WASHINGTON, _June 29, 1842_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
I return the bill, which originated in the House of Representatives,
entitled "An act to extend for a limited period the present laws for
laying and collecting duties on imports," with the following objections:
It suspends--in other words, abrogates for the time--the provision of
the act of 1833, commonly called the "compromise act." The only ground
on which this departure from the solemn adjustment of a great and
agitating question seems to have been regarded as expedient is the
alleged necessity of establishing by legislative enactments rules and
regulations for assessing the duties to be levied on imports after the
30th June according to the home valuation, and yet the bill expressly
provides that "if before the 1st of August there be no further
legislation upon the subject, the laws for laying and collecting duties
shall be the same as though this act had not been passed." In other
words, that the act of 1833, imperfect as it is considered, shall in
that case continue to be and to be executed under such rules and
regulations as previous statutes had prescribed or had enabled the
executive department to prescribe for that purpose, leaving the supposed
chasm in the revenue laws just as it was before.
I am certainly far from being disposed to deny that additional
legislation upon the subject is very desirable; on the contrary, the
necessity, as well as difficulty, of establishing uniformity in the
appraisements to be made in conformity with the true intention of that
act was brought to the notice of Congress in my message to Congress at
the opening of its present session. But however sensible I may be of
the embarrassments to which the Executive, in the absence of all aid
from the superior wisdom of the Legislature, will be liable in the
enforcement of the existing laws, I have not, with the sincerest wish to
acquiesce in its expressed will, been able to persuade myself that the
exigency of the occasion is so great as to justify me in signing the
bill in question with my present views of its character and effects. The
existing laws, as I am advised, are sufficient to authorize and enable
the collecting officers, under the directions of the Secretary of the
Treasury, to levy the duties imposed by the act of 1833.
That act was passed under peculiar circumstances, to which it is not
necessary that I should do more than barely allude. Whatever maybe,
in theory, its character, I have always regarded it as importing the
highest moral obligation. It has now existed for nine years unchanged in
any essential particular, with as general acquiescence, it is believed,
of the whole country as that country has ever manifested for any of her
wisely established institutions. It has insured to it the repose which
always flows from truly wise and moderate counsels--a repose the more
striking because of the long and angry agitations which preceded it.
This salutary law proclaims in express terms the principle which, while
it led to the abandonment of a scheme of indirect taxation founded on a
false basis and pushed to dangerous excess, justifies any enlargement
of duties that may be called for by the real exigencies of the public
service. It provides "that duties shall be laid for the purpose of
raising such revenue as may be necessary to an economical administration
of the Government." It is therefore in the power of Congress to lay
duties as high as its discretion may dictate for the necessary uses of
the Government without infringing upon the objects of the act of 1833.
I do not doubt that the exigencies of the Government do require an
increase of the tariff of duties above 20 per cent, and I as little
doubt that Congress may, above as well as below that rate, so
discriminate as to give incidental protection to manufacturing industry,
thus to make the burdens which it is compelled to impose upon the people
for the purposes of Government productive of a double benefit. This
most of the reasonable opponents of protective duties seem willing to
concede, and, if we may judge from the manifestations of public opinion
in all quarters, this is all that the manufacturing interests really
require. I am happy in the persuasion that this double object can be
most easily and effectually accomplished at the present juncture without
any departure from the spirit and principle of the statute in question.
The manufacturing classes have now an opportunity which may never occur
again of permanently identifying their interests with those of the whole
country, and making them, in the highest sense of the term, a national
concern. The moment is propitious to the interests of the whole country
in the introduction of harmony among all its parts and all its several
interests. The same rate of imposts, and no more, as will most surely
reestablish the public credit will secure to the manufacturer all the
protection he ought to desire, with every prospect of permanence and
stability which the hearty acquiescence of the whole country on a
reasonable system can hold out to him.
But of this universal acquiescence, and the harmony and confidence and
the many other benefits that will certainly result from it, I regard
the suspension of the law for distributing the proceeds of the sales
of the public lands as an indispensable condition. This measure is, in
my judgment, called for by a large number, if not a great majority, of
the people of the United States; by the state of the public credit and
finances; by the critical posture of our various foreign relations;
and, above all, by that most sacred of all duties--public faith. The
act of September last, which provides for the distribution, couples it
inseparably with the condition that it shall cease--first, in case of
war; second, as soon and so long as the rate of duties shall for any
reason whatever be raised above 20 per cent. Nothing can be more clear,
express, or imperative than this language. It is in vain to allege that
a deficit in the Treasury was known to exist and that means were taken
to supply this deficit by loan when the act was passed. It is true that
a loan was authorized at the same session during which the distribution
law was passed, but the most sanguine of the friends of the two measures
entertained no doubt but that the loan would be eagerly sought after and
taken up by capitalists and speedily reimbursed by a country destined,
as they hoped, soon to enjoy an overflowing prosperity. The very terms
of the loan, making it redeemable _in three years_, demonstrate this
beyond all cavil. Who at the time foresaw or imagined the possibility of
the present real state of things, when a nation that has paid off her
whole debt since the last peace, while all the other great powers have
been increasing theirs, and whose resources, already so great, are yet
but in the infancy of their development, should be compelled to haggle
in the money market for a paltry sum not equal to one year's revenue
upon her economical system? If the distribution law is to be
indefinitely suspended, according not only to its own terms, but by
universal consent, in the case of war, wherein are the actual exigencies
of the country or the moral obligation to provide for them less under
present circumstances than they could be were we actually involved in
war? It appears to me to be the indispensable duty of all concerned in
the administration of public affairs to see that a state of things so
humiliating and so perilous should not last a moment longer than is
absolutely unavoidable. Much less excusable should we be in parting
with any portion of our available means, at least until the demands
of the Treasury are fully supplied. But besides the urgency of such
considerations, the fact is undeniable that the distribution act could
not have become a law without the guaranty in the proviso of the act
itself.
This connection, thus meant to be inseparable, is severed by the bill
presented to me. The bill violates the principle of the acts of 1833 and
September, 1841, by suspending the first and rendering for a time the
last inoperative. Duties above 20 per cent are proposed to be levied,
and yet the _proviso_ in the distribution act is disregarded. The
proceeds of the sales are to be distributed on the 1st of August, so
that, while the duties proposed to be enacted exceed 20 per cent, no
suspension of the distribution to the States is permitted to take place.
To abandon the principle for a month is to open the way for its total
abandonment. If such is not meant, why postpone at all? Why not let the
distribution take place on the 1st of July if the law so directs (which,
however, is regarded as questionable)? But why not have limited the
provision to that effect? Is it for the accommodation of the Treasury?
I see no reason to believe that the Treasury will be in better condition
to meet the payment on the 1st of August than on the 1st of July.
The bill assumes that a distribution of the proceeds of the public
lands is, by existing laws, to be made on the 1st day of July, 1842,
notwithstanding there has been an imposition of duties on imports
exceeding 20 per cent up to that day, and directs it to be made on the
1st of August next. It seems to me very clear that this conclusion is
equally erroneous and dangerous, as it would divert from the Treasury a
fund sacredly pledged for the general purposes of the Government in the
event of a rate of duty above 20 per cent being found necessary for an
economical administration of the Government.
The bill under consideration is designed only as a temporary measure;
and thus a temporary measure, passed merely for the convenience of
Congress, is made to affect the vital principle of an important act.
If the proviso of the act of September, 1841, can be suspended for the
whole period of a temporary law, why not for the whole period of a
permanent law? In fact, a doubt may be well entertained, according to
strict legal rules, whether the condition, having been thus expressly
suspended by this bill and rendered inapplicable to a case where it
would otherwise have clearly applied, will not be considered as ever
after satisfied and gone. Without expressing any decided opinion on this
point, I see enough in it to justify me in adhering to the law as it
stands in preference to subjecting a condition so vitally affecting the
peace of the country, and so solemnly enacted at a momentous crisis, and
so steadfastly adhered to ever since, and so replete, if adhered to,
with good to every interest of the country, to doubtful or captious
interpretation.
In discharging the high duties thus imposed on me by the Constitution I
repeat to the House my entire willingness to cooperate in all financial
measures, constitutional and proper, which in its wisdom it may judge
necessary and proper to reestablish the credit of the Government.
I believe that the proceeds of the sales of the public lands being
restored to the Treasury--or, more properly speaking, the proviso of
the act of September, 1841, being permitted to remain in full force--a
tariff of duties may easily be adjusted, which, while it will yield a
revenue sufficient to maintain the Government in vigor by restoring its
credit, will afford ample protection and infuse a new life into all our
manufacturing establishments. The condition of the country calls for
such legislation, and it will afford me the most sincere pleasure to
cooperate in it.