
of wool--of which much was also imported. As it was an article
exclusively for the laboring population, the tariff of the preceding
session made it virtually free, imposing only a duty of five per
centum on the value of the cloth and the same on the wool of which
it was made. Now this article was put up in this "compromise" bill
which was to reduce duties, to fifty per centum, aggravated by an
arbitrary minimum valuation, and by the legerdemain of retaining
the five per centum duty on the foreign wool which they used, and
which was equivalent to making it free, and reduced to that low rate
to harmonize the duty on the raw material and the cloth. General
Smith, of Maryland, moved to strike out this duty, so flagrantly in
contrast to the professed objects of the bill, and in fraud of the
wool duty; and that motion brought out the reason why it was put
there--which was, that it was necessary to secure the passage of
the bill. Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, said: "_This was an important
feature of the bill, in which his constituents had a great interest.
Gentlemen from the South had agreed to it; and they were competent
to guard their own interest._" Mr. Clay said: "_The provision
proposed to be stricken out was an essential part of the compromise,
which, if struck out, would destroy the whole._" Mr. Bell of New
Hampshire, said: "_The passage of the bill depended upon it. If
struck out, he should feel himself compelled to vote against the
bill._" So it was admitted by those who knew what they said, that
this item had been put into the bill while in a state of concoction
out of doors, and as a _douceur_ to conciliate the votes which were
to pass it. Thereupon Mr. Benton stood up, and
"Animadverted on the reason which was alleged for this
extraordinary augmentation of duties in a bill which was to
reduce duties. The reason was candidly expressed on this floor.
There were a few small manufactories of these woollens in
Connecticut; and unless these manufactories be protected by an
increase of duties, certain members avow their determination
to vote against the whole bill! This is the secret--no! not
a secret, for it is proclaimed. It was a secret, but is not
now. Two or three little factories in Connecticut must be
protected; and that by imposing an annual tax upon the wearers
of these coarse woollens of four or five times the value of
the fee-simple estate of the factories. Better far, as a point
of economy and justice, to purchase them and burn them. The
whole American system is to be given up in the year 1842;
and why impose an annual tax of near five hundred thousand
dollars, upon the laboring community, to prolong, for a few
years, a few small branches of that system, when the whole bill
has the axe to the root, and nods to its fall? But, said Mr.
B., these manufactories of coarse woollens, to be protected
by this bill, are not even American; they are rather Asiatic
establishments in America; for they get their wool from Asia,
and not from America. The importation of this wool is one
million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds weight; it comes
chiefly from Smyrna, and costs less than eight cents a pound.
It was made free of duty at the last session of Congress, as
an equivalent to these very manufactories for the reduction of
the duty on coarse woollens to five per cent. The two measures
went together, and were, each, a consideration for the other.
Before that time, and by the act of 1828, this coarse wool was
heavily dutied for the benefit of the home wool growers. It was
subjected to a double duty, one of four cents on the pound,
and the other of fifty per cent. on the value. As a measure of
compromise, this double duty was abolished at the last session.
The wool for these factories was admitted duty free, and, as
an equivalent to the community, the woollens made out of the
corresponding kind of wool were admitted at a nominal duty. It
was a bargain, entered into in open Congress, and sealed with
all the forms of law. Now, in six months after the bargain was
made, it is to be broken. The manufacturers are to have the
duty on woollens run up to fifty per cent. for protection, and
are still to receive the foreign wool free of duty. In plain
English, they are to retain the pay which was given them for
reducing the duties on these coarse woollens, and they are to
have the duties restored.
"He said it was contrary to the whole tenor and policy of the
bill, and presented the strange contradiction of multiplying
duties tenfold, upon an article of prime necessity, used
exclusively by the laboring part of the community, while
reducing duties or abolishing them _in toto_, upon every article
used by the rich and luxurious. Silks were to be free; cambrics
and fine linens were to be free; muslins, and casimeres, and
broad cloths were to be reduced; but the coarse woollens, worn
by the laborers of every color and every occupation, of every
sex and of every age, bond or free--these coarse woollens,
necessary to shelter the exposed laborer from cold and damp, are
to be put up tenfold in point of tax, and the cost of procuring
them doubled to the wearer.
"The American value, and not the foreign cost, will be the basis
of computation for the twenty per cent. The difference, when all
is fair, is about thirty-five per cent. in the value; so that an
importation of coarse woollens, costing one million in Europe,
and now to pay five per cent. on that cost, will be valued, if
all is fair, at one million three hundred and fifty thousand
dollars; and the twenty per cent. will be calculated on that
sum, and will give two hundred and seventy thousand dollars,
instead of two hundred thousand dollars, for the quantum of the
tax. It will be near sixfold, instead of four-fold, and that if
all is fair; but if there are gross errors or gross frauds in
the valuation, as every human being knows there must be, the
real tax may be far above sixfold. On this very floor, and in
this very debate, we hear it computed, by way of recommending
this bill to the manufacturers, that the twenty per cent. on
the statute book will exceed thirty in the custom-house.
"Mr. B. took a view of the circumstances which had attended the
duties on these coarse woollens since he had been in Congress.
Every act had discriminated in favor of these goods, because
they were used by the poor and the laborer. The act of 1824
fixed the duties upon them at a rate one third less than on
other woollens; the act of 1828 fixed it at upwards of one half
less; the act of 1832 fixed it nine tenths less. All these
discriminations in favor of coarse woollens were made upon the
avowed principle of favoring the laborers, bond and free,--the
slave which works the field for his master, the mariner, the
miner, the steamboat hand, the worker in stone and wood, and
every out-door occupation. It was intended by the framers of
all these acts, and especially by the supporters of the act of
1832, that this class of our population, so meritorious from
their daily labor, so much overlooked in the operations of the
government, because of their little weight in the political
scale, should at least receive one boon from Congress--they
should receive their working clothes free of tax. This was the
intention of successive Congresses; it was the performance of
this Congress in its act of the last session; and now, in six
short months since this boon was granted, before the act had
gone into effect, the very week before the act was to go into
effect, the boon so lately granted, is to be snatched away, and
the day laborer taxed higher than ever; taxed fifty per cent.
upon his working clothes! while gentlemen and ladies are to have
silks and cambrics, and fine linen, free of any tax at all!
"In allusion to the alleged competency of the South to guard its
own interest, as averred by Mr. Foot, Mr. Benton said that was a
species of ability not confined to the South, but existent also
in the North--whether indigenous or exotic he could not say--but
certainly existent there, at least in some of the small States;
and active when duties were to be raised on Kendal cotton cloth,
and the wool of which it was made to remain free."
The motion of General Smith was rejected, of course, and by the same
vote which passed the bill, no one of those giving way an inch of
ground in the House who had promised out of doors to stand by the
bill. Another incident to which the discussion of this bill gave
rise, and the memory of which is necessary to the understanding
of the times, was the character of "_protection_" which Mr. Clay
openly claimed for it; and the peremptory manner in which he and his
friends vindicated that claim in open Senate, and to the face of
Mr. Calhoun. The circumstances were these: Mr. Forsyth objected to
the leave asked by Mr. Clay to introduce his bill, because it was
a revenue bill, the origination of which under the constitution
exclusively belonged to the House of Representatives, the immediate
representative of the people. And this gave rise to an episodical
debate, in which Mr. Clay said: "_The main object of the bill is not
revenue, but protection._"--In answer to several senators who said
the bill was an abandonment of the protective principle, Mr. Clay
said: "_The language of the bill authorized no such construction,
and that no one would be justified in inferring that there was to be
an abandonment of the system of protection._"--And Mr. Clayton, of
Delaware, a supporter of the bill, said: "_The government cannot be
kept together if the principle of protection were to be discarded in
our policy; and declared that he would pause before he surrendered
that principle, even to save the Union._"--Mr. Webster said: "_The
bill is brought forward by the distinguished senator from Kentucky,
who professes to have renounced none of his former opinions as to
the constitutionality and expediency of protection._"--And Mr. Clay
said further: "_The bill assumes, as a basis, adequate protection
for nine years, and less (protection) beyond that term. The friends
of protection say to their opponents, we are willing to take a
lease of nine years, with the long chapter of accidents beyond that
period, including the chance of war, the restoration of concord,
and along with it a conviction common to all, of the utility of
protection; and in consideration of it, if, in 1842 none of these
contingencies shall have been realized, we are willing to submit,
as long as Congress may think proper, with a maximum of twenty per
centum_," &c.--"_He avowed his object in framing the bill was to
secure that protection to manufactures which every one foresaw must
otherwise soon be swept away._" So that the bill was declared _to
be one of protection_ (_and upon sufficient data_), upon a lease of
nine years and a half, with many chances for converting the lease
into a fee simple at the end of its run; which, in fact, was done;
but with such excess of protection as to produce a revulsion, and
another tariff catastrophe in 1846. The continuance of protection
was claimed in argument by Mr. Clay and his friends throughout the
discussion, but here it was made a point on which the fate of the
bill depended, and on which enough of its friends to defeat it
declared they would not support it except as a protective measure.
Mr. Calhoun in other parts of the debate had declared the bill to
be an abandonment of protection; but at this critical point, when
such a denial from him would have been the instant death warrant of
the bill, he said nothing. His desire for its passage must have been
overpowering when he could hear such declarations without repeating
his denial.
On the main point, that of the constitutionality of originating the
bill in the Senate, Mr. Webster spoke the law of Parliament when he
said:
"It was purely a question of privilege, and the decision of
it belonged alone to the other House. The Senate, by the
constitution, could not originate bills for raising revenue. It
was of no consequence whether the rate of duty were increased
or decreased; if it was a money bill it belonged to the House
to originate it. In the House there was a Committee of Ways
and Means organized expressly for such objects. There was no
such committee in the Senate. The constitutional provision was
taken from the practice of the British Parliament, whose usages
were well known to the framers of the constitution, with the
modification that the Senate might alter and amend money bills,
which was denied by the House of Commons to the Lords. This
subject belongs exclusively to the House of Representatives. The
attempt to evade the question, by contending that the present
bill was intended for protection and not for revenue, afforded
no relief, for it was protection by means of revenue. It was
not the less a money bill from its object being protection.
After 1842 this bill would raise the revenue, or it would not
be raised by existing laws. He was altogether opposed to the
provisions of this bill; but this objection was one which
belonged to the House of Representatives."
Another incident which illustrates the vice and tyranny of this
outside concoction of measures between chiefs, to be supported
in the House by their adherents as they fix it, occurred in the
progress of this bill. Mr. Benton, perceiving that there was no
corresponding reduction of drawback provided for on the exportation
of the manufactured article made out of an imported material on
which duty was to be reduced, and supposing it to have been an
oversight in the framing of the bill, moved an amendment to that
effect; and meeting resistance, stood up, and said:
"His motion did not extend to the general system of drawbacks,
but only to those special cases in which the exporter was
authorized to draw from the treasury the amount of money which
he had paid into it on the importation of the materials which
he had manufactured. The amount of drawback to be allowed in
every case had been adjusted to the amount of duty paid, and as
all these duties were to be periodically reduced by the bill,
it would follow, as a regular consequence, that the drawback
should undergo equal reductions at the same time. Mr. B. would
illustrate his motion by stating a single case--the case of
refined sugar. The drawback payable on this sugar was five
cents a pound. These five cents rested upon a duty of three
cents, now payable on the importation of foreign brown sugar.
It was ascertained that it required nearly two pounds of brown
sugar to make a pound of refined sugar, and five cents was
held to be the amount of duty paid on the quantity of brown
sugar which made the pound of refined sugar. It was simply a
reimbursement of what he had paid. By this bill the duty of
foreign brown sugar will be reduced immediately to two and a
half cents a pound, and afterwards will be periodically reduced
until the year 1842, when it will be but six-tenths of a cent,
very little more than one-sixth of the duty when five cents
the pound were allowed for a drawback. Now, if the drawback is
not reduced in proportion to the reduction of the duty on the
raw sugar, two very injurious consequences will result to the
public: first, that a large sum of money will be annually taken
out of the treasury in gratuitous bounties to sugar refiners;
and next, that the consumers of refined sugar will have to pay
more for American refined sugar than foreigners will; for the
refiners getting a bounty of five cents a pound on all that is
exported, will export all, unless the American consumer will
pay the bounty also. Mr. B. could not undertake to say how much
money would be drawn from the treasury, as a mere bounty, if
this amendment did not prevail. It must, however, be great. The
drawback was now frequently a hundred thousand dollars a year,
and great frauds were committed to obtain it. Frauds to the
amount of forty thousand dollars a year had been detected, and
this while the inducement was small and inconsiderable; but, as
fast as that inducement swells from year to year, the temptation
to commit frauds must increase; and the amount drawn by fraud,
added to that drawn by the letter of the law, must be enormous.
Mr. B. did not think it necessary to illustrate his motion by
further examples, but said there were other cases which would be
as strong as that of refined sugar; and justice to the public
required all to be checked at once, by adopting the amendment he
had offered."
This amendment was lost, although its necessity was self-evident,
and supported by Mr. Calhoun's vote; but Mr. Clay was inexorable,
and would allow of no amendment which was not offered by friends
of the bill: a qualification which usually attends all this class
of outside legislation. In the end, I saw the amendment adopted,
as it regarded refined sugars, after it began to take hundreds of
thousands per annum from the treasury, and was hastening on to
millions per annum. The vote on its rejection in the compromise
bill, was:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Calhoun, Dallas, Dickerson,
Dudley, Forsyth, Johnson, Kane, King, Rives, Robinson, Seymour,
Tomlinson, Webster, White, Wilkins, Wright--18.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Foot,
Grundy, Hendricks, Holmes, Knight, Mangum, Miller, Moore,
Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague,
Tipton, Troup, Tyler.--24."
But the protective feature of the bill, which sat hardest upon
the Southern members, and, at one time, seemed to put an end to
the "compromise," was a proposition, by Mr. Clay, to substitute
home valuations for foreign on imported goods; and on which home
valuation, the duty was to be computed. This was no part of the
bill concocted by Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun; and, when offered,
evidently took the latter gentleman by surprise, who pronounced it
unconstitutional, unequal, and unjust; averred the objections to the
proposition to be insurmountable; and declared that, if adopted,
would compel him to vote against the whole bill. On the other hand,
Mr. Clayton and others, declared the adoption of the amendment to
be indispensable; and boldly made known their determination to
sacrifice the bill, if it was not adopted. A brief and sharp debate
took place, in the course of which Mr. Calhoun declared his opinions
to remain unaltered, and Mr. Clayton moved to lay the bill upon the
table. Its fate seemed, at that time, to be sealed; and certainly
would have been, if the vote on its passage had then been taken; but
an adjournment was moved, and carried; and, on the next day, and
after further debate, and the question on Mr. Clay's proposition
about to be taken, Mr. Calhoun declared that it had become necessary
for him to determine whether he would vote for or against it; said
he would vote for it, otherwise the bill would be lost. He then
called upon the reporters in the gallery to notice well what he
said, as he intended his declaration to be part of the proceedings:
and that he voted upon the conditions: first, that no valuation
should be adopted, which would make the duties unequal in different
parts; and secondly, that the duties themselves should not become
an element in the valuation. The practical sense of General Smith
immediately exposed the futility of these conditions, which were
looked upon, on all sides, as a mere salvo for an inevitable vote,
extorted from him by the exigencies of his position; and several
senators reminded him that his intentions and motives could have no
effect upon the law, which would be executed according to its own
words. The following is the debate on this point, very curious in
itself, even in the outside view it gives of the manner of affecting
great national legislation; and much more so in the inside view of
the manner of passing this particular measure, so lauded in its day;
and to understand which, the outside view must first be seen. It
appears thus, in the prepared debates:
"Mr. Clay now rose to propose the amendment, of which he had
previously given notice. The object was, that, after the period
prescribed by the bill, all duties should thereafter be assessed
on a valuation made at the port in which the goods are first
imported, and under 'such regulations as may be prescribed by
law.' Mr. C. said it would be seen, by this amendment, that, in
place of having a foreign valuation, it was intended to have
a home one. It was believed by the friends of the protective
system, that such a regulation was necessary. It was believed
by many of the friends of the system, that, after the period
of nine and a half years, the most of our manufactures will be
sufficiently grown to be able to support themselves under a duty
of twenty per cent., if properly laid; but that, under a system
of foreign valuation, such would not be the case. They say that
it would be more detrimental to their interests than the lowest
scale of duties that could be imposed; and you propose to fix a
standard of duties. They are willing to take you at your word,
provided you regulate this in a way to do them justice.
"Mr. Smith opposed the amendment, on the ground that it would
be an increase of duties; that it had been tried before; that
it would be impracticable, unequal, unjust, and productive of
confusion, inasmuch as imported goods were constantly varying
in value, and were well known to be, at all times, cheaper in
New-York than in the commercial cities south of it. This would
have the effect of drawing all the trade of the United States to
New-York.
"Mr. Clay said he did not think it expedient, in deciding this
question, to go forward five or six years, and make that an
obstacle to the passage of a great national measure, which
is not to go into operation until after that period. The
honorable senator from Maryland said that the measure would be
impracticable. Well, sir, if so, it will not be adopted. We
do not adopt it now, said Mr. C.; we only adopt the principle,
leaving it to future legislation to adjust the details. Besides,
it would be the restoration of an ancient principle, known since
the foundation of the government. It was but at the last session
that the discriminating duty on goods coming from this side,
and beyond the Cape of Good Hope, ten per cent. on one, and
twenty per cent. on the other, was repealed. On what principle
was it, said he, that this discrimination ever prevailed? On
the principle of the home value. Were it not for the fraudulent
invoices which every gentleman in this country was familiar
with, he would not urge the amendment; but it was to detect and
prevent these frauds that he looked upon the insertion of the
clause as essentially necessary.
"Mr. Smith replied that he had not said that the measure
was impracticable. He only intended to say that it would be
inconvenient and unjust. Neither did he say that it would be
adopted by a future Congress; but he said, if the principle
was adopted now, it would be an entering wedge that might lead
to the adoption of the measure. We all recollect, said Mr.
S., that appropriations were made for surveys for internal
improvements; and that these operated as entering wedges, and
led to appropriations for roads and canals. The adoption of the
principle contended for, by the senator from Kentucky, would
not, in his (Mr. S.'s) opinion, prevent frauds in the invoices.
That very principle was the foundation of all the frauds on the
revenue of France and Spain, where the duties were assessed
according to the value of the goods in the ports where entered.
He again said that the effect of the amendment would be to draw
the principal commerce of the country to the great city of
New-York, where goods were cheaper.
"Mr. Forsyth understood, from what had fallen from the senator
from Kentucky, that this was a vital question, and on it
depended the success of this measure of conciliation and
compromise, which was said to settle the distracted condition of
the country. In one respect, it was said to be a vital question;
and the next was, it was useful; and a strange contradiction
followed: that the fate of this measure, to unite the jarrings
of brother with brother, depended on the adoption of a principle
which might or might not be adopted. He considered the amendment
wrong in principle, because it would be both unequal and unjust
in its operation, and because it would raise the revenue: as the
duties would be assessed, not only on the value of the goods
at the place whence imported, but on their value at the place
of importation. He would, however, vote for the bill, even if
the amendment were incorporated in it, provided he had the
assurances, from the proper quarter, that it would effect the
conciliation and compromise it was intended for.
"Mr. Clay had brought forward this measure, with the hope that,
in the course of its discussion, it would ultimately assume
such a shape as to reconcile all parties to its adoption, and
tend to end the agitation of this unsettled question. If there
be any member of this Congress (Mr. C. said), who says that he
will take this bill now for as much as it is worth, and that he
will, at the next Congress, again open the question, for the
purpose of getting a better bill, of bringing down the tariff to
a lower standard, without considering it as a final measure of
compromise and conciliation, calculated also to give stability
to a man of business, the bill, in his eyes, would lose all its
value, and he should be constrained to vote against it.
"It was for the sake of conciliation, of nine years of peace,
to give tranquility to a disturbed and agitated country, that
he had, even at this late period of the session, introduced
this measure, which, his respect for the other branch of the
legislature, now sitting in that building, and who had a
measure, looking to the same end, before them, had prevented
him from bringing forward at an earlier period. But, when he
had seen the session wearing away, without the prospect of any
action in that other body, he felt himself compelled to come
forward, though contrary to his wishes, and the advice of some
of his best friends, with whom he had acted in the most perilous
times.
"Mr. Calhoun said, he regretted, exceedingly, that the senator
from Kentucky had felt it his duty to move the amendment.
According to his present impressions, the objections to it
were insurmountable; and, unless these were removed, he should
be compelled to vote against the whole bill, should the
amendment be adopted. The measure proposed was, in his opinion,
unconstitutional. The constitution expressly provided that no
preference should be given, by any regulation of commerce, to
the ports of one State over those of another; and this would
be the effect of adopting the amendment. Thus, great injustice
and inequality must necessarily result from it; for the price
of goods being cheaper in the Northern than in the Southern
cities, a home valuation would give to the former a preference
in the payment of duties. Again, the price of goods being higher
at New Orleans and Charleston than at New-York, the freight
and insurance also being higher, together with the increased
expenses of a sickly climate, would give such advantages in the
amount of duties to the Northern city, as to draw to it much of
the trade of the Southern ones. In his view of the subject, this
was not all. He was not merchant enough to say what would be
the extent of duties under this system of home valuation; but,
as he understood it, they must, of consequence, be progressive.
For instance, an article is brought into New-York, value there
100 dollars. Twenty per cent. on that would raise the value
of the article to one hundred and twenty dollars, on which
value a duty of twenty per cent. would be assessed at the next
importation, and so on. It would, therefore, be impossible to
say to what extent the duties would run up. He regretted the
more that the senator from Kentucky had felt it his duty to
offer this amendment, as he was willing to leave the matter to
the decision of a future Congress, though he did not see how
they could get over the insuperable constitutional objections he
had glanced at. Mr. C. appealed to the senator from Kentucky,
whether, with these views, he would press his amendment, when he
had eight or nine years in advance before it could take effect.
He understood the argument of the senator from Kentucky to be an
admission that the amendment was not now absolutely necessary.
With respect to the apprehension of frauds on the revenue, Mr.
C. said that every future Congress would have the strongest
disposition to guard against them. The very reduction of duties,
he said, would have that effect; it would strike at the root of
the evil. Mr. C. said he agreed with the senator from Kentucky,
that this bill will be the final effort at conciliation and
compromise; and he, for one, was not disposed, if it passed, to
violate it by future legislation.
"Mr. Clayton said that he could not vote for this bill without
this amendment, nor would he admit any idea of an abandonment
of the protective system; while he was willing to pass this
measure, as one of concession from the stronger to the weaker
party, he never could agree that twenty per cent. was adequate
protection to our domestic manufactures. He had been anxious to
do something to relieve South Carolina from her present perilous
position; though he had never been driven by the taunts of
Southern gentlemen to do that, which he now did, for the sake
of conciliation. I vote for this bill, said Mr. C., only on the
ground that it may save South Carolina from herself.
"Here Mr. C. yielded the floor to Mr. Calhoun, who said he hoped
the gentleman would not touch that question. He entreated him
to believe that South Carolina had no fears for herself. The
noble and disinterested attitude she had assumed was intended
for the whole nation, while it was also calculated to relieve
herself, as well as them, from oppressive legislation. It was
not for them to consider the condition of South Carolina only,
in passing on a measure of this importance.
"Mr. Clayton resumed. Sir, said he, I must be permitted to
explain, in my own way, the reasons which will govern me
in the vote I am about to give. As I said before, I never
have permitted the fears of losing the protective system, as
expressed by the senator from Georgia, when he taunted us with
the majority that they would have in the next Congress, when
they would get a better bill, to influence my opinion upon this
occasion. That we have been driven by our fears into this act of
concession, I will not admit. Sir, I tell gentlemen that they
may never get such another offer as the present; for, though
they may think otherwise, I do not believe that the people of
this country will ever be brought to consent to the abandonment
of the protective system.
"Does any man believe that fifty per cent. is an adequate
protection on woollens? No, sir; the protection is brought
down to twenty per cent.; and when gentlemen come to me and
say that this is a compromise, I answer, with my friend from
Maine, that I will not vote for it, unless you will give me
the fair twenty per cent.; and this cannot be done without
adopting the principle of a home valuation. I do not vote for
this bill because I think it better than the tariff of 1832, nor
because I fear nullification or secession; but from a motive of
concession, yielding my own opinions. But if Southern gentlemen
will not accept this measure in the spirit for which it was
tendered, I have no reason to vote for it. I voted, said Mr.
C., against the bill of '32, for the very reason that Southern
gentlemen declared that it was no concession; and I may vote
against this for the same reasons. I thought it bad policy to
pass the bill of '32. I thought it a bad bargain, and I think so
now. I have no fear of nullification or secession; I am not to
be intimidated by threats of Southern gentlemen, that they will
get a better bill at the next session. "Rebellion made young
Harry Percy's spurs grow cold." I will vote for this measure as
one of conciliation and compromise; but if the clause of the
senator from Kentucky is not inserted, I shall be compelled to
vote against it. The protective system never can be abandoned;
and I, for one, will not now, or at any time, admit the idea.
"Mr. Dallas was opposed to the proposition from the committee,
and agreed with Mr. Calhoun. He would state briefly his
objection to the proposition of the committee. Although he
was from a State strongly disposed to maintain the protective
policy, he labored under an impression, that if any thing could
be done to conciliate the Southern States, it was his duty to go
for a measure for that purpose; but he should not go beyond it.
He could do nothing in this way, as representing his particular
district of the country, but only for the general good. He
could not agree to incorporate in the bill any principle which
he thought erroneous or improper. He would sanction nothing in
the bill as an abandonment of the principle of protection. Mr.
D. then made a few remarks on home and foreign valuation, to
show the ground of his objections to the amendment of Mr. Clay,
though it did not prevent his strong desire to compromise and
conciliation.
"Mr. Clay thought it was premature to agitate now the details
of a legislation which might take place nine years hence. The
senator from South Carolina had objected to the amendment on
constitutional grounds. He thought he could satisfy him, and
every senator, that there was no objection from the constitution.
"He asked if it was probable that a valuation in Liverpool
could escape a constitutional objection, if a home valuation
were unconstitutional? There was a distinction in the foreign
value, and in the thing valued. An invoice might be made of
articles at one price in one port of England, and in another
port at another price. The price, too, must vary with the time.
But all this could not affect the rule. There was a distinction
which gentlemen did not observe, between the value and the
rule of valuation; one of these might vary, while the other
continued always the same. The rule was uniform with regard to
direct taxation; yet the value of houses and lands of the same
quality are very different in different places. One mode of home
valuation was, to give the government, or its officers, the
right to make the valuation after the one which the importer had
given. It would prevent fraud, and the rule would not violate
the constitution. It was an error that it was unconstitutional;
the constitution said nothing about it. It was absurd that
all values must be established in foreign countries; no other
country on earth should assume the right of judging. Objections
had been made to leaving the business of valuation in the hands
of a few executive officers; but the objections were at least
equally great to leaving it in the hands of foreigners. He
thought there was nothing in the constitutional objection, and
hoped the measure would not be embarrassed by such objections.
"Mr. Calhoun said that he listened with great care to the
remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky, and other gentlemen, who
had advocated the same side, in hopes of having his objection
to the mode of valuation proposed in the amendment removed; but
he must say, that the difficulties he first expressed still
remained. Passing over what seemed to him to be a constitutional
objection, he would direct his observation to what appeared
to him to be its unequal operation. If by the home valuation
be meant the foreign price, with the addition of freight,
insurance, and other expenses at the port of destination, it is
manifest that as these are unequal between the several ports
in the Union--for instance, between the ports New-York and New
Orleans--the duty must also be unequal in the same degree, if
laid on value thus estimated. But if, by the home valuation be
meant the prices current at the place of importation, then,
in addition to the inequality already stated, there would
have to be added the additional inequality resulting from the
different rates of profits, and other circumstances, which must
necessarily render prices very unequal in the several ports of
this widely-extended country. There would, in the same view,
be another and a stronger objection, which he alluded to in
his former remarks, which remained unanswered--that the duties
themselves constitute part of the elements of the current prices
of the imported articles; and that, to impose a duty on a
valuation ascertained by the current prices, would be to impose,
in reality, a duty upon a duty, and must necessarily produce
that increased progression in duties, which he had already
attempted to illustrate.
"He knew it had been stated, in reply, that a system which
would produce such absurd results could not be contemplated;
that Congress, under the power of regulating, reserved in
the amendment, would adopt some mode that would obviate
these objections; and, if none such could be devised, that
the provisions of the amendment would be simply useless. His
difficulty was not removed by the answer to the objection. He
was at a loss to understand what mode could be devised free
from objection; and, as he wished to be candid and explicit,
he felt the difficulty, as an honest man, to assent to a
general measure, which, in all the modifications under which
he had viewed it, was objectionable. He again repeated, that
he regretted the amendment had been offered, as he felt a
solicitude that the present controversy should be honorably and
fairly terminated. It was not his wish that there should be a
feeling of victory on either side. But, in thus expressing his
solicitude for an adjustment, he was not governed by motives
derived from the attitude which South Carolina occupied, and
which the senator from Delaware stated to influence him. He
wished that senator, as well as all others, to understand that
that gallant and patriotic State was far from considering her
situation as one requiring sympathy, and was equally far from
desiring that any adjustment of this question should take place
with the view of relieving her, or with any other motive than
a regard to the general interests of the country. So far from
requiring commiseration, she regarded her position with very
opposite light, as one of high responsibility, and exposing her
to no inconsiderable danger; but a position voluntarily and
firmly assumed, with a full view of consequences, and which she
was determined to maintain till the oppression under which she
and the other Southern States were suffering was removed.
"In wishing, then, to see a termination to the present state of
things, he turned not his eyes to South Carolina, but to the
general interests of the country. He did not believe it was
possible to maintain our institutions and our liberty, under
the continuance of the controversy which had for so long a time
distracted us, and brought into conflict the two great sections
of the country. He was in the last stage of madness who did not
see, if not terminated, that this admirable system of ours,
reared by the wisdom and virtue of our ancestors--virtue, he
feared, which had fled forever--would fall under its shocks. It
was to arrest this catastrophe, if possible, by restoring peace
and harmony to the Union, that governed him in desiring to see
an adjustment of the question.
"Mr. Clayton said, this point had been discussed in the
committee; and it was because this amendment was not adopted
that he had withheld his assent from the bill. They had now
but seven business days of this session remaining; and it
would require the greatest unanimity, both in that body and
in the other House, to pass any bill on this subject. Were
gentlemen coming from the opposite extremes of the Union, and
representing opposite interests, to agree to combine together,
there would hardly be time to pass this bill into a law; yet if
he saw that it could be done, he would gladly go on with the
consideration of the bill, and with the determination to do all
that could be done. The honorable member from South Carolina had
found insuperable obstacles where he (Mr. C.) had found none. On
their part, if they agreed to this bill, it would only be for
the sake of conciliation; if South Carolina would not accept the
measure in that light, then their motive for arrangement was
at an end. He (Mr. C.) apprehended, however, that good might
result from bringing the proposition forward at that time. It
would be placed before the view of the people, who would have
time to reflect and make up their minds upon it against the
meeting of the next Congress. He did not hold any man as pledged
by their action at this time. If the arrangement was found to
be a proper one, the next Congress might adopt it. But, for
the reasons he had already stated, he had little hope that any
bill would be passed at this session; and, to go on debating
it, day after day, would only have the effect of defeating the
many private bills and other business which were waiting the
action of Congress. He would therefore propose to lay the bill
for the present on the table; if it were found, at a future
period, before the expiration of the session, that there was
a prospect of overcoming the difficulties which now presented
themselves, and of acting upon it, the bill might be again taken
up. If no other gentleman wished to make any observations on the
amendment, he would move to lay the bill on the table.
"Mr. Bibb requested the senator from Delaware to withdraw
his motion, whilst he (Mr. B.) offered an amendment to the
amendment, having for its object to get rid of that interminable
series of duties of which gentlemen had spoken.
"Mr. Clayton withdrew his motion.
"Mr. Bibb proceeded to say, that his design was to obviate the
objection of the great increase that would arise from a system
of home valuation. He hoped that something satisfactory would
be done this session yet. He should vote for every respectable
proposition calculated to settle the difficulty. He hoped there
would be corresponding concessions on both sides; he wished much
for the harmony of the country. It was well known that he (Mr.
B.) was opposed to any tariff system other than one for revenue,
and such incidental protection as that might afford. His hope
was to strike out a middle course; otherwise, he would concur in
the motion that had been made by the senator from Delaware [Mr.
Clayton]. Mr. B. then submitted his amendment, to insert the
words 'before payment of,' &c.
"Mr. Clay was opposed to the amendment, and he hoped his worthy
colleague would withdraw it. If one amendment were offered and
debated, another, and another would follow; and thus, the
remaining time would be wasted. To fix any precise system would
be extremely difficult at present. He only wished the principle
to be adopted.
"Mr. Bibb acceded to the wish of the senator from Kentucky, and
withdrew his amendment accordingly.
"Mr. Tyler was opposed to the principle of this home valuation.
The duties would be taken into consideration in making the
valuations; and thus, after going down hill for nine and a half
years, we would as suddenly rise up again to prohibition. He
complained that there were not merchants enough on this floor
from the South; and, in this respect, the Northern States had
the advantage. But satisfy me, said Mr. T., that the views of
the senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] are not correct,
and I shall vote for the proposition.
"Mr. Moore said he would move an amendment which he hoped would
meet the views of the gentlemen on the other side; it was to
this effect:
"_Provided_, That no valuation be adopted that will operate
unequally in different ports of the United States.
"Mr. Calhoun also wished that the amendment would prevail,
though he felt it would be ineffectual to counteract the
inequality of the system. But he would raise no cavilling
objections; he wished to act in perfect good faith; and he only
wished to see what could be done.
"Mr. Moore said he had but two motives in offering the amendment
to the amendment of the senator. The first was, to get rid of
the constitutional objections to the amendment of the senator
from Kentucky; and the second was, to do justice to those he
had the honor to represent. The honorable gentleman said that
Mobile and New Orleans would not pay higher duties, because the
goods imported there would be of more value; and this was the
very reason, Mr. M. contended, why the duties would be higher.
Did not every one see that if the same article was valued in
New-York at one hundred dollars, and in Mobile at one hundred
and thirty-five dollars, the duty of twenty per cent. would be
higher at the latter place? He had nothing but the spirit of
compromise in view, and hoped gentlemen would meet him in the
same spirit. He would now propose, with the permission of the
senator from Maine, to vary his motion, and offer a substitute
in exact conformity with the language of the constitution.
This proposition being admitted by general consent, Mr. Moore
modified his amendment accordingly. (It was an affirmation of
the constitution, that all duties should be uniform, &c).
"Mr. Forsyth supported the amendment of the senator from
Alabama, and hoped it would meet the approbation of the Senate.
It would get rid of all difficulty about words. No one, he
presumed, wished to violate the constitution; and if the
measure of the senator from Kentucky was consistent with the
constitution, it would prevail; if not, it would not be adopted.
"Mr. Holmes moved an adjournment.
"Mr. Moore asked for the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn,
and they were accordingly ordered, when the question was taken
and decided in the affirmative--Yeas 22, nays 19, as follows:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Ewing,
Foot, Frelinghuysen, Holmes, Johnston, Kane, Knight, Naudain,
Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Silsbee, Smith, Tipton, Tomlinson,
Waggaman, Webster, Wilkins.--22.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Bibb, Black, Buckner, Calhoun, Clay, Dudley,
Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, King, Miller, Moore, Poindexter,
Sprague, Rives, Troup, Tyler, White, Wright.--19.
"The Senate then, at half-past four o'clock, adjourned.
"_Friday, February 22._
"Mr. Smith (of Md.) said, the motion to amend by the word
'uniform' was unnecessary. That was provided for by the
constitution. 'All duties must be uniform.' An addition to
the cost of goods of forty, fifty, or sixty per cent. would
be uniform, but would not prevent fraud, nor the certainty of
great inequality in the valuation in the several ports. The
value of goods at New Orleans particularly, and at almost every
other port, will be higher than at New-York. I have not said
that such mode was unconstitutional, nor have I said that it
was impracticable; few things are so. But I have said, and do
now say, that the mode is open to fraud, and more so than the
present. At present the merchant enters his goods, and swears
to the truth of his invoice. One package in every five or ten
is sent to the public warehouse, and there carefully examined
by two appraisers on oath. If they find fraud, or suspect
fraud, then all the goods belonging to such merchants are sent
to the appraisers; and if frauds be discovered, the goods are
forfeited. No American merchant has ever been convicted of such
fraud. Foreigners have even been severely punished by loss of
their property. The laws are good and sufficiently safe as
they now stand on our statutes. I wish no stronger; we know
the one, we are ignorant how the other will work. Such a mode
of valuation is unknown to any nation except Spain, where the
valuation is arbitrary; and the goods are valued agreeably to
the amount of the bribe given. This is perfectly understood and
practised. It is in the nature of such mode of valuation to
be arbitrary. No rule can be established that will make such
mode uniform throughout the Union, and some of the small ports
will value low to bring business to their towns. A scene of
connivance and injustice will take place that no law can prevent.
"The merchant will be put to great inconvenience by the mode
proposed. All his goods must be sent to the public warehouses,
and there opened piece by piece; by which process they will
sustain essential injury. The goods will be detained from the
owners for a week or a month, or still more, unless you have one
or two hundred appraisers in New-York, and proportionately in
other ports; thus increasing patronage; and with such a host,
can we expect either uniformity or equality in the valuation?
All will not be honest, and the Spanish mode will be adopted.
One set of appraisers, who value low, will have a priority. In
fact, if this mode should ever be adopted, it will cause great
discontent, and must soon be changed. As all understand the
cause to be to flatter the manufacturers with a plan which they
think will be beneficial to them, but which, we all know, can
never be realized, it is deception on its face, as is almost the
whole of the bill now under our consideration.
"Remember, Mr. President, that the senators from Kentucky and
South Carolina [Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun], have declared this
bill (if it should become a law), to be permanent, and that no
honorable man who shall vote for it can ever attempt a change;
yet, sir, the pressure against it will be such at the next
session that Congress will be compelled to revise it; and as the
storm may then have passed over Congress, a new Congress, with
better feelings, will be able to act with more deliberation, and
may pass a law that will be generally approved. Nearly all agree
that this bill is a bad bill. A similar opinion prevailed on the
passage of the tariff of 1828, and yet it passed, and caused
all our present danger and difficulties. All admit that the act
of 1828, as it stands on our statutes, is constitutional. But
the senator [Mr. Calhoun] has said that it is unconstitutional,
because of the motive under which it passed; and he said that
that motive was protection to the manufacturers. How, sir, I
ask, are we to know the motives of men? I thought then, and
think now, that the approaching election for President tended
greatly to the enactments of the acts of 1824 and 1828; many
of my friends thought so at the time. I have somewhere read
of the minister of a king or emperor in Asia, who was anxious
to be considered a man of truth, and always boasted of his
veracity. He hypocritically prayed to God that he might always
speak the truth. A genii appeared and told him that his prayer
had been heard, touched him with his spear, and said, hereafter
you will speak truth on all occasions. The next day he waited
on his majesty and said, Sire, I intended to have assassinated
you yesterday, but was prevented by the nod of the officer
behind you, who is to kill you to-morrow. The result I will not
mention. Now, Mr. President, if the same genii was to touch with
his spear each of the senators who voted for the act of 1828,
and an interrogator was appointed, he would ask, what induced
you to give that vote? Why sir, I acted on sound principles. I
believe it is the duty of every good government to promote the
manufactures of the nation; all historians eulogize the kings
who have done so, and censure those kings who have neglected
them. I refer you to the history of Alfred. It is known that
the staple of England was wool, which was sent to Flanders
to be exchanged for cloths. The civil wars, by the invasions
of that nation, kept them long dependent on the Flemings for
the cloths they wore. At length a good king governed; and he
invited Flemish manufacturers to England, and gave them great
privileges. They taught the youth of England, the manufacture
succeeded, and now England supplies all the world with woollen
cloth. The interrogator asked another the same question. His
answer might have been, that he thought the passing of the law
would secure the votes of the manufacturers in favor of his
friend who wanted to be the President. Another answer might
have been, a large duty was imposed on an article which my
constituents raised; and I voted for it, although I disliked
all the residue of the bill. Sir, the motives, no doubt, were
different that induced the voting for that bill, and were, as we
all know, not confined to the protective system. Many voted on
political grounds, as many will on this bill, and as they did on
the enforcing bill. We cannot declare a bill unconstitutional,
because of the motives that may govern the voters. It is idle
to assign such a cause for the part that is now acting in South
Carolina. I know, Mr. President, that no argument will have any
effect on the passage of this bill. The high contracting parties
have agreed. But I owed it to myself to make these remarks.
"Mr. Webster said, that he held the home valuation to be, to
any extent, impracticable; and that it was unprecedented, and
unknown in any legislation. Both the home and foreign valuation
ought to be excluded as far as possible, and specific duties
should be resorted to. This keeping out of view specific duties,
and turning us back to the principle of a valuation was, in
his view, the great vice of this bill. In England five out of
six, or nine out of ten articles, pay specific duties, and the
valuation is on the remnant. Among the articles which pay _ad
valorem_ duties in England are silk goods, which are imported
either from India, whence they are brought to one port only;
or from Europe, in which case there is a specific and an _ad
valorem_ duty; and the officer has the option to take either
the one or the other. He suggested that the Senate, before they
adopted the _ad valorem_ principle, should look to the effects
on the importation of the country.
"He took a view of the iron trade, to show that evil would
result to that branch from a substitution of the _ad valorem_
for the specific system of duties. He admitted himself to
be unable to comprehend the elements of a home valuation,
and mentioned cases where it would be impossible to find an
accurate standard of valuation of this character. The plan was
impracticable and illusory.
"Mr. Clayton said, I would go for this bill only for the sake
of concession. The senator from South Carolina can tell whether
it is likely to be received as such, and to attain the object
proposed; if not, I have a plain course to pursue; I am opposed
to the bill. Unless I can obtain for the manufacturers the
assurance that the principle of the bill will not be disturbed,
and that it will be received in the light of a concession, I
shall oppose it.
"Mr. Benton objected to the home valuation, as tending to a
violation of the constitution of the United States, and cited
the following clause: 'Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; but all duties,
imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States.' All uniformity of duties and imposts, he contended,
would be destroyed by this amendment. No human judgment could
fix the value of the same goods at the same rate, in all the
various ports of the United States. If the same individual
valued the goods in every port, and every cargo in every
port, he would commit innumerable errors and mistakes in the
valuation; and, according to the diversity of these errors and
mistakes, would be the diversity in the amount of duties and
imposts laid and collected in the different ports.
"Mr. B. objected to the home valuation, because it would be
injurious and almost fatal to the southern ports. He confined
his remarks to New Orleans. The standard of valuation would
be fifteen or twenty per cent. higher in New Orleans than in
New-York, and other northern ports. All importers will go to
the northeastern cities, to evade high duties at New Orleans;
and that great emporium of the West will be doomed to sink
into a mere exporting city, while all the money which it pays
for exports must be carried off and expended elsewhere for
imports. Without an import trade, no city can flourish, or even
furnish a good market for exports. It will be drained of its
effective cash, and deprived of its legitimate gains, and must
languish far in the rear of what it would be, if enriched with
the profits of an import trade. As an exporter, it will buy;
as an importer, it will sell. All buying, and no selling, must
impoverish cities as well as individuals. New Orleans is now
a great exporting city; she exports more domestic productions
than any city in the Union; her imports have been increasing,
for some years; and, with fair play, would soon become next to
New-York, and furnish the whole valley of the Mississippi with
its immense supplies of foreign goods; but, under the influence
of a home valuation, it must lose a greater part of the import
trade which it now possesses. In that loss, its wealth must
decline; its capacity to purchase produce for exportation must
decline; and as the western produce must go there, at all
events, every western farmer will suffer a decline in the value
of his own productions, in proportion to the decline of the
ability of New Orleans to purchase it. It was as a western
citizen that he pleaded the cause of New Orleans, and objected
to this measure of home valuation, which was to have the most
baneful effect upon her prosperity.
"Mr. B. further objected to the home valuation, on account of
the great additional expense it would create; the amount of
patronage it would confer; the rivalry it would beget between
importing cities; and the injury it would occasion to merchants,
from the detention and handling of their goods; and concluded
with saying, that the home valuation was the most obnoxious
feature ever introduced into the tariff acts; that it was
itself equivalent to a separate tariff of ten per cent.; that
it had always been resisted, and successfully resisted, by the
anti-tariff interest, in the highest and most palmy days of the
American system, and ought not now to be introduced when that
system is admitted to be nodding to its fall; when its death
is actually fixed to the 30th day of June, 1842, and when the
restoration of harmonious feelings is proclaimed to be the whole
object of this bill.
"Mr. B. said this was a strange principle to bring into a
bill to reduce duties. It was an increase, in a new form--an
indefinable form--and would be tax upon tax, as the whole
cost of getting the goods ready for a market valuation here,
would have to be included: original cost, freight, insurance,
commissions, duties here. It was new protection, in a new
form, and in an extraordinary form, and such as never could be
carried before. It had often been attempted, as as a part of the
American system, but never received countenance before.
"Mr. Calhoun rose and said:
"As the question is now about to be put on the amendment offered
by the senator from Kentucky, it became necessary for him to
determine whether he should vote for or against it. He must
be permitted again to express his regret that the senator had
thought proper to move it. His objection still remained strong
against it; but, as it seemed to be admitted, on all hands, that
the fate of the bill depended on the fate of the amendment,
feeling, as he did, a solicitude to see the question terminated,
he had made up his mind, not, however, without much hesitation,
not to interpose his vote against the adoption of the amendment;
but, in voting for it, he wished to be distinctly understood,
he did it upon two conditions: first, that no valuation would
be adopted that should come in conflict with the provision
in the constitution which declares that duties, excises, and
imposts shall be uniform; and, in the next place, that none
would be adopted which would make the duties themselves a part
of the element of a home valuation. He felt himself justified
in concluding that none such would be adopted; as it had been
declared by the supporters of the amendment, that no such
regulation was contemplated; and, in fact, he could not imagine
that any such could be contemplated, whatever interpretation
might be attempted hereafter to be given to the expression
of the home market. The first could scarcely be contemplated,
as it would be in violation of the constitution itself; nor
the latter, as it would, by necessary consequence, restore the
very duties, which it was the object of this bill to reduce,
and would involve the glaring absurdity of imposing duties on
duties, taxes on taxes. He wished the reporters for the public
press to notice particularly what he said, as he intended his
declaration to be part of the proceedings.
"Believing, then, for the reasons which he had stated, that it
was not contemplated that any regulation of the home valuation
should come in conflict with the provisions of the constitution
which he had cited, nor involve the absurdity of laying taxes
upon taxes, he had made up his mind to vote in favor of the
amendment.
"Mr. Smith said, any declaration of the views and motives,
under which any individual senator might now vote, could have
no influence, in 1842; they would be forgotten long before that
time had arrived. The law must rest upon the interpretation of
its words alone.
"Mr. Calhoun said he could not help that; he should endeavor to
do his duty.
"Mr. Clayton said there was certainly no ambiguity whatever
in the phraseology of the amendment. In advocating it, he had
desired to deceive no man; he sincerely hoped no one would
suffer himself to be deceived by it.
"Mr. Wilkins said, if it had been his intention to have voted
against the amendment, he should have remained silent; but,
after the explicit declaration of the honorable gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] of the reason of his vote, and
believing, himself, that the amendment would have a different
construction from that given it by the gentleman, he [Mr. W.]
would as expressly state, that he would vote on the question,
with the impression that it would not hereafter be expounded by
the declaration of any senator on this floor, but by the plain
meaning of the words in the text.
"The amendment of Mr. Clay, fixing the principle of home
valuation as a part of the bill, was then adopted, by the
following vote:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Black, Bibb, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay,
Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hill, Holmes, Johnson,
King, Knight, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss,
Rives, Robbins, Sprague, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wilkins.--26.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley,
Forsyth, Grundy, Kane, Robinson, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith,
Waggaman, Webster, White, Wright.--16."
And thus a new principle of protection, never before engrafted
on the American system, and to get at which the constitution had
to be violated in the article of the uniformity of duties, was
established! and established by the aid of those who declared all
protection to be unconstitutional, and just cause for the secession
of a State from the Union! and were then acting on that assumption.