CHAPTER XII.

WEBSTER'S CHANGE OF VIEWS.

SPEECH OF MR. WEBSTER OF MASSACHUSETTS, ON THE TARIFF, IN THE SENATE, JULY 25 AND 27, 1846.

A

ND now, sir, with the leave of the Senate, I shall proceed to consider the effects of this bill upon some of those interests which have been regarded as protected interests.

I shall not argue at length the question whether the gov ernment has committed itself to maintain interests that have grown up under laws such as have been passed for thirty years back. I will not argue the question, whether, looking to the policy indicated by the laws of 1789, 1817, 1824, 1828, 1832, and 1842, there has been ground for the industrious and enterprising people of the United States, engaged in home pursuits, to expect protection from the government for internal industry. The question is, do these laws or do they not, from 1789, till the present time, constantly show and preserve a purpose, a policy, which might naturally and really induce men to invest property in manufacturing undertakings and commit themselves to these pursuits in life? Without lengthened arguments, I shall take this for granted.

But, sir, before I proceed further with this part of the case, I will take notice of what appears to be some attempt, latterly, by the republication of opinions and expressions, arguments and speeches of mine, at an earlier and later

9

(193)

period of life, to place me in a condition of inconsistency, on this subject of the protective policy of the country. Mr. President, if it be an inconsistency to hold an opinion upon a subject of public policy to-day, in one state of circumstances, and to hold a different opinion upon the same subject of public policy to-morrow, in a different state of circumstances, if that be an inconsistency, I admit its applicability to myself. Nay, sir, I will go further, and in regard to questions which, from their nature, do not depend upon circumstances for their true and just solution, -I mean constitutional questions, if it be an inconsistency to hold an opinion to-day, even upon such a question, and on that same question to hold a different opinion a quarter of a century afterwards, upon a more comprehensive view of the whole subject, with a more thorough investigation into the original purposes and objects of that Constitution, and especially with a more thorough exposition of those objects and purposes by those who framed it, and have been entrusted to administer it, I should not shrink even from that imputation. I hope I know more of the Constitution of my country than I did when I was twenty years old. I hope I have contemplated its great objects more broadly. I hope I have read, with deeper interest, the sentiments of the great men who framed it. I hope I have studied with more care the condition of the country when the convention assembled to form it. And yet I do not know that I have much, sir, to retract or to change on these points.*

* Mr. Webster gave the following reasons in Boston why protection should be borne:

"We see (said Mr. Webster) most enlightened nations, which have adopted this artificial system, are tired of it; we see the most distinguished men in England, for instance, of all parties, condemning it. The only difference of opinion is, whether the disease is not so inveterate as to yield to no remedy which would not produce greater evils. The only difference is, whether it be an evil grievous but to be borne, but a grievous evil not to be borne. He alluded to England, because her example had been so often quoted as a model for our imitation. But why should we adopt, on her example, what she herself laments, and would be glad to be rid of?"

But, sir, I am of the opinion of a very eminent person who had occasion, not long since, to speak of this topic in another place. Inconsistencies of opinions, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable. But there is one sort of inconsistency which is culpable. It is the inconsistency between a man's convictions and his vote; between his conscience and his conduct. No man shall ever charge me with an inconsistency like that. And now, sir, allow me to say, that I am quite indifferent, or rather thankful, to these conductors of the public press who think they cannot do better than now and then to spread my poor opinions before the public. [A laugh.]

I have said many times, and it is true, that up to the year 1824, the people of that part of the country to which I belong, being addicted to commerce, having been successful in commerce, their capital being very much engaged in commerce, were adverse to entering upon a system of manufacturing operations. Every member in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, with the exception of one, I think, voted against the act of 1824. But what were we to do? Were we not bound, after '17 and '24, to consider that the policy of the country was settled, had become settled, as a policy, to protect the domestic industry of the country by solemn laws? The leading speech which ushered in the act of '24 was called a speech for an "American System." The bill was carried principally by the Middle States. Pennsylvania and New York would have it so; and what were we to do? Were we to stand aloof from the occupations which others were pursuing around us? Were we to pick clean teeth on a constitutional doubt, which a majority in the councils of the nation had overruled? No, sir; we had no option. All that was left us was to fall in with the settled policy of the country; because if anything can ever settle the policy of the country, or if anything can ever settle the practical construction of the Constitution of the country, it

must be these repeated decisions of Congress, and enactments of successive laws conformable to these decisions. New England, then, did fall in. She went into the manufacturing operations, not from original choice, but from the necessity or the circumstances in which the public councils had placed her. And for one, I resolved then, and have maintained that resolution ever since, that, having compelled the Eastern States to go into these operations for a livelihood, the country was bound to fulfill the just expectations which it had inspired.

I now come, Mr. President, to the last topic on which I propose to trespass on the patience of the Senate; it is the effect of the change proposed by this bill upon the general employment, labor, and industry of the country. And I would beg, sir, in this view, to ask the reading of a petition which has been lying on my table for some days, but which I have not had an opportunity to present. It is a very short petition from the mechanics and artisans of the city of Boston. [The Clerk then read the petition.] Now, sir, these petitioners remonstrate against this bill, not in behalf of corporations and great establishments, not in behalf of rich manufacturers, but in behalf of "men who labor with their own hands," whose "only capital is their labor," and "who depend on that labor for their support, and for any. thing they may be able to lay up."

Mr. President, he who is the most large and liberal in the tone of his sentiments towards all the interests of all parts of the country; he who most honestly and firmly believes that these interests, though various, are consistent; that they all may well be protected, preserved, and fostered by a wise administration of law under the existing Constitution of the United States; and he who is the most expansive patriot, and wishes well and equally well, to every part of the country, even he must admit that, to a great extent, there is a marked division and difference between the plan

tation States of the South, and the masses in the agricultural and manufacturing States of the North. There is a difference growing out of early Constitutions, early laws and habits, and resulting in a different description of labor; and to some extent, with the most liberal sentiments and feelings, every man who is concerned in enacting laws with candor, justice, and intelligence, must pay a proper regard to that distinction. The truth is, that in one part of the country labor is a thing more unconnected with capital than in the other. Labor, as an earning principle, or as an element of society working for itself, with its own hopes of gain, enjoyment, and competence, is a different thing from that labor which in the other part of the country attaches to capital, rises and falls with capital, and is in truth a part of capital. Now, sir, in considering the general effect of the change sought to be brought about, or likely to be brought about by this bill, upon the employment of men in this country, regard is properly to be paid to this difference which I have mentioned; yet it is at the same time true, that there are forms of labor, especially along the seacoast and along the rivers, in all the Southern States, which are to be affected by this bill as much as the labor of any portion of the Middle or Northern States. The artisan in every State has just the same interest - the same at the South as at the North. And this is at the foundation of all our laws, from 1789 downward, which have in view the protection of American labor. The first purpose, the first object was, the full protection of the labor of these artisans. That subject was gone over the other day by my friend from Maryland [Mr. Johnson], who presented to the consideration of the Senate the first memorial ever sent to Congress on the subject of protection. It was from the city of Baltimore, and it was in 1789. And from that day to this, Baltimore has been more earnest and steady in her attachment to a system of law, which she supposed gave encour