cities, if there was any business to call for it; but it was lying idle. What evidence was all this of the blessing of low taxes? During 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837 the prices were high, and the country was prosperous; but these were not times of low duties. The average of duties was higher during those years, than that of the present tariff bill; for the reduction under the compromise act was very inconsiderable until the last two years.

He did not see how a nation could be injured by having a balance in its favor between its exports and its imports, to be paid in gold and silver. It was just as it is between two laborers; when the labor of one is counted against the labor of the other, if a balance is due to one, it is fair it should be paid in specie, that he may have it to meet his debts and his taxes. When a balance is received by a nation in gold and silver, if it occurs according to the natural operations of trade, it must be an advantage-or he should read his books of political economy again.

Such tables as had been quoted showed nothing definitely. They only showed the quantity of business done, but did not show whether that business was done at a loss or gain.

The Senator from South Carolina had said that the amount of the annual exports of the country was one hundred millions. But the productions of the country were two thousand millions; and out of this two thousand millions, one hundred millions only are exported; leaving nineteen hundred millions to be consumed at home. Yet the whole prosperity of the country is said to be dependent on this one hundred millions of exports. The Senator imagines that the interests involved in those one hundred millions are ten to one, compared with the manufactures. If the Senator calculates all the artisans, artists, merchants, farmers, laborers, and consumers dependent on the manufacturers, he will find his estimate of ten to one ought to be reversed.

The Senator thinks prices may be very low, and wages very high. Such a thing may be within the limits of possibility, but not of probability. He, on the contrary, thought if there was a reduction of prices, the very first thing to feel the reduction was wages. He adverted to the distress prevailing in England, in proof of this.

The great test of the prosperity of a country was, in his mind, the high price of wages. What is to keep up the price of wages but high prices? But now a new doctrine is broached-that low prices and low wages are blessings. It is necessary to have these blessings, that our products may be exported. What was the use of sending our products abroad at low prices? Why send anything abroad that can be consumed at home on more remunerating terms? Why should we suppose that, while we consume nineteen hundred millions of our products at home, we are to go to destruction because our exports of one hundred millions are not kept up?

If he read the signs of the times aright, he came to a different conclusion from that at which the Senator has arrived, when he asserts that nations are throwing off their trammels on trade. He [Mr. Evans] believed the reverse; he believed that the majority of nations. were adopting the protective system, and becoming their own manufacturers.

He read a table of the consumption, per head, of British manufactures, by other nations. While other nations, in this consumption,

range from 7 to 10 cents per head, the United States consumes, per head, of British manufactures, $4.02.

The doctrine now is, let England supply herself and supply us; and all we are to ask her to take is one hundred millions of our products, leaving us to consume nineteen hundred millions ourselves.

Gentlemen talk of protection. Who are the protectors? Who but the manufacturers? They have protected the country against high prices and fluctuations, and against that influx of foreign fabrics, which drained away our gold and silver. He did not say all this in support of the present bill; for he had not introduced it as a protective bill, but as a revenue bill.

The Senator says: "Truth is mighty, and will prevail." He [Mr. Evans] thought so too. He could see in the growing convictions of the whole people, that protection would, before long, prevail-not to the injury of the Senator's cotton interests, but for their advantage, as well as for that of the whole community.

Mr. Woodbury said that the Senator from Maine had been pleased to notice him by some personal allusions, which demanded a brief reply.

But, in the course of that Senator's long address, Mr. Woodbury would cheerfully concede that he had made one very just remark, in saying that some things were not suitable to this occasion.

Mr. Woodbury respectfully suggested that, among such things, might be considered the voting here against numerous amendments to this bill by any person who had voted elsewhere for them.

He would further take the liberty to express an opinion that it was not altogether suitable to this occasion, when twenty-seven millions of taxes were imposed on an embarrassed people, to insist on accompanying them with one provision about the land-to give away, rather than collect revenue; and thus, without necessity, increase the public burdens by the General Government near three millions of dollars, as well as endanger the final passage of the whole bill, and the rescue of our national credit from its present shameful disgrace.

He felt forced, also, to add, so far as regarded the personal reflections on him, that it did not seem suitable to the occasion, or the place, to resort to perversion or ridicule of arguments, which no power had been shown to refute. And when a gentleman talked of the natural course of things, or the natural order of things, as having been urged by others in favor of a position, it might be useful to remember that it was often said to be the natural course of things among a certain grade in the profession at the bar, to resort to misconception and ridicule only when other means failed.

Mr. Woodbury had said nothing whatever, as had been represented, of any natural rate of duty. But what he, in fact, did say, was, that the rate of 20 per cent had been expressly agreed on in the compromise act as a just and sufficiently high rate on imports; that the opinions of such distinguished statesmen as were engaged in that compromise, and had then, as well as since, approved it (and for whose conduct there had recently been claimed great glory), were entitled to much respect; that several nations abroad had fixed on a rate below, or no higher than 20 per cent; and that this was quite a high proportion of taxation on that kind of property, compared with what was usually imposed in this country on other property.

Was not this fair reasoning? And had the force of it been met by a single argument?

Why, sir, one fact is demonstrative of its correctness. Computing, as many have, the whole property in the Union at four thousand millions of dollars-a tax of 20 per cent on all that, would yield eight hundred millions; whereas not over seventy or eighty millions of taxes, of all kinds, will be collected yearly in the United States, even if this bill passes. That is not one-tenth so much as you would impose on imports by a rate of only 20 per cent.

Is that not irrefutable evidence that 20 per cent is quite high enough, and even too high, for a fair proportion of taxation on imports alone?

But, the Senator remarked, that my argument appeared to be in favor to some extent of direct taxation at this time. Now, sir, so far from that, I stated in my first speech, and repeated, in reply to another Senator [Mr. Simmons], that my opinions were, that no direct taxes were, at this time, either proper or necessary. They were not so, because the proceeds of the lands, and a duty of 20 per cent, would probably yield enough to meet all the expenses of the Government, if administered economically.

Thus, take back the lands, and properly advertise new tracts for sale, and you obtain at least, yearly..

Impose only 20 per cent on all imports, except bullion and a few other free articles, and you will collect from that source at least......

These together make.......

$3,000,000

18, 500,000

21, 500,000

It will be so large a net revenue as the above, if the imports not free and consumed in the country are a hundred millions, as they doubtless will be if the duty remains so low. That aggregate of twentyone millions and a half will pay eighteen to nineteen millions of ordinary expenses. That is expense enough; and more than an ample balance to discharge all the interest on the public debt will then be left.

The Senator asked me, on a former occasion, how the present debt would be met?

I would meet its interest in this way, and besides, part of the principal. As the expenses are more reduced, or the sales of lands higher in subsequent years, I would discharge all the principal before it falls due.

It is only by giving away the lands, and incurring wasteful expenses, that any necessity whatever will arise to resort to direct taxes for the balance beyond what the imports will thus yield.

Again, the Senator says that we commend the prosperous influences of low duties on agriculture and commerce, when we have had no experience of low duties till within the last one or two years. What, sir! Was not the duty on tea, coffee, etc., much lowered after 1828-even as long ago as 1830? Was there not another large reduction on many other articles in 1832? And a still larger in 1832?

In the last year, also, near half of our whole imports became entirely free. Was not this a state of comparatively low duties, when fifty to seventy millions paid nothing at all, and the rest was put in a progress of biennial reduction? Let it be remembered, then, as a consequence in part from this, that no nation in the tide of time has ever witnessed a greater impulse to agriculture-to exports and imports--to commerce and navigation of all kinds, than followed this.

But the gentleman dwells on the nature of error; that, after once killed, it revives elsewhere in fresh life. Indeed, sir, its ghost has reappeared now, on the other side. We have had a striking illustration of this, in the gentleman's own course, in resuscitating again (for the tenth time, I believe) the exploded and refuted arguments in favor of the necessity for an extra session, to make the expenditures and means of the year 1841 meet. But the whole truth of the case is this: The year 1841 began with a balance of money on hand-something more than one million; and on the 4th of March, nearly as much remained. Beside that, a power to issue Treasury notes equal to five millions, remained on the 4th of March.

Now, sir, here are six millions of means at that date:

Means on 4th March, 1841....

Customs yielded the whole year...

Lands, if advertised, would have yielded at least..

Miscellaneous and bank debts, if collected.....

Making an aggregate of..............

$6,000,000 14, 800, 000 3, 000, 000 200, 000

24, 000, 000

The customs are actual receipts and were very little increased by the new tariff in September, as all the duties assessed under that, except very trifling sums, were put on a credit of three and six months and not collected till 1842.

The lands, if duly advertised, as in 1840 and previous years, to the extent of eight or ten millions of acres yearly, would probably have furnished more than three millions, as they did in each of the embarrassed years after 1836. But instead of doing this in 1841, scarce one new advertisement was issued after March, and some old ones were recalled. Now, would not these twenty-four millions have discharged all proper expenses had there been no steps taken to increase them and no extra session? Easily, sir. For the ordinary expenses were estimated as not likely to exceed nineteen millions and onefourth. On the reduced new appropriations made, of less than eighteen millions, they need not have exceeded the estimate much, if

In that event four millions and a fourth would have remained as a balance to redeem not much over three to four millions of Treasury notes which might fall due in 1841, and be presented, and no power remain to issue others in their stead. A million still might be left to cover contingencies or as a balance on hand.

A word as to the expenses of the previous four years, compared with their receipts, and I have done. The gentleman contends that the former far exceeded the latter, from lands and customs. Granted. But they did not exceed those and our other means on hand united. On the contrary, we deposited with the States over tewnty-eight millions of public money which we had in possession, and still incurred a debt of only four or five millions. That deposit was one root of all the present evils. That money should never have been divided among the States. It was a Pandora's box. It was a great cause of the suspension of specie payments by means of the immense sums obliged so soon to be collected and paid over and placed in new positions, new hands, and new channels. It embarrassed everybody, and relieved nobody. Had it remained, and been gradually applied to proper public works, not only the wreck of the banks in 1837 might have been averted, but any necessity for Treasury notes since, and for the present accumulating debt of the

General Government, and for much of the prodigal waste and bankruptcy into which some of the States were tempted by that unfortunate distribution.

Mr. Evans was sorry to have disturbed the equanimity of the honorable Senator; he had had no idea of doing so, nor was it his purpose to ridicule the arguments of the Senator. He [Mr. Woodbury] had said that, among unsuitable things, it was not suitable to this occasion to vote against the amendments in this body which were voted for in committee. He would not dwell upon the breach of order in adverting to what had occurred in committee. Of this he did not complain. He was against any amendments in the committee; but when the majority of the committee decided on certain amendments, he supported them. The majority of the committee had voted in this body for these amendments. But he had not deemed any of them sufficiently important to delay the bill at this late hour of the session. The Senator from Missouri had complained of 10 States being obliterated-annihilated. He [Mr. Evans] did not find their 20 Senators obliterated-they had been uncommonly vigorous for the last two or three days, and had given the supporters of the bill a great deal of trouble. If it was right for the minority to carry a bill, he wished the Senator had thought of that some few years ago, when he [Mr. Evans] and his friends were in the minority.

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wright made a few remarks-the latter stating his anxiety to see the vote taken, as some excuse for postponing to another occasion a few inquiries he had to make of the chairman of the Finance Committee.

The question was then taken on the passage of the bill; and it was passed-yeas 25, nays 23, as follows:1

Yeas-Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Choate, Clayton, Conrad, Crafts, Crittenden, Dayton, Evans, Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Sprague, Tallmadge, White, and Woodbridge-25.

Nays-Messrs. Allen, Bagby, Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Fulton, Graham, King, Linn, McRoberts, Preston, Rives, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Wilcox, Williams, Woodbury, Wright, and Young-23.

The Senate then adjourned.

MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1842.

THE TARIFF BILL.

The tariff bill passed by the House to-day was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 1842.

THE TARIFF BILL.

The bill to provide revenue from imports and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes, was taken up as in Committee of the Whole, with 31 amendments recommended by the Committee on Finance.

1 Democrats in italics.

93066°-S. Doc. 21, 62-1-14