Your very affectionate address produces emotions which I
know not how to express. I feel that my past endeavors in
the service of my country are far overpaid by its goodness;
and I fear much that my future ones may not fulfil your
kind anticipation. All that I can promise is, that they
will be invariably directed by an honest and an ardent
zeal; of this resource my heart assures me. For all
beyond, I rely on the wisdom and patriotism of those with
whom I am to co-operate, and a continuance of the blessings
of Heaven on our beloved country.
The Speaker and members being returned into the House:
Mr. GERRY, from the committee appointed, presented, according to order,
a bill for collecting duties on goods, wares, and merchandises imported
into the United States; and the same was received and read the first
time.
_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do procure one hundred copies of
the said bill to be printed for the use of the members of this House.
On motion,
_Ordered_, That the committee appointed on the 29th ultimo, to report an
estimate of the supplies requisite for the present year, and of the net
produce of the impost, as agreed to by the House, be authorized and
instructed to collect early and authentic statements of the particular
articles of foreign produce and manufactures annually imported into, and
of all the articles exported from, the several States, and the value of
such imports and exports; also, the number of vessels, both foreign and
domestic, entered and cleared during that time, specifying their
tonnage, and the nations to which they respectively belong; specifying,
also, the exact numbers of each particular description of vessels of
each nation, and the amount of tonnage of each particular vessel.
_Duties on Imports._
The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
Committee of the whole House on the bill for laying a duty on goods,
wares, and merchandises imported into the United States.
Mr. PAGE in the chair.
Mr. TUCKER.--As I am desirous of beginning with moderate duties, I deem
it proper, at this stage of the business, to offer my reasons in support
of this opinion, that if it be the opinion of the committee, we may go
uniformly through the list, and make the necessary reduction. I am
opposed to high duties, particularly for two reasons: First, because
they will tend to introduce and establish a system of smuggling; and,
Secondly, because they tend to the oppression of certain citizens and
States, in order to promote the benefit of other States and other
classes of citizens. I cannot say I have a peculiar aversion to a high
duty on distilled spirits; I may, therefore, be suspected of
inconsistency in moving to reduce it; but I do it on the principle of a
general reduction. If I do not succeed on the first article, I shall
despair of succeeding on the others.
It appears to me that if we lay high duties on the importation of goods,
a system of smuggling will be adopted before we can possibly make the
necessary provision to prevent it. I take it, sir, that proper
regulations respecting the collection is all our security against
illicit trade. From a variety of circumstances, it appears to me, we
shall not only be a long time in completing such a system, but, for want
of experience, many of the regulations will be of a dubious propriety.
Gentlemen will recollect we have an extensive sea-coast, accessible at a
thousand points, and upon all this coast there are but few custom-houses
where officers can be stationed to guard the collection of the duties;
therefore, we labor under considerably greater disadvantages than a
thicker settled country is liable to. I apprehend, if we consider the
present state of our population, we shall conclude it impracticable to
establish a sufficient number of custom-houses on those parts of the
coast most assailable, to render us perfectly secure in the collection
of our duties. If it were practicable, the expense would be a formidable
objection; it would require more revenue to support such a system than
all we shall derive from the impost. But we know in Great Britain where
the duties are high, no expense is spared in the collection, yet
smuggling is carried on to a very considerable amount; the risk run by
this class of people is very great, the penalties are very severe, and
the vigilance of the officers renders detection not very improbable. As
this is the case, under the administration of a very powerful
Government, I apprehend ours, which is only in its infancy, will be
unable to prevent it taking place, otherwise than by a system of
moderate duties. If we begin with laying them high, there will be an
immediate temptation to engage in a system of smuggling, a system of
which may soon be formed, so as to render our future efforts
ineffectual; it is better to avoid the temptation, than to punish the
evil. A man that is disposed to trade fairly, will be brought under the
necessity of falling into the same practice, or giving up his business;
for the higher the duty, the greater the advantage the smuggler has over
the fair trader, being compelled by necessity to engage in a contraband
trade, or to forego the means of a livelihood. Smuggling will be no
longer dishonorable, no longer difficult, and none will be found
opposing the practice; repeated efforts to corrupt will be successful
among even the officers of your customs; they at first may resist the
temptation, but when they find the practice general, their vigilance
will wink at a contraband trade, and smuggling will be considered as a
matter of course. They will consider the reward given them for being out
of the way as a benefit to which they are entitled. For these reasons, I
shall be against a system of high duties, and because I fear there is
danger of a system of smuggling being introduced before proper
arrangements are made to prevent it; or if we had time to make such
arrangements, they must inevitably be ineffectual.
I would observe further, that a high duty not only tends to the
encouragement of smuggling, but it likewise raises, in my mind, a
scruple respecting the allowance of a drawback, as I conceive every
drawback becomes an additional encouragement to smuggling. In many
instances, I fear it may be found, that the drawback will amount to more
than all the duties paid in the States which are entitled to it.
Considering the situation of the States of North Carolina and Rhode
Island, which are not in the Union, their contiguity to the other States
will increase the facility with which smuggling can be carried on; it
will be easy to import articles from Europe and the West Indies into
their ports, and send them by land, or even water to the adjacent
States. When these are smuggled into the United States, they may be
re-exported and entitled to receive a drawback, although the revenue was
not collected upon the importation. If we agree to moderate duties it
will be much easier to regulate our system on this head; if our revenue
is found not to be quite so productive as gentlemen calculate upon a
system of higher duties, which, by the by, appears to me to be very
unlikely, we shall be better able to judge what we can do after a trial,
than we can possibly at present; at any rate, it will be but a small
loss; whereas, by a large scale, we may throw the whole Union into
confusion, and there will be no remedy by which we can recover what we
have now in our power; for a reduction of duties, when they are once
laid, is productive of the most serious consequences. Having, therefore,
a strong impression upon my mind, that we hazard a great deal in
imposing high duties in the first instance, I should not have been
satisfied with having done my duty, if I had not stated my doubts and
difficulties to the committee; but having done this, I shall content
myself with their decision, be it what it may.
On motion, the further reading of the bill was postponed--adjourned.
SATURDAY, May 9.
JEREMIAH VAN RENSSELAER, from New York, appeared and took his seat.
The following communications were received from the Senate by Mr. Otis,
their Secretary:
Mr. SPEAKER: The Senate have disagreed to the report of a committee
appointed to determine what style or titles it will be proper to annex
to the office of President and Vice President of the United States, if
any other than those given in the constitution; and have appointed a
committee to consider and report under what title it will be proper for
the President of the United States in future to be addressed, and confer
thereon with such committee as this House may appoint for that purpose.
The Senate have also appointed a committee to view and report how the
rooms in the City Hall shall be appropriated, and to confer with any
committee this House may appoint for that purpose.
_Duties on Imports._
The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
Committee of the whole House on the bill for laying a duty on goods,
wares, and merchandises imported into the United States. Mr. PAGE in the
chair.
Mr. TUCKER.--The observations I made yesterday were intended to apply
generally against a system of high duties. As to the particular article
of spirits, I have no objection to a high duty being laid upon it,
provided it can be strictly collected; for I do not wish to give
encouragement to the consumption of that article, though, I fear, no
duty we can lay will tend much to discourage it. I thought that if it
was the general opinion of the House to lessen the duties, it would be a
saving of time to discuss it on a motion to reduce the first article. I
repeat the observation, that high duties are improper, because they are
impolitic, and likely to defeat the object of revenue: less will be
collected on them than on moderate ones. If it be considered as an
encouragement to manufactures to lay heavy duties on enumerated
articles, it is a tax on one part for the emolument of another. Five per
cent. upon all articles imported would raise a considerable revenue, and
be a sufficient encouragement to manufactures, especially if we add to
this five per cent. the expense of freight and other charges of
importation on foreign goods. The five per cent. in the bill is to be
collected on the value of the goods at the time and place of
importation; the value of goods within the United States is twenty-five
per cent. more than they cost in Europe; adding this therefore to the
other advantages, and it will be a considerable encouragement; but,
besides all this, there are many articles made here as cheap, and
cheaper than they can be imported. Gentlemen, who have given us this
information, know the fact to be so in their respective States; in them,
therefore, the operation of the measure would be just and politic, but
it does not apply with the same force as it respects South Carolina and
some other States. Although in Boston and Philadelphia they can
manufacture certain wares cheaper than they can import them, yet they
are not brought at the same price to Charleston: hence the operation is
unequal and a partial tax upon us. Another thing to be considered is,
even if these articles could be furnished us at home as cheap as we get
them from abroad, whether we should have equal advantages? If a cargo of
nails were to be sent to Carolina, I would be glad to know how we are to
purchase it? Would the makers of shoes be content to go there and retail
them? If they would, they might be brought there; but I apprehend, if
they have not established connections in that country, they could never
be disposed of. Can they expect the planters to come in a body, and take
off their goods upon their arrival? It is not even expected that they
could; it must be left to them to judge, whether they do not purchase
them in a better way, by taking them upon credit, and paying for them in
their crop. Gentlemen will not pretend to say that we do not know our
own interest, and therefore they will teach us. These reasons will not
go down with the people; they will take to themselves the right of
judging what is most conducive to their interests. Gentlemen cannot
argue from the fact, that we do not consume the articles made within
their States, as readily and willingly, as those imported from abroad,
merely because we do not wish to encourage them. Facts prove the direct
contrary: we have shown a disposition to encourage articles from their
States which can be made in our State in great abundance. I will mention
a few of them, although it may appear disgraceful for South Carolina to
take from any country what she can furnish herself. We have imported to
the city of Charleston vegetables for table use, which we can raise as
well as any part of the world; yet no complaint was made by the
agricultural interest of that State, that we imported foreign
productions to their prejudice; no duty was imposed to discourage the
use of them; all we considered was, whether they came cheaper when
brought from abroad than when raised at home, concluding the cheapest to
be the best.
On the same principles that are now urged, our citizens might have
contended that we should impose a duty on all articles which could be
produced at home. No imposition on the importation was laid in order to
encourage the productions of our country; the same principle ought to
have induced us to lay a duty on the importation of flour. We make but
little of that; our constituents consume rice in place of it. It might
have been said that a heavy duty should have been laid in order to
prevent the interference with our staple commodity. The planters should
have said, we will compel you to eat rice, and after being some time in
the habit you will find you will like it as well as we; indeed, this
argument might be extended to a measure calculated to oblige the other
States to use rice in their daily food. It might be said, that it was
necessary in order to give encouragement to the productions of the
Southern States, but I believe such arguments would have had no weight
if they had been used; yet they are similar to what have been brought
forward by gentlemen for the encouragement of domestic manufactures.
Mr. Speaker, if gentlemen are content with moderate duties, we are
willing to agree to them and give every reasonable encouragement in our
power, but we cannot consent to very great oppression. I once more wish
that gentlemen will consider great duties as imposing a heavier burthen
upon the Southern States, as they import more, the other less; and the
sum we pay towards the revenue must be in proportion to our importation.
I therefore move, in order to begin with the first article, that
distilled spirits be reduced six cents per gallon.
Mr. JACKSON seconded this motion, and would assign his reasons for it,
but they had been so fully stated by the honorable mover.
Mr. AMES.--I wish the committee may consider, with the attention the
subject demands, whether the duties are too high or not? It is hardly
possible, I own, to contemplate this subject as a practical question.
We shall find it necessary to consider attentively, before we proceed
any further, what the objects of our Government are; and, having
discovered them, we are to consider whether the proposed measure will
answer the purposes intended. I believe in every point of view that we
can possibly consider it, the subject of revenue will be thought to be
one of the primary objects to which the power of Government extends. It
has long been apprehended, that an ill administration of the new
constitution was more to be feared, as inimical to the liberties of the
people, than any hostility from the principles of the constitution. Of
all the operations of Government, those which concern taxation are the
most delicate as well as the most important. This observation applies to
all governments. Revenue is the soul of Government, and if such a soul
had not been breathed into our body politic it would have been a
lifeless carcass, fit only to be buried. I would wish this soul might be
actuated by rational principles, that, in establishing a revenue system,
we might go on a superior principle to that which has heretofore been
the governing principle in the United States; that we might consider
what was most adequate to the object. The nature of the revenue system
in this Government is to the last degree important; for want of the
soul, the late Government was found utterly incapable of invigorating
and protecting industry, or securing the Union; therefore these seem to
be the great objects which we are to accomplish. I consider the present
question as a direct application to the principles of the constitution;
it will either support or destroy them. If the revenue system should
fall with oppressive weight on the people, if it shall injure some in
their dearest interests, it will shake the foundation of the Government.
However the newspapers may stand your friends, and trumpet forth
panegyrics on the new constitution, if your administration does not give
satisfaction, you will find all ineffectual that they can do, whilst the
people are against you. This being admitted, the Government will not
push their regulations too far; they will consider the weaknesses and
prejudices of the individual members of the Union. When they lay a tax,
they will consider how far it is agreeable to them, and how far the
measure is wise in itself. If it is said the article to be taxed is a
luxury, and the Government is zealous to correct the vice, they will be
careful they do not do it in too severe a manner; the principle would be
capable of great expansion: all the enjoyments of social life are
luxuries, and, as objects of revenue, we ought to set a price on the
enjoyment, without suppressing their use altogether. Neither ought we to
consider what the article in this point of view is able to pay, so much
as what we may reasonably expect to collect from it.
Mr. MADISON.--The right understanding of this subject is of great
importance. The discussion has been drawn out to a very considerable
length on former occasions. The chain of ideas on which the subject is
suspended, is not very long, nor consists of many links. The present
constitution was framed to supply the defects of the one that has
preceded it. The great and material defects of it are well known to have
arisen from its inability to provide for the demands of justice and
security of the Union. To supply those defects, we are bound to fulfil
the public engagements; expectation is anxiously waiting the result of
our deliberations; it cannot be satisfied without a sufficient revenue
to accomplish its purposes. We cannot obtain the money any other way but
by taxation. Among the various objects of this nature, an impost on
merchandise imported is preferable to all others, and among the long
list of articles included in the bill, there is not one more proper for
the purpose than the article under consideration. The public sentiment
has strongly pointed it out as an object of revenue. I conceive,
therefore, that it will be our duty to draw from this source all the
money that it is capable of yielding. I am sure that it will not exceed
our wants, nor extend to the injury of our commerce. How far the powers
of Government are capable of going on this occasion, is matter of
opinion; we have had no direct experiment of what can be done under the
energy and popularity of the new system; we must recur to other sources
for information, and then, unless the circumstances are alike, the
comparison may not be true. We have been referred to the experience of
other nations; if that is to guide us on this subject, I am sure we
shall find precedents for going much farther than is now proposed. If I
do not mistake the calculations that I have seen of duties on
importation, they amount to more on an average than fifteen per cent.;
the duty on ardent spirits in all nations exceeds what is in
contemplation to be laid in the United States. I am sensible that the
means which are used by those nations to insure the collection, would be
odious and improper in this country; but I believe the means which this
country is capable of using, without exciting complaint or incurring too
much expense, would be as adequate to secure a duty of fifteen per cent.
as the powers of any other nation could be to obtain ninety or one
hundred per cent. I pay great respect to the opinions of mercantile
gentlemen, and am willing to concede much to them, so far as their
opinions are regulated by experience; but if I am to be guided by this
information, it will not lead me to agree to the reduction of the duties
in the manner contended for. It is said, that if we reduce at all, we
must go through the whole. Now I doubt whether the duty on the article
of rum exceeds that proportion which pervades the long list before us.
It does not amount to more than thirty per cent., while some other
articles stand at forty; some articles again that are not enumerated,
but which fall within the general mass at five per cent., are more
likely to be introduced clandestinely than this article, if it stood at
fifty per cent. I am sure, if we reduce the whole system in the manner
now proposed, all the duty we shall be able to collect will be very
incompetent to what the public necessities demand. We must turn our
eyes, then, to some other source that will fill up the deficiency. There
are but two objects to which in this dilemma we can have
recourse--direct taxation and excises. Direct taxation is not
contemplated by any gentleman on this floor, nor are our constituents
prepared for such a system of revenue; they expect it will not be
applied to, until it is found that sufficient funds cannot be obtained
in any other way. Excises would give particular disgust in some States,
therefore gentlemen will not make up the deficiency from that quarter. I
think, upon the whole, it is better to try what will be produced by a
plan which is favored by the public sentiment. This will give a support
to our laws equal to the greatest energy of a strong execution. The
citizens of America know that their individual interest is connected
with the public. We shall then have the strong motive of interest acting
in favor of the Government in a peculiar manner. But I am not inclined
to trust too much to this security. I would take in the aid of the best
regulations in our power to provide; these acting in concert, would give
a moral certainty to the faithful collection of the revenue. But if
gentlemen, notwithstanding, will persist in contending against such a
system, and cannot offer us a substitute, we must fail of the primary
object for which the Government was created. If upon experience we find
that the duties cannot be safely collected, it may be proper to reduce
them; but if we set them too low in the first instance, and they do not
yield a sufficiency to answer the just demands of the public creditors
and the expenses of Government, the public reputation must suffer.
Mr. BLAND.--I join with the gentlemen who are disposed to lower the
duties. Although I feel the necessity we are under of raising revenue as
much as any other gentleman possibly can, yet I think we ought to
deliberate fully upon the means before we adopt them. It is
demonstrable, nay it is self-evident, that laying high duties, in the
first instance, will beget smuggling, and I fear our regulations,
respecting the collection, will prove the impracticability of defeating
the practice. But when we come to consider the subject in another point
of view, I trust such a system will be found unnecessary. The enumerated
articles in this bill are very numerous; they are taxed from fifty per
cent. downwards; the general mass pays five per cent. The calculations
made by the late Congress, who no doubt maturely considered the subject,
found a list of eight articles only, and those at one-fourth or
one-fifth of the rate now proposed, would produce a revenue of nine
hundred and fifteen thousand six hundred and fifty-six dollars annually.
When we add to this calculation a circumstance of notoriety, the
increase of our importation, we shall find that we levy, or mean to
levy, greater sums than the public necessities require. There will not
be found specie enough within the United States to pay the duties: four
times the rate of what the former Congress recommended, will produce
three millions six hundred thousand dollars. The enumeration is four
times as great also; hence we may infer, that the amount will reach
thirteen or fourteen millions. At least we shall be convinced that we
are upon too high a scale. But where is the necessity of raising the
impost to this degree? There are other means of revenue, and such as
will not give disgust. We have already proposed a duty on tonnage; there
is the post-office, and some other things which the ingenuity of
Government can devise and is entitled to, for the purpose of revenue; if
it is therefore unnecessary to levy such oppressive taxes, what other
pretext can be set up for adopting the system? Independent of every
other consideration, this ought to induce us to lower them. But there
are other and weighty considerations; but as they have been well urged
by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. AMES,) I shall not touch upon
them. It is said, that it is merely matter of opinion whether they are
too high or not; if so, let us be careful not to venture too far on such
ground. It will be much better to reduce it in the manner proposed by
the gentleman from South Carolina, and increase it hereafter, than
strain the measure too high at present.
Mr. SHERMAN.--After this subject had been debated in a Committee of the
Whole, and then in the House upon the report, and every argument that
could be thought of had been urged, both on the general and particular
amount of the duties proposed, and the probable effects of a deduction,
I did not expect to have heard the same debate take place again.
Gentlemen have a large field to display their abilities in, but I do not
think it contains any new matter that will induce a single gentleman to
alter his opinion on the subject. The great object is to raise a sum of
money adequate to supply our wants; and let us dispute as we will about
the mode, the fact is it must be raised. The people have sent their
representatives here for this purpose; it is for their benefit that we
raise the money, and not for any peculiar advantage to ourselves; the
objects are to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare of
the community. The first of these objects I take to be, that we pay our
debts. There are very many meritorious characters who furnished us with
essentials in the hour of imminent danger, who, from the imbecility of
our former Government, have not been able to get even the interest of
what they loaned us. I believe it is the first wish of the people
throughout the United States to do justice to the public creditors, and
to do it in such a manner, that each may contribute an equal part
according to his abilities. We have very considerable arrearages due on
this account, upon not only the domestic but foreign debt; there are
several instalments not yet discharged, and considerable of the interest
not yet paid. No statement can be made of the expenses of Government, so
as to ascertain what quantity of revenue will be demanded on that head,
but saying that they will be much the same under this Government as the
former, and we shall have occasion for a very considerable sum to defray
the expenses. I believe we are not able to make a very accurate
calculation of what the system, proposed in the bill, will yield. The
late Congress contemplated a million of dollars from this source, which,
in aid of the requisition, they supposed sufficient for the purpose of
paying the instalments of the national debt and interest; but that sum
alone will now be found very short of what is wanted without the aid of
direct taxes. It is very material that we lay the burthen as equal as
possible, in whatever mode we pursue to obtain revenue: a great deal of
care has been taken in distributing the proportion with equity; I
apprehend, therefore, that we shall not be able to make it much more
equitable by any alteration than it is at present. I think, also, that
the people will pay more freely a duty of this nature than they will in
direct taxes. If gentlemen prevail in getting the duties lowered to what
the late Congress proposed, they will find themselves obliged to have
recourse to direct taxation for a million and a half, or two millions of
dollars. It then only remains for us to consider, whether it will be
more agreeable to the people to reduce the impost in this manner, and
raise the deficiency by direct taxes. If these duties are to be
considered as a tax on the trading part of the community alone, they are
improper; but this I believe is not the case; the consumer pays them
eventually, and they pay no more than they choose, because they have it
in their power to determine the quantity of taxable articles they will
use. A tax left to be paid at discretion must be more agreeable than any
other. The merchant considers that part of his capital applied to the
payment of the duties the same as if employed in trade, and gets the
same profit upon it as on the original cost of the commodity.
Mr. WHITE.--When this system first came before the committee, I was
opposed to enter into an enumeration, because I supposed much time would
be taken up in the discussion, which would be an absolute loss of
revenue, perhaps to a greater amount than the difference between the
duties of such a system and the one proposed by the late Congress; but
as it was thought proper by the committee to proceed in the way that we
have done, it would be presumption in me to say, that the duty on every
article has been perfectly digested and properly laid, but I believe
every article stands as well as can be upon the information we are in
possession of. I believe very few, if any, of the articles can be
disapproved of.
Mr. AMES.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania set out with informing us
that nothing new had or could be offered on the subject, yet you found,
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman had a good deal to say, which I thought new
and much to the purpose. As to applying the observation to myself, in
common with the advocates for low duties, I shall decline it, only
noting that the long discussion which the subject has had, would
restrain me from rising on this occasion, more than any remarks of the
nature made by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Connecticut; but I am
actuated by higher motives than a regard to my own feelings, otherwise I
should come reluctantly forward to press arguments which the committee
may be fatigued with listening to. But I feel such strong impressions on
my mind, with regard to the effects our impost law is likely to produce,
that I cannot pass it over with a silent vote. I must admonish
gentlemen, that the events which may result from our present measures
are of the most alarming nature. When I was up before, I endeavored to
show the degree of power the Government could exercise without being
charged with an ill administration. I shall now proceed briefly to
consider the arguments used in reply to what has been advanced by the
advocates for moderate duties. I believe it is a good rule to judge of
the strength of a cause by the arguments used to defend it; and here I
must take the liberty of saying, that the gentlemen on the other side of
the question have adduced not one to support their opinion that has
carried conviction to my mind. I consider that, by a decision of this
question, the good which the new Government is expected to produce may
be rendered problematical. Though I am fully impressed with the
necessity there is for revenue to supply the public expenses, yet I
cannot believe we are likely to obtain more by heavy duties than by
temperate ones, and it is to this point that my arguments tend. I do not
believe that in either case we shall procure fully sufficient to supply
the public demands. If we have to procure 8,000,000 dollars, I venture
to say, not near the half could be raised by an impost system; but
admitting that it could by a high scale of duties for the first year, it
could not be done in the subsequent ones. Now I regard this as a
permanent system of revenue, rather than a productive one; if it is laid
high, you will find your collection annually diminish. Now, will any
Government take such measures in gathering in its harvest, as to ruin
the soil? Will they rack-rent their tenants in such a manner as to
deprive them of the means of improving the estate? Such can never be the
policy of this enlightened country. We know, from the fundamental
principles of republics, that public opinion gives the tone to every
action of the Government--the laws ought to correspond with the habits
and manners, nay, I may almost add, wishes of the people. Well, Mr.
Chairman, we are told a tax upon rum is popular; I will agree with the
gentlemen; but still a high duty will induce people to run it, and
though the consumer may pay the tax without complaining, yet it will go
into the pockets of individuals who defraud your revenue. Gentlemen have
complained that we do not offer a substitute for what we find fault
with. I will endeavor to explain a system I would place in the room of
this. I would reduce the duties generally so low as to hold out no
encouragement to smuggling; in this case, it is more than probable, the
amount of the impost, at the end of one year, would exceed the
collection under the present rate. By giving this proof of moderation
and wisdom, we should obtain the public favor and confidence; the
Government would be acquiring strength, its movements would be more
certain, and we could in every subsequent year extend the system, and
make the whole productive; then it would be in the power of Government,
by aids, to improve our agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. Our
imports are now very great; by the increase of our commerce, we shall
probably find our revenue produce twice as much seven years hence as it
can be expected to do at present.
Mr. MADISON.--Let us compare the probable amount of the revenue proposed
to be raised by this system, with what is raised in Great Britain, and
we shall be apt to infer that they are not so oppressive as gentlemen
seem to insinuate. Taking the highest estimate that I have heard
mentioned, and it will not produce three millions of dollars. The
population of the United States exceeds three millions of souls, hence
the tax does not amount to one dollar per head. Great Britain, on the
highest estimation, does not contain eight millions of inhabitants, and
has an annual revenue to provide of thirteen millions sterling. It is
true, she has recourse to other means besides an impost for the purpose
of obtaining such a revenue; but those other means are certainly more
objectionable in that country, and would be much more so here. Each
individual of that kingdom pays eight times as much as is required by
the United States; now, where is the propriety of making a comparison
between them?
Mr. BALDWIN asked if the Government of the United States of America was
four or five times worse to be administered than the Governments in
Europe? Whether the public opinion was four or five times more
unfavorable to such an administration? If these questions are answered
in the affirmative, then the inferences which gentlemen have drawn, of
the impracticability of collecting the duties laid in the bill, are
just. But this is not allowing the General Government the common chance
of executing its laws. If it were the worst Government on earth, it
might be allowed a chance of doing one quarter of what others perform.
If we find by experience, that we are too weak to execute a system which
is so much easier than other nations have adopted, it may be proper to
alter it. We shall be better able to judge how far we are likely to
succeed, when the bill for the collection of the revenue is brought
forward. Such a bill is now in the hands of a committee, and it is to
be hoped, when they report it, it will be found sufficient to insure the
collection; till then, it will be best to continue the rate as it
stands.
Mr. BOUDINOT.--When we consider the arguments of gentlemen on both sides
of this question, we shall find they do not differ so much as, on a
superficial view, gentlemen may be led to imagine. It is agreed, that a
revenue must be obtained adequate to our wants; but some gentlemen think
we shall not receive a greater sum, because we lay a high duty; in this
opinion I am with them. I think the present is a favorable time to lay
an impost duty, and expect very considerable aid from the public spirit;
but I am in favor of a low duty, because I would do nothing to check
that spirit. If we lay high duties, and a man finds smuggling the most
profitable business he can follow, we shall have to contend with private
interest. If we lay a light duty of thirty or forty per cent., the
temptation will be too strong for resistance, and the sum collected may
not amount to ten per cent. on the whole importation; whereas, if we lay
twenty or fifteen per cent. the whole may probably be collected, and the
treasury be better filled, because it does not hold out so strong an
inducement to evade the payment of the duties.
Another objection has been stated, which is of great weight: a system of
high duties will necessarily engage us in a system of drawbacks. If we
are forced into this measure, it will be a great injury to the revenue.
We ought also to consider the inconvenience to which high duties will
subject our merchants. It is a common case in America, that our
mercantile capitals are limited. Gentlemen engaged in commerce can ill
spare so large a proportion in the payment of duties.
It has been mentioned by gentlemen, that Great Britain collects four
shillings sterling per gallon on rum; yet she is exposed to great
difficulties in obtaining it. But I ask gentlemen, whether Great Britain
ever laid such a high duty in the first instance, as we are about to
impose? I believe they did not: they began, I apprehend, with moderate
duties, and increased them as circumstances authorized, when the people
became habituated to the imposition. This is the very principle I wish
to adopt, and show the world that our conduct is founded in wisdom,
propriety, and experience. If we shall discover our mistake in laying
high duties, and are driven by necessity to reduce them, such measures
will operate to the injury of the fair trader; whereas, if we increase
them by degrees, it will be rather favorable to their interest than
otherwise; at all events, it will injure none.
If a sense of the committee could be obtained on a general reduction of
ten or fifteen per cent. on the rate the articles now stand at, I should
be glad to vote in favor of such a motion; but I could not approve of
reducing the article of rum alone, because I do not think it charged out
of proportion with the others.
Mr. JACKSON differed from his colleague, (Mr. BALDWIN.) He thought,
although the British laid four shillings on rum, they did not collect
it; and that their custom-house establishments were so expensive, as to
leave a mere trifle for the net produce of the impost duty. If America
employed such a host of revenue officers as to secure the payment of
high duties, there would be very little left, after compensating their
services, to supply the federal treasury.
Mr. WADSWORTH desired gentlemen to consider, that the citizens of the
United States owned vessels as well calculated for smuggling, as any
that were employed between the Netherlands and England; therefore, they
had little more security against smuggling than Great Britain.
Mr. JACKSON.--It was well observed by the honorable gentleman from
Connecticut, (Mr. WADSWORTH,) that America has vessels well adapted for
smuggling: I can declare it, from my own knowledge, to be the fact. It
is not, Mr. Chairman, the large vessels coming off long voyages that we
are to apprehend danger from; it is our coasters, small vessels
constantly coming in and going out; these can run goods from foreign
ports adjacent to the United States; they are best acquainted with the
unfrequented parts, where they can deposit their cargoes with safety,
and will make use of these advantages to defraud your revenue.
With regard to the equity of the impost system, I conceive direct
taxation will be more equitable. We, in the Southern States, shall then
pay in proportion to our numbers; but under this law we shall contribute
much more.
Gentlemen talk of improving the morals of the people by taxation. For my
part, I conceive revenue has nothing to do with the morals of the
people; therefore, such considerations have no weight on my mind. All
that I contemplate is, drawing as much money as we can with equity; and
here I believe more can be obtained by a less impost than by a greater;
therefore, I am in favor of reducing the duties. It will likewise be
more honorable to the Government to begin gradually and win the
affections of the people, rather than disgust them by oppressive
measures; for if we lose their confidence, we lose our power and
authority.
Mr. GERRY.--It appears to me, that gentlemen place their arguments on
the name of high duties, rather than on principle; for if they were
certain that the energy of Government would effect all they aspire at,
then it would follow, that we have nothing more to do than to name the
sum we want. But if these ideas are not well supported, the
superstructure they have raised upon them must fall to the ground. The
energy of your Government depends upon the approbation of the people. No
doubt the citizens of the United States will support the Government
they have adopted, so long as they approve the measures it pursues, but
no longer. Gentlemen trust much, on this occasion, to the co-operation
which they expect from their constituents; but I would wish them to
examine this argument. These duties are to be collected from the several
States into which certain goods are imported. If the people of
Massachusetts shall conceive any particular duty peculiarly oppressive
on them, they will seek to evade it. This opens a door for smuggling all
the other articles.
I conceive gentlemen to be mistaken with respect to the effects which
high duties will produce on the mercantile interest. I think there
cannot be a doubt but they will be obliged to smuggle; if they mean to
continue their business, their capital will be insufficient for the
purposes of commerce and the payment of high duties. Gentlemen will not
draw knowledge from the experience of Great Britain; therefore, it is
unnecessary to adduce her example. But let us see what we are taught by
the practice of our own States. Massachusetts drew a very considerable
revenue from an impost; she lately tried to increase it by doubling the
duties; but, instead of doing so, they found the revenue lessened, and
they were obliged to alter what they had so injudiciously attempted. I
am willing to suppose with gentlemen, that the Government is invested by
the constitution with sufficient energy to carry any regulation of this
kind into effect; but is this the time to try the energy of your
Government, when your commerce is struggling with every kind of
difficulty and embarrassment? Formerly our merchants were able to extend
their operations by the means of an established credit in Britain; but
unfortunately this is no longer the case. How, then, is it possible they
can continue their trade, when you lop off another part of their
capital? Besides, as was said by the worthy gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
BLAND), there is not money enough in the United States to pay the
duties. I believe it is well known, that our commerce is greatly
distressed by the universal want of specie; there has not been less in
circulation for many years than there is at this time. Gentlemen who
have property cannot convert it into money; then how will the merchant
be able to raise cash for the payment of duties equal to thirty or forty
per cent. on his capital? These are serious and alarming circumstances,
and such as prove to my mind that the commerce was never less able to
bear a high impost than at present, nor ever stood in greater need of
the fostering hand of Government for its support. If gentlemen are
convinced of the truth of these observations, and they are so notorious
that they cannot have escaped the knowledge of any one, they will see
the necessity of turning their attention to the encouragement of
navigation and trade, rather than think of drawing an oppressive revenue
from them.
Mr. MADISON submitted, whether the burthen would not operate more on the
Southern States than the Northern. The duties could be collected in the
Middle States--this was proved by the experience of some years; for they
had collected in those States, in many instances, duties nearly equal to
what were proposed. In the Eastern States, it was the interest of the
manufacturers to see the duties were well collected; they had been
imposed to favor their interests. The distillers would exert themselves
in aiding the Government to collect the duty on foreign rum, because it
particularly interfered with country rum; from hence he concluded that
the impost could be collected with tolerable certainty even in that
country most convenient for carrying on a clandestine trade.
Mr. AMES contended that it would be the particular interest of one set
of men to evade the payment of the duties. As mankind was governed by
interest, it required all the attention of the Government to prevent a
breach of the law; because, when the banks and bulwarks of defence were
once broken down, the full tide of clandestine commerce would overflow
the country. Gentlemen recollected the circumstances which attended the
depreciation of the late continental money. Some persons, from motives
of interest or necessity, first made a distinction between it and
specie, and although every exertion was made by the patriotic among our
citizens to prevent the alarming evil, yet every thing was insufficient;
they were at length obliged to acquiesce in measures they could not
prevent. This was the case on that occasion, and will be the case
whenever our laws or regulations run counter to private interest.
Mr. SHERMAN.--The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. AMES) has said, that
because we cannot raise the whole sum necessary to supply our wants, we
should be content to stop half way. I know we shall not be able to
obtain money enough by the impost to pay off our whole debt, but then I
wish to raise as much as possible in this way. I believe the people are
able to pay as much as the necessities of the Government require; if
they are not, we shall never restore the public credit, which is one of
the chief ends of our appointment. I believe they are not only able but
willing to contribute sufficient for this purpose. The resources of this
country are very great, if they are properly called into action; and
although they may not be so great as those of Britain, yet it should be
remembered, that nation has occasion for twelve times as much revenue as
the United States.
Gentlemen have had recourse to popular opinion in support of their
arguments. Popular opinion is founded in justice, and the only way to
know if the popular opinion is in favor of a measure, is to examine
whether the measure is just and right in itself. I think whatever is
proper and right, the people will judge of and comply with. The people
wish that the Government may derive respect from the justice of its
measures; they have given it their support on this account. I believe
the popular opinion is in favor of raising a revenue to pay our debts,
and if we do right, they will not neglect their duty; therefore, the
arguments that are urged in favor of a low duty will prove that the
people are contented with what the bill proposes. The people at this
time pay a higher duty on imported rum than what is proposed in this
system, even in Massachusetts; it is true, it is partly laid by way of
excise, but I can see no reason against doing it in this way as well as
the other.
Mr. LAWRENCE.--It has been intimated by gentlemen in favor of high
duties, that it will limit the consumption of foreign articles; if this
be the case, the quantity imported will be lessened; if it is our object
to raise revenue, it is certainly unwise to destroy the object from
which the revenue is to be collected. It is supposed the amount of the
duties will be insufficient to answer the public wants; and yet the
public creditors have great expectations from this resource. Let us
therefore be careful how we destroy it; if revenue is our primary
object, and the other considerations but secondary, we should do nothing
to operate against that principle.
Mr. MADISON.--It does not follow, because it will in some degree limit
the consumption, that we ought not to lay a high duty on rum; if it has
that effect, it will be an ample compensation for the loss of revenue;
but probably, as we extinguish our debt, we shall have the less occasion
for the revenue itself.
Mr. GOODHUE.--The object of the committee is to raise revenue, I take
it. This would, perhaps, be best done by reducing the duty, but I am not
inclined to reduce it so low as some gentlemen seem to desire; it may be
reduced a few cents, and therefore I move to insert ten instead of
twelve.
The question was taken for striking out the twelve cents, as it stood in
the bill, on all spirits of Jamaica proof, imported from the dominions
of nations in alliance with the United States, in order to leave it
blank, to be filled up hereafter.
The House divided on the question; 19 in favor of the motion, and 26
against it.
So it passed in the negative.
Adjourned.
MONDAY, May 11.
_On Titles._
The House took into consideration the message from the Senate,
communicated on Saturday last, respecting the disagreement of the Senate
to the report of a joint committee, on the subject of annexing titles to
the offices of President and Vice President.
Mr. PARKER moved a resolution to the following effect:
_Resolved_, That this House having, on Tuesday last,
adopted the report of their committee appointed to confer
with a committee of the Senate, stating, "That it is not
proper to annex any style or title to the respective
styles or titles of office expressed in the constitution;"
and having, in their address to the President of the United
States on Friday last, proceeded to act pursuant thereto,
deem it improper to accede to the proposition made by the
Senate, as communicated by their order of the 9th instant,
for appointing a committee to confer with a committee of
this House, in considering and reporting under what title
it will be proper for the President of the United States in
future to be addressed.
Mr. PAGE seconded the motion, observing, that in his opinion, the House
had no right to interfere in the business: the constitution expressly
prescribed the power of Congress as to bestowing titles. He did not
conceive the real honor or dignity of either of those situations to
consist in high sounding titles. The House had, on a former occasion,
expressed their disapprobation of any title being annexed to their own
members, and very justly too. After having so fully and explicitly
declared their sentiments against such measures, he thought it behooved
them to be explicit with the Senate. Indeed, he felt himself a good deal
hurt, that gentlemen on this floor, after having refused their
permission to the Clerk to enter any more than their plain names on the
journal, should be standing up and addressing one another by the title
of "the honorable gentlemen." He wished the practice could be got over,
because it added neither to the honor nor dignity of the House.
Mr. LEE approved of the appointment of a committee to confer with a
committee of the Senate, as to the mode due to the occasion; but he was
against adding any title.
Mr. TUCKER.--When this business was first brought before the House, I
objected to the appointment of a committee to confer with a committee of
the Senate, because I thought it a subject which this House had no right
to take into consideration. I then stood single and unsupported in my
opinion, but have had the pleasure to find since, that some gentlemen on
this floor agree that I was right. If I was then right, I shall, from
stronger reasoning, be right now in opposing the appointment of another
committee on the same subject. The joint committee reported that no
titles ought to be given; we agreed to the report, and I was in hopes we
should have heard no more of the matter. The Senate rejected the report,
and have now sent us a resolution, expressive of a determination to give
a title, to which they desire our concurrence. I am still of the opinion
that we were wrong in appointing the first committee, and think that we
shall be guilty of greater impropriety if we now appoint another. What,
sir, is the intention of this business? Will it not alarm our
fellow-citizens? Will it not give them just cause of alarm? Will they
not say, that they have been deceived by the convention that framed the
constitution? That it has been contrived with a view to lead them on by
degrees to that kind of government which they have thrown off with
abhorrence? Shall we not justify the fears of those who were opposed to
the constitution, because they considered it as insidious and hostile to
the liberties of the people? One of its warmest advocates, one of the
framers of it, (Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania,) has recommended it by
calling it a pure democracy. Does this look like a democracy, when one
of the first acts of the two branches of the Legislature is to confer
titles? Surely not. To give dignity to our government, we must give a
lofty title to our chief magistrate. Does the dignity of a nation
consist in the distance between the first magistrate and his citizens?
Does it consist in the exaltation of one man, and the humiliation of the
rest? If so, the most despotic government is the most dignified; and to
make our dignity complete, we must give a high title, an embroidered
robe, a princely equipage, and, finally, a crown and hereditary
succession. Let us, sir, establish tranquillity and good order at home,
and wealth, strength, and national dignity will be the infallible
result. The aggregate of dignity will be the same whether it be divided
among all, or centred in one. And whom, sir, do we mean to gratify? Is
it our present President? Certainly, if we expect to please him, we
shall be greatly disappointed. He has a real dignity of character, and
is above such little vanities. We shall give him infinite pain; we shall
do him an essential injury. We shall place him in a most delicate and
disagreeable situation; we shall reduce him to the necessity of evincing
to the world his disapprobation of our measures, or of risking some
diminution of that high reputation for disinterested patriotism which he
has so justly acquired. It is not for his gratification; for whose,
then, are we to do this? Where is the man among us who has the
presumption and vanity to expect it? Who is it that shall say--for my
aggrandizement three millions of people have entered into a calamitous
war; they have persevered in it for eight long years; they have
sacrificed their property, they have spilt their blood, they have
rendered thousands of families wretched by the loss of their only
protectors and means of support? This spirit of imitation, sir, this
spirit of mimicry and apery will be the ruin of our country. Instead of
giving us dignity in the eye of foreigners, it will expose us to be
laughed at as apes. They gave us credit for our exertions in effecting
the revolution, but they will say that we want independence of spirit to
render it a blessing to us.
Mr. TRUMBULL moved for the appointment of a Committee of Conference, to
consider on the difference which appeared in the votes of the two Houses
upon the report of the joint committee.
Mr. BURKE hoped the House would express their decided disapprobation of
bestowing titles in any shape whatever; it would be an indignity in the
House to countenance any measures of this nature. Perhaps some gentlemen
might think the subject was a matter of indifference; but it did not
appear to him in that light. The introduction of two words which he
could mention into the titles of these officers, would alter the
constitution itself; but he would forbear to say any thing further, as
he had a well-grounded expectation that the House would take no further
notice of the business.
Mr. GOODHUE thought the conference unnecessary, because the House had
not only adopted the report of their committee, but proceeded to act in
pursuance thereof.
Mr. SENEY joined the last gentleman in sentiment, and thought it an
unnecessary waste of time to give the subject any longer discussion.
Mr. MADISON.--I may be well disposed to concur in opinion with gentlemen
that we ought not to recede from our former vote on this subject, yet at
the same time I may wish to proceed with due respect to the Senate, and
give dignity and weight to our own opinion, so far as it contradicts
theirs, by the deliberate and decent manner in which we decide. For my
part, Mr. Speaker, I do not conceive titles to be so pregnant with
danger as some gentlemen apprehend. I believe a President of the United
States, clothed with all the powers given in the constitution, would not
be a dangerous person to the liberties of America, if you were to load
him with all the titles of Europe or Asia. We have seen superb and
august titles given, without conferring power and influence, or without
even obtaining respect. One of the most impotent sovereigns in Europe
has assumed a title as high as human invention can devise; for example,
what words can imply a greater magnitude of power and strength than that
of High Mightiness? This title seems to border almost upon impiety; it
is assuming the pre-eminence and omnipotence of the Deity; yet this
title, and many others cast in the same mould, have obtained a long time
in Europe, but have they conferred power? Does experience sanction such
an opinion? Look at the republic I have alluded to, and say if their
present state warrants the idea.
I am not afraid of titles, because I fear the danger of any power they
could confer, but I am against them because they are not very
reconcilable with the nature of our Government or the genius of the
people. Even if they were proper in themselves, they are not so at this
juncture of time. But my strongest objection is founded in principle;
instead of increasing, they diminish the true dignity and importance of
a republic, and would in particular, on this occasion, diminish the true
dignity of the first magistrate himself. If we give titles, we must
either borrow or invent them. If we have recourse to the fertile fields
of luxuriant fancy, and deck out an airy being of our own creation, it
is a great chance but its fantastic properties would render the empty
phantom ridiculous and absurd. If we borrow, the servile imitation will
be odious, not to say ridiculous also; we must copy from the pompous
sovereigns of the East, or follow the inferior potentates of Europe; in
either case, the splendid tinsel or gorgeous robe would disgrace the
manly shoulders of our chief. The more truly honorable shall we be, by
showing a total neglect and disregard to things of this nature; the more
simple, the more republican we are in our manners, the more rational
dignity we shall acquire; therefore, I am better pleased with the report
adopted by the House, than I should have been with any other whatsoever.
The Senate, no doubt, entertain different sentiments on this subject. I
would wish, therefore, to treat their opinion with respect and
attention. I would desire to justify the reasonable and republican
decision of this House to the other branch of Congress in order to
prevent a misunderstanding. But that the motion of my worthy colleague
(Mr. PARKER) has possession of the House, I would move a more temperate
proposition, and I think it deserves some pains to bring about that good
will and urbanity, which for the despatch of public business ought to be
kept up between the two Houses. I do not think it would be a sacrifice
of dignity to appoint a Committee of Conference, but imagine it would
tend to cement that harmony which has hitherto been preserved between
the Senate and this House; therefore, while I concur with the gentlemen
who express, in such decided terms, their disapprobation of bestowing
titles, I concur also with those who are for the appointment of a
Committee of Conference, not apprehending they will depart from the
principles adopted and acted upon by the House.
Mr. WHITE did not approve of a Committee of Conference, because the
House had already determined the question by unanimously adopting the
report of the joint committee. He did not think that it was worth while
having the subject longer contested; he was satisfied both the spirit of
the constitution and the spirit of the people disapproved of titles.
Mr. BLAND would be careful of giving umbrage to the Senate, because he
wished that the unanimity and moderation which subsisted between the two
Houses might continue. He considered the present as a very proper
opportunity for the appointment of a Committee of Conference. The two
Houses had disagreed on the report of their committees; it was proper,
therefore, that they should mutually assign their reasons, in order to
bring about an agreement to the same resolution. He hoped, therefore,
that such a committee would be appointed, though he had no expectation
that the House would give up an opinion they so justly and decidedly
entertained respecting titles.
Mr. PARKER wanted to know what was the object of gentlemen in the
appointment of a Committee of Conference? The committee could only say
that the House had refused their consent to annexing any titles whatever
to the President and Vice President; for certainly the committee would
not descend into the merits of a question already established by the
House. For his part, he could not see what purpose was to be answered
by the appointment of such a committee. He wished to have done with the
subject, because while it remained a question in the House, the people's
minds would be much agitated; it was impossible that a true republican
spirit could remain unconcerned when a principle was under
consideration, so repugnant to the principles of equal liberty.
Mr. SHERMAN thought it was pretty plain that the House could not comply
with the proposition of the Senate. The appointment of a committee, on
the part of the House, to consider and determine what style or title
will be proper to annex to the President and Vice President, would imply
that the House meant that some style or title should be given. Now this
they never could intend, because they have decided that no style or
title ought to be given; it will be sufficient to adduce this reason for
not complying with the request of the Senate.
Mr. JACKSON wondered what title the Senate had in contemplation to add
dignity or lustre to the person that filled the presidential chair. For
his part, he could conceive none. Would it add to his fame to be called
after the petty and insignificant princes of Europe? Would styling him
His Serene Highness, His Grace, or Mightiness, add one tittle to the
solid properties he possessed? He thought it would not; and therefore
conceived the proposition to be trifling with the dignity of the
Government. As a difference had taken place between the two Houses, he
had no objection to a conference taking place. He hoped it might be
productive of good consequences, and that the Senate might be induced to
follow the laudable example of the House.
Mr. MADISON was of opinion, that the House might appoint a Committee of
Conference without being supposed to countenance the measure. The
standing rule of the House declared, that, in case of disagreeing votes,
a Committee of Conference should be appointed. Now, as the case provided
for in the rule had actually happened, he inferred that it was proper to
proceed in the manner directed by the rules of the House. The subject
was still open to discussion, but there was little probability that the
House would rescind their adoption of the report. I presume gentlemen do
not intend to compel the Senate into their measures; they should
recollect that the Senate stand upon independent ground, and will do
nothing but what they are convinced of the propriety of; it would be
better, therefore, to treat them with delicacy, and offer some reasons
to induce them to come into our measure. He expected this would be the
result of a conference, and therefore was in favor of such a motion.
Mr. SENEY intended nothing disrespectful to the Senate, but he
conceived, after having adopted the report of the committee, it would
derogate from their own dignity to rescind a unanimous resolution; and
for what other purpose could a conference be appointed by the House?
They must certainly suppose that there might be ground for changing
their opinion. Nothing of this kind appeared to him, and therefore he
was of opinion, it would be a useless consumption to waste any more time
about it.
Mr. CLYMER thought that there was little occasion to add any title to
either the President or Vice President. He was very well convinced, by
experience, that titles did not confer power; on the contrary, they
frequently made their possessors ridiculous. The most impotent
potentates, the most insignificant powers, generally assumed the highest
and most lofty titles. That they do not indicate power and prerogative,
is very observable in the English history; for when the chief magistrate
of that nation bore the simple style of His Grace or Highness, his
prerogatives were much more extensive than since he has become His Most
Sacred Majesty.
Titular distinctions are said to be unpopular in the United States; yet
a person would be led to think otherwise, from the vast number of
honorable gentlemen we have in America. As soon as a man is selected for
the public service, his fellow-citizens, with liberal hand, shower down
titles on him--either excellency or honorable. He would venture to
affirm, there were more honorable esquires in the United States than in
all the world besides. He wished to check a propensity so notoriously
evidenced in favor of distinctions, and hoped the example of the House
might prevail to extinguish that predilection which appeared in favor of
titles.
Mr. PAGE.--If I thought the motion made by my colleague in the least
degree disrespectful, I should not have seconded it. I would be the last
man on this floor to treat that worthy body with disrespect; but I
believe it cannot be construed to have such a meaning. If we were to let
the resolution lie on the table, it would not be disrespectful. But what
is the object of the motion? Simply to inform the Senate that we cannot
rescind a resolution adopted in consequence of the report of a joint
committee. If the conduct of either House is in the least degree
disrespectful, (though I do not conceive it is,) the body who declined
adopting the report, after knowing the sense of the other to be in its
favor, is the most so.
But on what are a committee to confer? Not upon what title shall be
bestowed, because we have no right to enter on the subject; and here I
must tell gentlemen I differ from them, when they think titles can do no
harm. Titles, sir, I say, may do harm, and have done harm. If we contend
now for a right to confer titles, I apprehend the time will come when we
shall form a reservoir for honor, and make our President the fountain of
it. In such case, may not titles do an injury to the Union? They have
been the occasion of an eternal faction in the kingdom we were formerly
connected with, and may beget like inquietude in America; for I contend,
if you give the title, you must follow it with the robe and the diadem,
and then the principles of your government are subverted.
Mr. LEE moved the previous question, as the best mode of getting rid of
the motion before the House: he was supported by a sufficient number.
And on the question, Shall the main question be now put? it passed in
the negative; and so the motion was lost.