71H CONG.... 3D SESS.

cents per square yard." Thirty per cent. on a yard, valued at twenty cents per yard, is six cents tariff; making the article, with cost and tariff, worth twenty-six cents. If the article be worth anything less than twenty cents per yard, it is still valued as if worth twenty cents per yard, and is taxed six cents accordingly. If the yard of cotton be worth but six cents, or less than six cents per yard, (and many descriptions are worth less than six cents,) still they are valued as if worth twenty cents, and pay the six cents tax per yard. A tax of six cents on goods worth but six cents, is a tax of one hundred per cent., when the bill professes to be but thirty per cent. ad valorem. It is unfortunate that the people of the country cannot generally know that, out of every two dollars, which they pay for coarse cotton manufactures, they pay one in the shape of taxes, and profits on taxes, to this Government. It is unfortunate that this tax falls mainly upon the poor, who buy the coarse article; and not upon the rich, who buy the fine article. It is unfortunate that, while the rich pay but thirty per cent. upon their fine cottons, the poor are compelled to pay one hundred per cent. upon their coarse cottons. It may be answered that coarse cottons are still sold cheap. If this be so, the evil still exists.

Cottons imported cannot be sold for less than the cost and the tax. If the cost be six cents per yard, and the tax be six cents per yard, then the yard must be sold for twelve cents; and, at that price, the seller makes no profit. It may be said that the competition in making the domestic article reduces it below twelve cents. If an article, equal to the imported article, worth six cents per yard, can be made here and sold for eleven cents per yard, this will exclude the importation of the foreign article, because that must bring twelve cents per yard-the cost and the tax-else the importer loses on every yard of it. If an article can be made here, and sold for less than twelve cents, similar to a foreign article which costs six cents here, and pays a tax of six cents, then the inanufacture of the former must exclude the importation of the latter. If for an article equal to an imported article, worth only six cents per yard, we pay our home manufacturer eleven cents per yard; then we give him a bounty of five cents per yard, and this, on one million of yards, would be fifty thousand dollars.

The same section of this bill provides, that "all manufactures of cotton, or of which cotton shall be a component part," "dyed, colored, printed, or stained, in whole or in part, not exceeding in value thirty cents the square yard, shall be valued at thirty cents." If they cost but six cents, they shall be valued as if they cost thirty; and if they cost but six cents per yard, they shall pay nine cents tax per yard. This is the minimum principle, and its operation. I shall select only these examples from the law. The principle is odious, because eminently unjust to the poor, and grievously oppressive.

3. This bill taxes sugar, coffee, and salt. So far as the tax on these articles goes, (and no small amount of our revenue will be raised from them,) they diminish the bounties which we pay to the manufacturer. Salt should be excepted. The drawbacks on this article about equal the taxes collected from it.

But while we diminish the bounties to the manufacturer, by taxing sugar, coffee, and salt, we increase the profits paid by the consumer upon these articles. But the general and nearly equal use of these articles among all classes, rich and poor, is the principal objection to taxing them. The poor and the rich have families about equal in size. If there be a difference, the families of the poor are generally larger than those of the rich. The poor, who live hard, and work harder, are strong, robust, and hearty, and, consequently, eat more. The rich, who live easily, and work none, are, consequently, more delicate and more abstemious, and eat less. While the former would drink his three cups of coffee, the latter would generally be content with one. The poor, then, would use more sugar and coffee, and probably more salt, than the rich; and would, therefore, pay more taxes on these articles than the rich. This would be against the general principle that the Government should collect taxes from her citizens in proportion to the property which she protects for them. This is taxing provisions, labor, and numbers, instead of taxing property. The poor cannot escape the tax, unless they deny themselves the use of these articles. This they do not, and ought not to do, unless you tax them too heavily. If all are not supplied bountifully with sugar, coffee, and salt, they ought to be;

The Tariff Bill-Mr J. C. Edwards.

and any law which prevents a bountiful supply of these articles, is a cruel and an oppressive law. And if, by the tax, you prevent the people from eating, you do not get the tax; and you starve them, and you practise your cruelty, and you are guilty of oppression, without getting your profit.

4. The general rate of duties in this bill is too high. The object of the tariff is to raise revenue. I am willing to discriminate; but discriminations should be for the purposes of raising revenue and equalizing the taxes, rather than for the purpose of encouraging one class of citizens, or one particular pursuit, by giving them part of the profits of other classes or other pursuits. In favor of those articles which are indispensable in time of war, we should discriminate But for manufactures generally, there will be protection enough under a tariff for revenue, without any unjust and oppressive discrimination. Too much discrimination will ruin the manufacturers themselves. It will amount to prohibition, and prohibition will drive us to direct taxation. A fair revenue tariff gives as much protection as most manufacturers should want.

If an article can be made in another country, for example, and sold to us 25 per cent. cheaper than we can make and sell it, then we ought to buy the article from that other country, instead of making it ourselves; and we should direct our capital and our labor to some other pursuits more profitable. No man has a right to call upon the Government to make his employment more profitable than that of other men; yet the Government does this very thing. By an ordinary tariff, she gives to the manufacturer protection to the amount of that tariff; and, to that amount, advantage over other pursuits, only equally profitable, and which are unprotected. Of the latter class, are commerce, navigation, and agriculture. The latter is, to some extent, protected by this bill; but that protection is a mere pretence, and a humbug. You protect cotton, hemp, and tobacco, when the fertility of our soil, and the adaptation of our climate to the growth and production of these articles, enable us to make them cheaper than any part of the world. No nation can undersell us without your protection, unless you inflate our currency so as to make us the market and the common receptacle for everything which the balance of the world produces. We not only undersell other nations at home in these articles, but we undersell them abroad. Your protection, then, is a humbug and a mockery.

But the manufacturer is not content with the advantage which a tax for revenue gives.him. He wants more. He wants the burdens of the revenue collected from such articles as are manufactured by himself. He does not buy the foreign article, but uses his own. He pays no tax, then, on these articles. A portion of his countrymen buy his article, and pay him what the imported article would cost, and the tax on the imported article. The latter part of the price of his article is the bounty which we pay to him as protection. Another part of his countrymen buy the imported article, and they pay the cost of that article, and the tariff on that article; and from this class are collected the revenues of the Government. The mauufacturer escapes the tax; the purchaser of the domestic article pays a tax to the manufacturer, instead of paying one to the Government; and the purchaser of the imported article pays all the revenue of the Government. Then you not only protect the manufacturer, but you exempt him from tax, so far as he consuines his own manufacture instead of the foreign.

5. This bill proposes to repeal the 20 per cent. clause in the distribution law. The substance of this clause is, that if any rate of duties over 20 per cent. is imposed after the passage of the distribution act, then the distribution is to be suspended. This bill proposes to raise the duties above 20 per cent, and at the same time to repeal the law suspending the distribution. I shall say nothing now of the unconstitutionality of collecting revenue to distribute among the States, whether it be from the customs or from the public lands. The inexpediency of the measure is objection enough. Government is in debt, and unable to pay-is a beggar, and unable to borrow. She wants to give away money, when she has none for her own use, much less to give. This is evidently unwise and impolitic; but this subject I will notice further hereafter.

This

6. I stated, as a general objection to a tariff, that the taxes paid under it were not in proportion to the property protected by the Government; because

H. of Reps.

the poor generally paid as heavy taxes under the tariff as the rich, and often more. The tax on sugar is one example; on coffee, another; and en salt, another. The tax on cottons and other articles where the minimum principle prevails, is an example where the rich pays his 30 per cent. on fine cottons and the poor 100 per cent. on coarse cottons. These are inequalities under this particular bill; but no tariff can be arranged so as to operate equally. Their unequal operation is an objection to tariffs generally. The manufacturer is measurably exempt from their operation; and while others are burdened to death, he is enriched by them. As the disease profits the physician, and kills the patient, so the tariff profits the manufacturer, and ruins the

consumer.

7. Of all others, the system of imposts is the most expensive, and, consequently, the most op. pressive system of taxation. From 1830 to 1840, including both years, $210,707,992 were collected. The expense of collecting this sum was $15,160,148. This was an expense of over 7 per cent. for collecting. But this is not the expense which I allude to, as making it a most expensive and oppressive system of taxation. I allude to an expense far more enormous, extravagant, and oppressive. I aliude to the profits which are paid by the consumer upon the tax which goes into the treasury. In examining this part of the subject, I may not allude again to the 7 per cent. for collecting. That is two insignificant to be noticed here; but the accumulation of profits on the tax, by the time they are paid by the consumer, amounts to a sum which seems incredible to any one who has not made the calculation for himself.

I shall examine this part of the subject as it oper. ates upon the West. Of part of that country I have the right to speak. On the balance of the Union the operation is of the same character, but not in every part to the same extent; but is extensive and injurious on all, after you leave the sections of country immediately around the importing cities and custom-houses.

The goods which we use in the West, on which the tariff is collected, pass first through the hands of the importer; second, through the hands of the jobber; third, through the hands of the Western city merchant; fourth, through the hands of the village or country merchant; and, fifth, into the hands of the consumer; and there they stop. Each one of these persons has his profit, till you come to the consumer, who pays all the profits which accumu. late on the goods before they reach his hands, and makes none himself. This accumulation of profits applies not only to the tax upon the goods, but also to the original cost; and it applies not only to foreign goods, but also to domestic goods made East; and not only to the actual value of the domestic goods, but also to any bounty which we may pay to the manufacturer. But my main object is, to show the accumulation of profits on the tariff, and the expense and cost of collecting revenue by that system.

As before said, the goods used in the West go through the hands of the importer, the jobber, the Western city merchant, the village or country merchant, and the consumer. To the importer, the jobber pays ten per cent. profit; to the jobber, the Western city merchant pay's twenty per cent. profit; to the Western city merchant, the village or country merchant pays thirty per cent. profit; and to the village or country merchant, the consumer pays fifty per cent. profit. I assume these as the average profits charged. These profits are not always realized, because under the credit system many bad debts are contracted, and many losses are sustained. But these profits are collected from those who pay. When loafers fail to pay, working-men are mulcted to make up the deficiency.

If the profits which I have assumed be too high, that does not change the principle, or prevent the enormous accumulation of costs in collecting the tariff from the Western people, but only mitigates the evil. If, in any case, I have assumed profits that are too high, those who know the profits actually charged can correct me and can easily make the calculations for themselves at the true profits. If these profits are thought by any to be higher than are charged, let them be reduced even one-half, and then let them calculate the profits upon the tariff at this reduction; and they will stil see that, of all systems of taxation, it is the most oppressive and ruinous to the Western people. The same remark applies to other portions of the Union, but not to all to the same extent, I know

27TH CONG....SD SESS.

that many of the Western village and country merchants purchase their own goods in the Eastern cities, and thus cut off the profit to the Western city merchant; but I have yet to learn that they do so to enable them to sell their goods the cheaper, and that they do not do so to reap the whole amount of profits themselves. But, if they do sell cheaper in such cases, still this only mitigates, and does not remove the evil; but leaves the tariff still the most ruinous of all systems of taxation on the West. And what is worse-it is ruinous to the people without benefiting the Government. Even the manufacturer gains but a pittance of what the consumers lose. Even the dealer in merchandise can hardly be a gainer by the heavy profits paid on the tariff. If he pays one hundred per cent. tariff, and one hundred per cent. cost, it is true he makes as much profit upon the tariff as he makes upon the cost, and pays only half the amount of freight, drayage, wharfage, and storage, and gains by saving half these expenses; but these are mere drops in the bucket, and make no show in the general price of the merchandise. His insurance is just the same as if he paid no tariff, and bought twice the amount of goods. And if, instead of one hundred per cent., the merchant paid no tariff, he could then trade on twice as many goods, and make the same profit, and run no greater risk; and the consumer would be benefited by getting double the amount of goods for the same amount of money. The same observations apply to any tariff less than one hundred per cent., with this difference only: that, as you diminish the tariff, you diminish the injurious operation of the tariff; and as you increase the tariff, you increase its ruinous effects. The operation of the tariff, then, not only ruins the consumer, but it ruins the merchant also. The latter depends upon the former, and the latter fails because the former fails-the latter is ruined because the former is ruined. When you break down the farmer, the merchant has no shoulders to rest upon.

Let us calculate the cost of the tariff on the Western people; and, while we are at it, we can look at the accumulation of profits upon the original cost of an article, as well as at the accumulation of profits upon the tariff paid on that cost. It will produce no confusion to look at both at once. We are ruined by both. For our purpose, let us assume that the original cost of an article is what it has cost the importer when it reaches the customhouse, and before the tariff is paid. Here the importer pays the tariff. The tariff and the original cost make the whole cost to him. The importer charges 10 per cent., the jobber 20 per cent., the Western city merchant 30 per cent., and the village or country merchant 50 per cent. The profits end with the village or country merchant. The consumer makes no profits, but pays all.

To get the accumulation of profits upon the original cost, or upon the tariff, you must add the first profit to the original cost, or to the tariff, as the case may be, and then calculate the second profit; add that to the cost and first profit, or tariff and first profit, and on that calculate the third profit; add this to the cost and two first profits, or to the tariff and two first profits, and on this calculate your fourth profit; then add this to the cost and three first profits, or to the tariff and three first profits, and you have the amount paid by the Western consumer in the shape of cost and profits on cost, and in the shape of tariff and profits on tariff; and, by adding the two together, you have the cost, the tariff, the profits on cost, and the profits on tariff, making the whole amount paid by the consumer.

From the profits here charged on the cost and on the tariff, should be deducted the expenses for freight, insurance, drayage, wharfage, and storage; but these expenses are too insignificant to be noticed in treating of others of such stupendous magnitude as those we are now exposing. The 7 per cent. expense of collecting the revenue will be much more than an offset to the expense of insurance, freight, drayage, wharfage, and storage; but let one balance the other.

To make this matter clear-to show the vast accumulation of profits on the cost, and the vast accumulation of profits on the tariff; to show the enormous expense of collecting a revenue by a system of imposts-let us now give an example. One hundred yards of common broadcloth (an article everywhere abundantly used in the Western country) in the hands of the importer in New York, at the custom-house, before the tariff is paid-freight, insurance, and all other charges up to that time paid

The Tariff Bill-Mr. J. C. Edwards.

would be worth, say two dollars per yard; making the one hundred yards worth to the importer $200. On this the importer pays the tariff; which, by the bill before us, is forty per cent.; making the tariff on the one hundred yards of cloth $80; thus raising the price, in the hands of the importer, from $200 to $280. The Government tax being paid, the cloth is now free from the custom-house; and the importer can sell without the charge of smuggling. He sells to the jobber for 10 per cent. advance. This is $20 profit on the original cost of the goods, and $8 profit on the tariff; making, together, the sum of $28, and raising the cloth in the hands of the jobber from $280 to $303. The jobber sells to the St. Louis merchant, and charges him a profit of 20 per

cent.

This makes $44 on the cost and previous profit on cost, and $17 60 on the tariff and previous profit on the tariff; and raises the article, in the hands of the Western city merchant, from $308 to $369 60. The Western city merchant sells to the country merchant, and charges a profit of 30 per cent. This makes $79 20 on the original cost of the article, and the two previous profits on the original cost; and the sum of $31 68 ets. on the tariff, and two previous profits on the tariff; making the whole value of the article, in the hands of the village or country merchant, $480 48 cts. The village or country merchant sells to the consumers-to the farmers, mechanics, lawyers, doctors, speculators, loafers, and negroes-and charges an average profit of 50 per cent. profit makes $171 60 on the original cost of the goods and three previous profits on the original cost, and $68 64 on the tariff and three previous profits on the tariff; and raises the value of the arti cle in the hands of the village or country merchant from $480 48 to $720 42; the original cost-the cost at the custom-house before the tariff is paidbe it remembered, being but $200.

This

The cost of the one hundred yards of cloth, then, at the custom-house, before the tariff is paid, is $200. The importer pays the tariff, or tax-the latter is the right name. The cost to him, then, is $280; to the jobber $308; to the Western city merchant $369 60; to the village or country merchant $180 48; and to the Western consumer $720 42; being an excess over the original of $520 42. The whole profit on the original cost paid by the consumers would be $314 80; making the profits exceed the original cost $114 80; and the whole profit on the tariff would be $125 92; making the profits exceed the tariff $45 92. This is a profit of 157 per cent. on cost and on tariff; and this profit is the cost of collecting revenue from the Western consumer of imported merchandise. If this be so, then, beyond all question, 1 have sustained my position, that the system of imposts is the most expensive, and, consequently, the most oppressive of all systems of taxation. I am either deranged on this subject, or else the people of the West, and of other parts of the Union, are unmindful of their interests, and have neglected to look at the operation of the tariff on their interests in its true light. This is the operation of the tariff in the West, in reference to a particular item. It is the same in principle in reference to all other articles which are taxed. It will only consume time to notice others.

I have no doubt I shall be met here, by many, with the answer that I have assumed profits higher than are charged. It is not my wish to do so. I want to present the case as it exists. None should be afraid to look at the naked truth. To shut our eyes against it, will not prevent its effect. Let us, then, assume but half these profits. Everybody will admit that half is greatly under the profits charged. Let us give to the importer 5 per cent.; to the jobber 10 per cent.; to the Western city merchant 15 per cent.; to the village or country merchant 25 per cent.; and to the consumer the task of paying all,— and then see the result. Let us take the same item, 100 yards of cloth, at $2 per yard; making $200 cost, and 880 tariff. The 5 per cent. profit to the importer added on, would make the cost to the jobber $210, and the tariff $84; the 10 per cent. profit to the jobber would make the cost to the Western city merchant $231, and the tariff $92 40; the 15 per cent. to the Western city merchant would make the cost to the village or country merchant $266 60, and the tariff $106 26; and the 25 per cent. to the village or country merchant, would make the cost and profits on cost to the consumer $332 25, and the tariff and profits on tariff $132 82; the profits on cost being $132 25; and the profits on tariff being $52 82-being a profit of 66 per cent. on the original cost of the cloth, and an expense of

H. of Reps.

66 per cent. for collecting the tax-an expense unheard of under any other system of taxation. But everybody knows that these profits are nothing like the profits usually charged. The importer is known to get his 10 per cent., the jobber 20, the Western city merchant 30, and the village or country merchant 50, or nearly those sums. The exact sums can be fixed by those who know the profits charged. Let us now look at the more extended operation of this system.

We have 17,000,000 of inhabitants. By this bill, we propose to raise $27,000,000 of revenue. By the last enumeration, Missouri had 383,702 inhabitants. With this population, our proportion of the $27,000,000 of tariff, if we pay in proportion only to the balance of the Union, will be $609,252. The profits on this amount of tariff, paid by the people of Missouri who consume the merchandise on which the tariff is collected, is $959,165. Added together, the tariff and profits on the tariff paid in Missouri are $1,568,379. This would be a tax and profit, counting men, women, and children of all ages, nations, and colors, of four dollars and nine cents per head. Allowing an average of five persons for each family, we shall have 3,400,000 families in the United States, and 76,740 in the State of Missouri; and the former number of tax-payers in the Union, and the latter number in the State. This number will make the average tax and profit on tax in Missouri amount to twenty three dollars and forty-three cents per head of a family; a tax exceeding the net annual average income of half the families in the West, and of more than half the families in the Union.

While the 373,702 inhabitants are paying $1,568,379 of tariff and profit on tariff, that $609,232 of this sum may go into the treasury of the United States, or, rather, into the hands of the collectors, the 5,000,000 of Western people are paying tariff in the same proportion and profit on that tariff, it will be reasonable to say, equal to one-half the profit paid by Missouri. The tariff of the 5,000,000 of Western people will then be about $8,289,000. If the profits on this amount equalled the profit paid by the people of Missouri on their portion of the tariff, these profits would amount to about $17,000,000. But let us set them down at one half; and then the people of the West will pay $16,000,000-being the tariff and profits united, that the Government may get $8,000,000 of tax.

We should look at this subject calmly and without prejudice, and without party leanings. We should examine and investigate it closely and thoroughly. We should look at it, stripped of its mystery, and reduced to its nakedness; and, whether the picture be beautiful or deformity itself, our interest and our prosperity as individuals, and as a nation, require us to sift it thoroughly. But this subject is much larger, its deformity much greater, its ruinous influences much more extensive, when we take a full view. I have given here far less than half the picture; and what I shall yet say will still leave it imperfect and unfinished."

I have yet taken no notice of the protected articles manufactured in our own country. By protected articles, we mean such as are manufactured in our own country, as well as in foreign countries, and which are taxed when imported into our own country from foreign countries. Cotton cloth, for example, is a protected article. That is manufactured in our own country, and is also imported from other countries; and when so imported, staxed, and this tax is the protection to the home manufacture. A yard of cotton cloth is worth (say) 20 cents at the door of the customhouse. On this, our bill fixes a duty of 30 per cent. This 30 per cent. upon 20 cents--the price of the cloth per yard-is 6 cents tax per yard. This 6 cents per yard the importer must pay to the collector of the customs before he ventures to sell his goods, else he is indictable for smuggling. Then, this yard of cloth costs the importer 26 cents before he can sell to the jobber. The domestic article, of exactly the same quality, is worth no more than the imported article; but, as the imported article cannot be sold for less than 26 cents per yard-the cost and tariff--so the do mestic article of equal value will also command 26 cents per yard, the cost and bounty-or protection, it the term be better. And, under this state of the market, we pay the manufacturer 6 cents on every yard of cotton cloth manufactured by him, over and above its actual value. If the domestic article be reduced to 25 cents per yard, and can supply the demand at that price, then the

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

foreign article will be excluded; because that cannot be sold for less than the cost and tax-the 26 cents per yard; and, at this point, this article ceases to yield any revenue to the Government; and the tariff, as to this article, becomes purely protective --prohibitory-and not a tariff for revenue. If, by the aid of a tariff to increase the price of the imported article, the domestic article can be made to supply the demand, and to sell for less than the imported article, the domestic article will utterly exclude the foreign article. At this point, the constitutional object of a tariff--that of raising revenue "to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare"-totally ceases. I give this example, and but this one. The same remarks apply to other protected articles as well as

this.

By this bill, the manufacturer has 6 cents bounty, or protection, on the yard of cotton cloth worth 20 cents. This is 30 per cent. The protection on some articles is less than 30 per cent.; on some largely over--say 100 per cent.; and, on many, greatly over that. Even cottons which, ostensibly, are taxed but 30 per cent., are, in reality, many of them, taxed 100 per cent, and more. Let us, however, assume 30 per cent. as the average protection or bounty.

Our statistical tables for 1840 give, as the amount of cotton manufactures for that year, $46,350,453. At an average of 12 cents to the yard, this sum would give us 386,253,941 yards. At 6 cents per yard, this amount would give the manufacturers of cotton $23,115,236 of protection or bounty. And this sum is paid to the manufacturer by the people who use the domestic manufactured article, while those who use the foreign article pay the revenues of the Government.

These same tables show that the woollens manufactured in the United States in 1840 were estimated at $20,696,999. The tariff on woollens is 40 per cent., and 40 per cent. on this sum is $8,278,799. And this sum the consumers of woollens pay to the manufacturers of woollen goods, as protection or bounty. Let it never be forgotten, here or elsewhere, that on these immense bounties the consumers generally pay profits still more immense. I specify but these two out of the multitude of protected articles. I can only give examples.

I have not made the examination myself, but my honorable friend from Alabama [Mr. D. H. LEWIS] states to me that the whole catalogue of protected articles amounted, in 1840, to $395,000,000. I think this an over-estimate; but no matter. The principle can be seen. Thirty per cent. upon this sum is $108,500,000; and, if the amount of protected articles be not overrated, then the people who buy and consume these articles pay to the manufacturers $108,500,000 in the shape of protection or bounty. The profits which accumulate upon this bounty, before the goods get into the hands of the consumer, must not be forgotten. If there be any truth in these calculations, we can see therein one cause, and a prominent cause, of the deep distress and embarrassment pervading the land.

As 383,702 inhabitants (the population of Missouri) is to 17,000,000 of inhabitants, (the population of the United States,) so is the portion of bounty paid by Missouri for protection to $108,500,000, the amount paid by the Union. By this rule, the amount of bounty paid by Missouri on protected articles, supposing her to pay only in proportion as the other States pay, is $2,461,698. If we add the profits on this bounty, and calculate them as we have before calculated these profits, we shall have $6,337,410 as the amount of bounty and profits on bounty, to be paid by the people of Missouri. But, in the West, we should do the manufacturer injustice to fix the profits on his goods as high as on foreign goods. The domestic goods do not pass through as many hands as the foreign goods, before they get to the consumer in the West, and consequently do not accumulate as many profits.

I have said this much, to show that the system of imports was, of all modes of taxation, the most expensive, and consequently the most oppressive on the West.

For the reasons thus given, I am opposed to this bill; and, for a part of these reasons-the part which must exist against any tariff-I am forced to believe that the system of imposts is an injurious, oppressive, and unwise mode of collecting revenue.

My figures may not be exactly accurate; but, if they are not, in most cases they will be found rather to range under than over the mark. Every man should look into this matter. We know there is

The Tariff Bill-Mr. J. C. Edwards.

immense suffering all over the country. We are always at work; we are always in want; we are always in debt; and we are always oppressed. Much the largest portion of our population know all these things. Only a few-those who are born to fortunes, and are fortunate enough to retain themare ignorant of these things. There are some who never knew what it was to work, to want, to be in debt, to suffer, or to be oppressed; but the great mass of the people know all these things well. Work, want, debt, suffering, and oppression, are known all over the land. There must be some cause for it. It may be, we are taxed too heavily. We should examine.

But, if taxed heavily, we are told we do not feel the tariff, because we do not know we pay it. This may be our sad mistake: no doubt it is. Every man feels it, and most grievously too; and the poor man, on whom the heaviest tariff falis, feels it most: but, unfortunately for him, although he knows he feels something sorely, yet he does not know what it is he feels. He knows he is hurt, but does not know the thing that hurts him. He feels the wound, but does not know whence the arrow sped. It will be agreed that the sick man is none the better off, and suffers none the less, in consequence of not knowing the character of his disease. And the man who pays the tariff, and the profits on the tariff, is none the better off for thinking it the cost, and profit on the cost; or for knowing nought about it. The man who thinks his disease is light, but finds it at length the cholera, will run the risk of dying; and the man who thinks his tax is light, but finds it out to be the tariff, will run the risk of being ruined.

Every man feels the operation of the tariff. He feels it in whatever he eats, drinks, or wears. No man escapes the tariff. Every man, woman, and child in the land is affected by it. None can escape. Every being that eats its salt is affected by it. His salt is taxed nearly half its value. Every family uses sugar and coffee: these are taxed by this bill. Almost every man, who does not wear fine linen, buys his cotton shirt: if coarse, this is taxed 100 per cent.; if fine, 50. The young men buy cloth coats: these are taxed 40 per cent. When their coats cost them 25 dollars, 10 dollars of the price is tax, and profits on tax. Boots, hats, shoes, axes, oes, ploughs, flannels, blankets, calicoes, and everything else, are taxed, (a few free articles excepted) and these, many of them, for the benefit of the manufacturer. We pay this tax as much as we would a direct tax; we feel this tax as much as we would a direct tax. More: we pay this tax, and these profits on this tax; there are no profits on a direct tax. And yet we take the indirect, and are afraid to meet a direct tax!

Let no man deceive himself, by supposing that he escapes the tax, because it is indirect. Let no man suppose he does not feel it, because he does not notice it, on every item on which he pays it. In my State, let him look into the justices' courts, into the county courts, into the circuit courts, where debts are collected. Let him examine the number of suits. Let him examine the accounts on which these suits are founded. Let him examine the items of these accounts, and see how many are for tariffed articles, and how much they are taxed. If the debt has been liquidated, and the suit be founded on a note or bond, let him ask the parties what character of articles made up the debt. Let him inquire how much cost accumulates in the suit, and what part of that is properly chargeable to the tariff. Let him inquire if the defendant could not have paid the debt, if it had been 100 per cent. less, 50 per cent. less, 40 per cent. less, 30 per cent. less, or even 20 per cent. less. The tariff on the debts for merchandise will generally equal the smaller sums, and often the larger sums. If, after these inquiries, any man still doubts whether the people feel the tariff or not, then let him see the judgment rendered, the execution issued, the property levied on and sacrificed, the wives and children turned out of house and home; and then let him say whether the indirect system of taxation is felt or not. I have no doubt half the suits in the Westprobably eight out of ten, large and small-are for merchandise. Those who escape for a while are eventually worn down with the tax, and the profits on the tax; and then they are brought within the clutches of the merchant; and the Western merchant himself does not escape his higher merchant. Our courts all over the West, and everywhere else, are filled with suits. The great body of the people have no comfort.

H. of Reps.

They are suffering, mentally and physically, and all the time, with pecuniary embarrassments. They avoid their creditors; they dread the approach of an officer; they are afraid to hear their own dogs bark; the hair rises on their heads when they hear their gates turning upon their hinges. In every visiter they look for a dun or an officer. They have no ease, and no peace, and no comfort. This is the case with too many of our citizens. The cause should be removed. We can remove causes, if we cannot apply remedies. We have no remedies, except the removal of causes.

In the West, we feel the tariff heaviest, and there it operates most oppressively. In Missouri it is worse than in Illinois; in Illinois, worse than in Indiana; in Indiana, worse than it is in Ohio; in Ohio, worse than in Pennsylvania; in the western part of Pennsylvania, worse than in Philadelphia. In other words, the farther you get from the port of entry, the more onerous will be the operation of the tariff. The profits on a tariff will generally increase in proportion to the length of time which elapses, and the number of hands through which the taxed article passes, between the payment of the tariff at the custom-house by the importer, and the sale of the article to the consumer in the country, who pays the cost, the tariff, the profits on cost, and the profits on tariff, all in a lump. The tariff system, then, operates less heavily upon the importing States than upon the interior and Western States.

The whole operation of the tariff is calculated to give the manufacturing regions advantage over the agricultural. The labor of the agriculturist, and of other classes too, is taxed; and that tax is given to the manufacturer. A constant stream of wealth is thus flowing from the agricultural regions into the manufacturing regions. However slow and imperceptible this operation may be, it I will in time have its effect; and that effect will be, to enrich one portion of the Union, by impoverishing the other to enrich the manufacturing region, at the expense of the agricultural region. The great inducement held out by the high protective character of this tariff, and the utter folly and madness of investing capital in bank stocks, railroads, and other wild and visionary schemes, for the future, will give great encouragement to manufactories. Every description of articles which can be manufactured in our own country at an expense not absolutely unreasonable, will, in a few years, be made in suflicient abundance to supply all oui wants, and to exclude the foreign arvele of the same character altogether. The effect of this will be to cut off the importation of nearly all the goods on which the revenues of the Government are now collected. The list of articles paying no duty under this bill is estimated at $13,000,000. "A slight tariff would prohibit the importation of most of these articles. From these, and the remnant of other articles which may be imported, not manu. factured in our own country, a sufficiency of revenue cannot be collected to defray the expenses of Government. Then another effect of this tariff will be to cut us out of a revenue from imports. But we must have a revenue to keep the wheels of Government in motion. If we cannot get that revenue by a system of imposts, then we must be driven to some other system. This is necessarily the case; and we cannot help it, except by reducing the tariff, and suffering the importation of more foreign merchandise. To effect this, the reduction would have to be very large. We shall be driven to another system to supply our treasury, and the system of excises is out of the question. We hall have nothing left, then, but a resort to direct taxation. The high tariff will drive us to this system; and this will be another effect of this high protective tariff. It may be fortunate, however, for the country, if this result follows. The system of direct taxation may prove our greatest blessing.

The high tariff is driving us to direct taxation. The withdrawal of capital from the banks, and wild schemes of internal improvements, and the large profits from manufacturing, will cause heavy investments in that business. The great reduction in the amount of the circulating medium will reduce the price of everything, the price of labor must fall, and the price of all the ingredients used in manufacturing must fall; it is not in the power of man to prevent it. This fall in prices will be a protection to the domestic, against the foreign manufactures. The high prices which everything commanded here a few years back made us the market for the balance of the world. We bought

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

almost everything, and sold nearly nothing. Our present low prices will reverse the order of things. We shall now sell, and measurably case to buy. We shall manufacture extensively, and greatly diminish our imports. Our revenue from imports must then fall.

The result of all this must be to drive us eventually into a system of direct taxation. It is idle and foolish, and worse than madness, to shut our eyes against this fact. The day is not far distant, when, no matter how much a majority of us may regret it, we shall be compelled to realize it. And, for my part, I can see no good reason why we should wish to avert that day; or even why we should not welcome, instead of dreading its approach. It sometimes happens that apprehended evils prove our greatest blessings; and it may be so with the system of direct taxation.

He is blind who cannot see coming events by the shadows which precede them. He is unwise and cowardly who shuts his eyes at what might be seen approaching, because he dreads the object. We should not shut our eyes against the light which blazons forth the truth, but should look at all things as they present themselves, and meet them fearlessly and manfully. So we should meet this question of direct taxation, to which high protective tariffs are driving us at a gallopping pace. No doubt about it. Our protection enables us to manufacture for ourselves. By manufacturing for ourselves, we exclude foreign imports; by excluding foreign imports, we cut off our revenue from imposts; by cutting off our revenue from imposts, we are driven to direct taxation. This is inevitable. Excises are out of the question. The present tariff will not yield a sufficient revenue for the wants of the Government; it is too high; it will check importations too far.

If, then, we are to be driven to the system of direct taxation, we should begin to look at that system calmly and dispassionately, and like rational men. It may not be the worst; it may be the best; it has many advocates. It may be the simplest, cheapest, and safest system. It cannot be more expensive than the system of imposts. The expense of collecting direct taxes will, no doubt, be greatly less than that of collecting imposts. We have before seen that 7 per cent. was the expense of collecting imposts. This is the amount paid simply for collecting. Then we have seen the profits paid upon the tariff. On the Western people these profits amount to one hundred and fifty-seven per cent. Many of the States collect their revenue-by direct taxation too-for less than even 7 per cent. Then, between the two systems, there is no comparison in the expense of collecting.

But the revenue for this Government, under a system of direct taxation, ought to be collected at much less expense than the revenue for the State Governments. The State of Missouri pays about $70,000 annually to support her Government. Her portion of the revenue of this Government is $609,232. The State of Connecticut pays about $80,000 annually for her Government. Her portion of the revenue of this Government is about $600,000. These two cases occur to me at this moment. The other States pay for their own support, and the support of this Government, in about the same proportion. Let me say this disproportion is immense, and that it is an evidence of the great evil of having a Government too independent of the people. Our rulers should be kept close to their constituents, and held accountable.

The $70,000 of State revenue paid in Missouri, and the $609,232 of United States revenue paid in Missouri, are paid by precisely the same people. If both sums were paid by direct taxes, the collector of each sum would call upon precisely the same number of men, and the same men. The trouble of collecting the $70,000, then, would be precisely the trouble of collecting the $609,232. Only one difference would exist. In the former case, it would be less; in the latter, the responsibility would be greater. But this would not be important. If the trouble of collecting the two sums would be about the same, then the expense of collecting the two ought to be about the same. Then, if the $70,000 can be collected for about (say) 7 per cent, $609,232 ought to be collected for even less than one per cent. What a result! Allow even 5 per cent. for the expense of collecting, and the direct system would still be cheaper than the indirect, omitting the profits on the tariff.

But the value of a system of direct taxes must

The Tariff Bill-Mr. J. C. Edwards.

depend much upon the machinery by which it is managed. The prejudices against the system once in operation, may have had their origin in the imperfections of the laws by which that system was managed. In many instances, this was, no doubt, true. There is surely nothing frightful in the simple fact of knowing that we pay a few dollars to support our Government. In being cheated out of ten times as much, I can see nothing so exquisitely delightful, which should make us cling to a system of indirect taxation. The people will not, when it becomes necessary, refuse to pay taxes directly in proportion to the value of their property. I am sure of this. They are doing this very thing now in almost every State in the Union. They do not complain when the taxes are reasonable and right. If the taxes are too high, the knowledge of that fact is brought to the notice of the people when they are called on to pay; and they correct the evil through their Representatives. This is a decided benefit resulting from this system. It would be a great corrective of abuses and extravagances if applied to this Government.

I can see no difference in principle between paying direct taxes to the State Governments and direct taxes to this Government. The taxes are paid in the same coin; they are levied in the same proportion; they are collected by the same sort of officers. They differ only in amount. We do not complain of State taxes. They are direct. Why, then, complain of taxes for this Government, if they should ever be direct? The people will not complain of them, simply because they are dire; but, if they do complain, it will be of their immense weight. Of this they will be right to complain. But the distinction should be clearly drawn, that this is not a complaint against the system of direct taxation, but against the weight of the taxes themselves.

In the West, (unless my system of calculating be incorrect,) there would be an immense saving to the people, by exchanging the indirect for the direct system of taxation. We should save, first, the difference between the expense of collecting-say four or five per cent.; and we should save, second, all the profits on the indirect taxes, which amount, as far west as Missouri, to 157 per cent. In this State, we should then pay, simply, $609,232 of taxes; and from this would be deducted 1 per cent. (and perhaps something upwards) for collecting, instead of 7 per cent. Under the direct system, we should pay the $609,232, without paying any profits on it; instead of paying $958,922 profits, as we now do, under the indirect system. The same observations apply to other States-if not in the same proportion, at least to a great extent.

I have said that the people would not object to pay direct taxes when it became necessary to do so, if they were reasonable and right. They pay direct taxes to the States, and do not complain; and this is in no way different from paying direct taxes to this Government. But the people of Missouri pay only about $70,000 of taxes for State purposes, and $609,232 for this Government. Connecticut pays but about $80,000 for State purposes, and about $600,000 to this Government. The people of Missouri, although accustomed to pay $70,000 State revenue annually, and by direct taxes, might be somewhat astounded when called on for $609,232 in direct taxes. And Connecticut, accustomed to pay only about $80,000, would be somewhat astounded when called on to pay $600,000 in the shape of direct taxes. It is urged as an argument against direct taxation, that the people would repudiate when they discovered the amount they had to pay. The exposure of the burdens heaped on the shoulders of the people is the best argument in favor of direct taxes. They would repudiatenot the Government, nor the system of taxation; but the expenses and extravagance of the Government. When we are driven to direct taxation, a full exposure of these burdens will follow; and then every man will learn what he has to pay towards supporting his Government; and then, and probably not till then, will commence a proper system of reform and retrenchment in this Government. This exposure should be made. We should perpe uate no mysteries in our Government. Everything should be laid bare to the people. The light of day should be thrown on everything.

It is urged against direct taxes, and in favor of indirect taxes, that a man may escape the latter if he chooses. Let no man deceive himself by supposing that he eludes the taxes because they are indirect. If he neither eats, drinks, works with

H. of Reps.

tools, nor wears any clothes, then he may escape them; but if he wears clothes, works, drinks, or eats, he is apt to pay his part of the taxes. Every man, woman, and child in the land, of every age, color, and sex, is taxed under this bill. Our horses, our cattle, our sheep-everything using salt is taxed under this bill. We pay the tax on our salt, on our coffee, on our sugar, on our tea, on our hats, our boots, our shoes, our coats, our shirts; on our hoes, on our ploughs, on our axes, on our spades; on almost everything we use, we pay this tax; and we should never forget the profits we pay on this tax. Let no man, if any be so mean and so ignoble as to wish to avoid his share of tax, deceive himself by supposing he escapes this tax, unless it be the manufacturer, who uses his own, and not the imported article. The manufacturer does escape, so far as he consumes his own article; but no further.

It may be wrong to answer such an argument as this. If any, there can be but few men in our Gov. ernment who would be willing to escape paying their quota of taxes. No man should be so unpatriotic as to wish to escape the payment of the taxes justly due the Government which protects his life, his liberty, and his property. Every man should be proud to pay the reasonable taxes due his Government; and every man of proud and patriotic heart will do so. He is an ignoble son who would skulk from his just share of the burdens of his country,at any time, or of any kind. We should banish, but never encourage or countenance, such an idea. The people will not repudiate. They are too patriotic for that. They would demand a correction of abuses, and enforce a reduction of expenditures. This would be right.

The increase of Executive patronage is urged against direct taxes. This is no objection to the system, because it does not necessarily exist. An increase of patronage is easily avoided; and a great diminution in the amount of patronage now exercised, as easily effected. The Executive patronage would only be increased by giving him the power of appointing the assessors and collectors of the revenue. It would be wrong to give him this power; and he would find no pleasure in exercising it. Each State has her collection districts already organized. This Government could adopt the same districts. In some of the States, the people of the collection districts, or counties, now elect their own assessors and collectors. This plan is found to work well. It is the Democratic plan; and all parties are now Democratic. It is the best plan, and this Government should adopt it. This would cut off all Executive patronage, and obviate that objection. If we should ever collect the whole of our revenue by direct taxes-and when we are driven to that sys-, tem, it will be best to do so to avoid the expense of keeping up two systems-then we can dispense with the whole custom-house establishment, and all the fraud and corruption connected with it. This would cut off from the Executive the appointment of the host of custom house officers, while it would cleanse the Government of a rotten system of taxation. And this would be an immense curtailment of Executive patronage.

The election of assessors and collectors provides for the collection of the revenue. Nothing is more simple, and plain, and easy of comprehension. We see it every day at home. The balance of the system is carried out easily. Nothing remains, after collecting, but to pay the money out according to the order of the Government. The customhouses are scattered all over the Union, and so are the revenues under the system of imposts. Under a system of direct taxes, the collectors will be scattered all over the Union, and so will be the revenue collected by them. In either case, this Government has to provide the means of transmitting her funds to the proper points. The mail belongs to this Government; every man in the community transmits his money by mail; so could the collectors of the revenue. The Government should take the risk of her own conveyance. If this would not do, this Government could have a depository in each State. Either plan would be simple and cheap, and the details easily arranged.

There are many reasons in favor of a system of direct taxation. My mind has been impelled in that direction for years, and by a force which has thus far been utterly irresistible. I have endeavored to combat it; but so strong have been the arguments in its favor, that I have been unable to do so. I differ from many of my political friends on this subject; and from many, and perhaps a majority, of

27TH CONG.......3D SESS.

my constituents; but it cannot be helped. I believe the system of direct taxation the simplest, cheapest, and safest, and decidedly the best. But I believe my constituents are not with me on this point; and I must represent their wishes, when they can be ascertained or reasonably calculated on. But when the time arrives for the adoption of a system of direct taxation,-as at present advised, if that system be properly arranged, I shall cheerfully vote for it; and it is right that I should say so. I have no right to speak for anybody else; but for myself, I have a right to speak. It is my duty to speak, because I differ from my friends, and perhaps a majority of my constituents. I would rather sink, sustaining correct principles, than swim by advocating errors. I cannot help believing the system of direct taxation the best for us.

We have seen the evils heaped upon us by the indirect mode of taxation. We have seen its unequal operation, and its expensive and oppressive character. We have seen the immense accumulation of profits upon the tariff, all of which are paid by the consumers. We have seen the tendency of any tariff, and especially of a high protective tariff, to drive us to direct taxation. We have seen that the system of direct taxation would relieve us from many of the burdens imposed on us by the tariff. All this we have seen; but this relief is remote, and we want immediate relief. There are some remedies within our reach, and we should begin to use them. They are simple, and should be adopted at once.

One remedy for the Western people is to import their own goods, as far as possible, directly to the Western cities. We ought to cut off the profit to the Eastern importer and to the jobber; and to reduce the profits of the Western city merchant to that of the jobber; and that of the village or country merchant, to that of the Western city merchant. Even this would leave us ten, twenty, and thirty per cent.-enough, in all conscience, for any people to pay; ten to the Western importer, twenty to the city merchant, and thirty to the country merchant. Even these ought to be reduced one half. They might be. The merchandise being close at home, our village and country merchants could invest and sell, and reinvest and sell again, at very short periods. We should pay cash, and sell for cash. Then there would be no losses; and the merchants could live and thrive upon half the profits they now contract for. The practice of charging solvent persons double price, to make up losses on insolvent persons, might then be abandoned. By importing our own goods, we should promote the growth of our own cities. What the people of my own State now contribute to the growth of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, we should then contribute to the growth, and improvement, and wealth of our own rising and flourishing city. So of all the other Western people, and the other Western cities. They would become better markets for our own Western produce; and better markets would enrich our citizens. Our citizens, enriched, would be able to purchase more from our merchants; and thus each class would promote the interest of the other, and all would prosper together. This remedy would save us a large amount of the profits which accumulate on the tariff and on the cost of merchandise also.

In the West we should ask a tariff as low as possible. Let it be for revenne. We can pay the tariff, if moderate, and the profits on it; and we have paid a tariff, when exorbitant, and the profits on that; but then it is wrong to grind us too far into the earth. We are sore already. You should tread lightly on our corns, and not render our burdens insupportable, but begin "to unpack." Let the Government be administered economically; and load us with no more revenue than is necessary to pay her reasonable expenses. Abolish expenses where they can be dispensed with; and, where they cannot, retrench them if they can bear retrenchment. Cut off all extravagancies, whether in large matters or in small. Let us not be afraid of mighty influence against us, where large expenditures are involved. Let us meet them and retrench. Let us not slur over the strong and the powerful, and strike deep into the weak and the helpless. Let us not pass by the army and the navy, and seize upon the clerks and the pages. Let all fare alike. Let all be brought to a standard to suit the times. Money has grown scarce among us. It may be many years before it is plentiful again. The people cannot pay as they have paid heretofore. We must come down. Ne

Missouri Boundary Line-Mr. J. C. Edwards.

cessity will force us; and we had better make a virtue of necessity, and come at once where it must eventually drive us. Reduce this bill. You will get more revenue by it. Even then you will not get enough. The people are too poor; they are too much in debt; they cannot buy your taxed goods; they must economize to get out of debt. Let us retrench. Then we shall want less revenue, and the Government will be better able to meet her debts.

But, in my own State we have another remedy, and we should adopt it. We should go for protecting home industry. We have the power of making a large portion of the necessaries of life within ourselves, and we should exercise that power. We should resolve to do so in self-defence. We should do so, to prevent ourselves from being taxed to death to support exacting neighbors. We should keep our own wheels and our own looms in operation. We should give them especial protection and encouragement. We should encourage our other various manufactures. Our men, women,

and children should work, and keep at it busily and steadily, and should husband well what they make; and should live, as far as possible, within themselves, until a change in the policy of our Government shall equalize its advantages, its burdens, and its taxes.

In my own State, we should encourage manufactures. No doubt we have the power to do so. We have advantages over our Eastern neighbors. Our fuel, water-power, house rent, provisions, and raw material for some fabrics, can be obtained decided-. ly cheaper than theirs. Our manual labor is dearer. But to make coarse cottons, for example, (an article used extensively among us,) very litle manual labor is required. They are mostly made with machinery. For this, and other reasons, they can be made as cheap in Massachusetts as in Great Britain; and for this, and other reasons, they ought to be made as cheap in Missouri as in Massachusetts. The other reasons, in both cases, are the cheap prices of all the ingredients, except manual labor. This would cost us but little.

Be

We should take back the lands. For the present, this would be another remedy. The revenue derived from them would go, to that extent, to diminish the burdens of a tariff. It would go much further. It would save the people the payment of that much revenue; and then all the profits paid upon that amount of revenue. Suppose the land fund to be distributed be $2,000,000: if we distribute $2,000,000 of land revenue, the treasury will be minus that sum in consequence; and just as much so as if we had distributed $2,000,000 of revenue from imposts. To the clearness of this proposition nobody will hesitate to assent. Of this sum, the distributive share of Missouri would be $45,000, and perhaps more-no matter what amount. fore you give this amount of land revenue to the State, you must take it from the treasury of the United States. In doing this, you create a vacancy in your treasury exactly equal to $45,000, which must be filled up from some other source. We have but one source; and that is from the customs-from imposts-from taxes on imported goods. Everybody can understand this. Let us trace the operation of this on Missouri. Forty-five thousand dollars are to be collected from the customs, or imposts-or, in plainer language, loxes on imported goods-to supply her share of the deficit in the revenue created by the distribution of the land fund. This sum is paid at the custom-houses; and mostly at those in New York and Philadelphia, where we buy most of our merchandise. This forty-five thousand dollar tax is paid in the outset by the importer.

Let us now follow this sum, and the profits which accumulate on it, until the tax, and all the profits on the tax, are finally paid by the consumer. The goods on which this tax is paid must pass through the hands of the importer, the jobber, the Western city merchant, and the village or country merchant, as in other cases. The importer sells to the jobber, and gets 10 per cent. on the tariff which he has paid. This raises the whole sum to $49,500. The jobber sells to the St. Louis merchant, and he gets 20 per cent. upon the tariff and the profit which he has paid the importer. This raises the whole sum to $59,400. The St. Louis merchant sells to the village or country merchant, and charges a profit of 30 per cent. This raises the whole amount of tariff and profits on tariff to $77,220. The village or country merchant sells to the people who consume, and charges 50 per cent. profit. This, added to the tariff, and previous

H. of Reps.

profits on tariff, makes the $45,000 cost the consomers $115,830! The operation of the land bill, then, on Missouri, is to give her $45,000 with one hand, and to take from her $115,830 with the other. Let us say nothing about the expense of collecting and distributing: this out of the question, the picture is strong enough to startle any Western man who can be induced to look at it in his sober senses, and made to understand it. We should take back the lands, then. The revenue arising from them would go, to their amount, to relieve the West, ern people of the burdens imposed on them in collecting the revenues for this Government.

But all these remedies will not give the West complete relief. All these remedies will not place the West on an equality with other parts of the Union. We shall not have a complete remedy, nor shall we be placed on an equality in paying taxes, till we have been driven to direct taxation, and have exterminated the impost system. Then we Then we shall pay clean taxes and equal taxes. shall know how much we pay, what we pay it for, and what is done with what we pay. And this will be a great advancement in our system of collecting and disbursing revenue, and in reforming the abuses and retrenching the expenses of this Government.

[The following speech was made at the 2d ses sion of the 27th Congress, as will be seen by its date; but it was not written out by the member and delivered to us until after the Appendix for that session was completed, which will account for its appearance in this volume.]

SPEECH OF MR. J. C. EDWARDS,

OF MISSOURI,

In the House of Representatives, July 20, 1842—— In relation to the territory in dispute between the State of Missouri and the United States, and to the true location of the boundary between Missouri and Iowa.

Mr. EDWARDS addressed the Chair as follows. Mr. CHAIRMAN: But one hour will be allowed me to present my case. That is by no means enough; and two would not be sufficient to investigate the subject fully; but as much of it as can be, shall be crowded into the time allowed me.

I am not ignorant of the fact that I commence the discussion of this case with a majority of the House prejudiced against the claim of my State. I can, therefore, anticipate the character of the decision which will probably be given. You have heard that side of the case against the claim of Missouri, but you have heard nothing in favor of her claim; and even now, under the operation of your rules, you will let but half the case be presented before you decide.

linfer that you are prejudiced against our claim, for several reasons. One report has been made upon the subject by the authority of Iowa. This is, of course, against the claim of Missouri. Another has been made by a commissioner on the part of the United States. This does not decide positively against us, but its leanings and tendencies are. against us. The Committee on Territories, to whom this matter has been referred, have twice reported against our claim. During all this time, you have heard nothing favorable to the claim of Missouri. For these reasons, in part, I infer that you are prejudiced against our claim.

But Iowa considers herself a party to this case. Then her report is of no great value, and should have but little weight. Your own commissioner does not decide positively against us. He acted on but a part of the case, and still had his doubts. The two reports of the Committee on Territories are by no means consistent-the one admiuing what the other denies, in several important maiters. But you depend much upon your committees --and, in the general, this is right and proper, but your committees are not always right in their conclusions. They are by no means infallible. In this case, they are clearly wrong.

You are a party to this case. This is usually a cause of prejudice; but I do not allude to the fact here for that reason, but because I wish the fact distinctly noticed that you are a party. If it be a ground of prejudice, we are willing to waive that ground, and to trust our case to your decision; reserving to ourselves the right, of course, as is done in all other cases of similar character, to apply to