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

I will not go for raising, by a tariff, a single dollar more than the wants of the Government, economically administered, require. But, in laying that tariff, I will be at all times willing and desirous so to discriminate between the articles imported as to foster and protect our home labor and home productions, against foreign labor and foreign productions.

I have said, sir, that this question lies within narrow limits. The principal difficulties in regard to it arise from not having a clear perception of the true issues involved, and from confounding collateral and extraneous matters with them. In order to get at the proper points of inquiry, I propose to separate the undisputed propositions connected with the subject from those that are controverted. This will simplify the matter, and enable us to pursue our investigations with much more facility. What points, then, are undisputed?

1st. All agree that it is the duty of Government to raise, in some manner, money enough to defray its current expenses, and to pay, in suitable instalments, the debts it may owe.

2d. All agree that there are, under the provisions of the Constitution, but three modes of raising revenue, viz: by imposts, by excises, and by direct

taxation.

3d. A large majority, if not every member of this House, will agree that the revenue ought not to be raised by a direct tax on land, nor by that system of excises which Mr. Jefferson denounced as an "infernal system, which should never have found a place in our Constitution." The only remaining way of raising revenue is by a system of imposts or duties on foreign merchandise-the system which was devised by the first Congress at its first session, and which has prevailed without interruption from that time to the present day.

I may, then, venture to assume it to be the sense of Congress and the nation that the revenue which we need is to be raised by imposing duties or taxes on foreign goods imported into this country.

We have next to ascertain how much money is necessary. Upon this subject we have the estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury and of the Committee of Ways and Means, and the opinions of the most enlightened of our statesmen, showing that the current expenditures of the Government for the next three years will be from twenty-two to twenty-four millions per annum; and that, in addition to that amount, three and a half millions will be necessary to pay the interest on the public debt, and to provide a suitable sinking fund for the ultimate payment of the principal. These estimates, and the data on which they are founded, have been furnished to the country in official documents, and in various speeches which have been delivered on this floor; and, as no one has pretended to show that they are incorrect, I shall not undertake now to enter into an examination of them, but will assume that they present a fair statement of the amount which the Government will require. And here I will take occasion to say, that this estimate falls, by several millions, below the average annual expenditure of Mr. Van Buren's administration, which was $28,098,965.

Twenty-seven millions being thus shown to be necessary to supply the wants of the Government, the present bill has been carefully framed by the Committee of Ways and Means, after mature consideration of the views of the Secretary of the Treasury and of the Committee on Manufactures, to produce that amount. No gentleman has, during the course of this debate, ventured to say that it will produce more than twenty-seven millions; but many have expressed the belief that it will not yield that much. The friends of the bill cannot, therefore, be charged with any purpose of going beyond the point necessary for revenue.

We now come to the great principle involved in this bill. It resolves itself into this: Shall the revenue be levied by a horizontal system of ad valorem duties, operating alike upon all articles; or shall there be a just system of discrimination, with a view to the protection of our own industry in all its departments?

In this question two distinct points of inquiry are embraced. 1st. Has the Government the constitutional power to make such discrimination? 2d. If the Government does possess that power, is it expedient to exercise it?

If the first question is decided in the negative, there is no necessity for prosecuting the matter further; for if the power is not conferred upon Congress by the Constitution, no considerations of ex

The Tariff Bill-Mr. A H. H. Stuart.

pediency, however urgent, can ever justify its exercise.

The power of discrimination, to some extent, is conceded by the sternest opponents of the general doctrine. All admit, for example, that gold and silver shall be allowed to pass through our customhouses free of duty. A large majority of both parties are also in favor of a like exemption of tea and coffee. To these instances they seem to have paid no attention, because they are of a negative character: yet, surely, they embody the principle of discrimination just as much as if they paid higher instead of lower duties than other articles. Whilst, however, gentlemen concede the principle in these cases, they deny the right to discriminate with a view to protect our home productions.

The general question of the constitutional power of Congress to have regard, in laying duties upon imports, to our domestic interest, has been so often and so ably discussed, that nothing new can be said upon it; and I shall, therefore, not make the attempt. The arguments for and against the power have been spread over the country, and are acces. sible to all who wish to examine the subject. But I have recently met with a view of the question, by a man, in abilities, one of the first of the age, in an address to the American people on behalf of a convention held in New York in 1831, which is so condensed, so forcible, so conclusive, that I cannot deny myself the pleasure of submitting an extract-from it for the consideration of the committec.

"By the Constitution, Congress has power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.' It has power, also, 'to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'

"The power to lay duties is accompanied by one express qualification or limitation; which is, 'that all duties shall be uniform throughout the United States. The power to regulate commerce has its limitation also; which is, that no regulation of com. merce shall give preference to the ports of one State over those of another. And there is another limitation, which may apply to both clauses-namely, that no export duty shall ever be laid.

"Here, then, is a grant of power in broad and gen. eral terms, but with certain specific limitations, carefully expressed. But neither of these limitations applies in any manner to that exercise of the power which is now under consideration. Neither of them, nor any other clause or word in the whole Constitution, manifests the slightest intention to restrain the words so as to prohibit Congress from laying duties for protection. The attempt is nothing less than to add a restriction which the Constitution has omitted. Who has authority to add this? If other restrictions had been intended, they would have been expressed. When the business of limitation was before the convention, what was omitted was as much an exercise of intention as what was expressed. It stated all the restraints on Congress which it intended; and to impose others now would be, not to interpret the Constitution, but to change it; not to construe the existing instrument, but to make another.

"The words of the grant being general-to lay duties and to regulate commerce-their meaning is to be ascertained by reference to the common use and import of language. No unusual signification is to be given to the terms, either to restrain or enlarge their import. Congress, in its discretion, is to lay duties and to regulate trade for all the objects and purposes for which duties are ordinarily laid, and trade ordinarily regulated. If such a thing was never before heard of as laying duties and regulating trade with a view to encourage manufactures, then it might be said that the convention did not contemplate such an exercise of the power by Congress. But it was perfectly known to the convention, and to the people of this country, that one leading object with all Governments, in laying duties and regulating trade, was, and for a long time had been, the encouragement of manufactures. This was emphatically true of England, whose lan. guage the convention spoke, and whose legal and legislative phraseology was theirs also. Every leading state of Europe was, at that moment, regulating its commerce for purposes of this nature. Such a purpose, indeed, had been long sought to be accomplished by some of the States themselves, by their own regulations of trade. Massachusetts had attempted it, New York had attempted it, Virginia had attempted it, and we believe other States had done the same. How ineffectual all their attempts were, for want of union and a general system, was

H. of Reps.

soon seen and felt by the whole country; but they show to what ends, and to what uses, the power to regulate trade was understood to extend. But not only in other nations, and in the States, before the adoption of the present Constitution, as we shall have occasion to show hereafter, but in the United States since, and in the administration of this very Constitution, regulations of trade have been made, in almost innumerable instances, with no view to revenue, but with a sole and exclusive regard to protection.

"If our understanding of the Constitution be not according to its true meaning, that instrument has been grossly violated from the very beginning. What are all the registry acts, what the bounties on the fisheries, but so many avowed efforts to protect American industry, under the power of regulating trade? On what foundation does the whole system of the coasting trade stand? The American shipbuilder and ship-owner has enjoyed, from the first, (and we think properly,) not only protection in that trade, but the monopoly of it. He shuts out all foreign competition; and he does so on the ground that the public good is promoted by giving him this advantage. We think he is 11ght in asking this, and the Government right in granting it. Yet this is not free trade; it is preference-it is protection; and protection of a manufacture, under the power to regulate trade. The laws giving this protection to the manufacture and the use of ships may be wise, and laws protecting other manufactures may be unwise. But the first cannot be constitutional, and the latter not constitutional. If there be power for one, there is power for both. Both are drawn from the same grant, both operate by the same general means, and both regard the same object-the protection, namely, of American labor and capital against foreign competition. If it be said that the navigation act is founded in national policy, and that it is essential to national defence and national independence; we admit it. But we answer, in the first place, that Congress could not exercise a power not granted, merely because it might be useful or necessary; and, in the second place, we say that the same remark is true of the policy of protecting manufactures. That policy, also, is essential to national independence. Iron, hemp, and clothing for sailors and soldiers, are not less indispensable to national defence than ships and seamen. Not only in the general use of language, then, does the power of laying duties and regulating trade extend to the protection, by the use of such means, of domestic manufactures, but such has been the constant interpretation of the Constitution itself.

"We think, indeed, that when a general power is given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States, in plain and unambiguous words, their acts are constitutional and valid, if they are within the scope of the granted power; and that, in considering the validity of the law, the motives of the legislature can never be investigated. Having granted the power, with such limits expressed as were thought proper, its exercise within those limits is left to the discretion of Congress.

"What is the true character of the opposite doctrine? It is, that the constitutionality of a law depends, not on its provisions and enactments, but on the motives of those who passed it. Is not such a notion new? How are we to ascertain the motives of a legislature? By private inquiry; by public examination; by conjecture? The law may be passed on mixed motives-some members voting for revenue, some for protection; or one House may act with one view, and the other House with another. What will be the character of such a law? "According to this new theory, if the motives be constitutional, then the act is; if the motives be unconstitutional, then the act is unconstitutional also. It follows, therefore, that a law passed by one Congress may be constitutional, which, if passed by another, though in the same words, would be unconstitutional. Besides, on this theory a law may be unconstitutional for its omissions as well as its enactments; because, in laying duties, articles may be omitted, as well as articles inserted, from a design to favor manufactures."

Here we have a view of the question which seems to me to be unanswerable.

But, Mr. Chairman, I beg the attention of the committee whilst I proceed to examine into the origin and history of this doctrine of protection of American labor and industry. Is it a novel assumption of power by Congress? Is it a new system of policy, which is now sought to be establish

71H CONG....3D SESS.

ed, in opposition to the ancient practice of the Government? So far from such being the fact, I affirm that the doctrine is coeval with the Constitution itself, and that the policy is sanctioned and sustained by the direct opinions and practice of every Presi dent of the United States, and of all the leading statesmen of the country, from the days of George Washington to the present time.

It my time permitted, I might prove to you, by the most authentic histories of our Government, that the necessity of protecting our home industry from foreign aggression contributed more than any other cause to the formation and adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The consideration of that topic would, however, lead me into too wide a field of discussion; and I must, therefore, content myself with barely adverting to it, and pass on to the history of the action of the Government under the Constitution.

The first Congress assembled in Philadelphia on the 4th of March, 1789; but, in consequence of the failure of many members to attend, no business was done for some weeks. Very shortly after the organization of the two Houses, petitions began to pour in from all quarters, suggesting that our "national independence was but half obtained," whilst we remained dependent on Great Britain for our supplies of the necessaries of life; and praying that Congress would take the proper steps to render the people "independent in fact, as well as in name, by adopting measures for the encouragement and protection of American manufactures." These petitions were referred to the Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives; and the result of their deliberations was a bill for the imposition of duties on foreign merchandise. This bill was promptly passed through both Houses of Congress, and was approved by President Washington on the 4th day of July, 1789-that day being thus a second time consecrated, by the declaration of commercial independence, as it had previously been by a similar declaration of political independence. The true character and objects of that act will be sufficiently manifest when we advert to its preamble, which recites that "whereas it is necessary for the support of Government, and the encouragement of domestic manufactures, that duties be laid on foreign merchandise," &c. This preamble distinctly connects the subjects of revenue and protection, and shows that, in the judgment of the first Congress, it was competent for the National Legislature to look to protection, as well as to revenue, in a system of imposts. And here let us pause for a moment, to consider how much weight shall be given to the opinion of that Congress? We must recollect that it was composed of the most illustrious sages and patriots of the Revolution! We must remember that probably one-half of its members had been members of the Federal convention which framed the Constitution, or of the State conventions which adopte it! They were fully acquainted with its provisions, and deeply imbued with its spirit! And that body, within a year after the adoption of the Constitution, passed, without even a division, and without the suggestion of a doubt of the constitutional power to do so, a law distinctly recognising the principle of protection; and George Washington, who had presided over the deliberations of the convention, and who was then acting under the solemn sanctions of his presidential oath to support the Constitution, approved it! And yet we are now modestly told that the authors of the Constitution did not understand its meaning, and that the power to protect American labor is an assumption not warranted by its provisions! I must confess, sir, that I hardly know how to meet such an assertion, or where to find terms, consistent with parliamentary decorum, to characterize it.

But let us trace the action of the Government on this subject still further.

On the 8th of January, 1790, President Washington, in his address to Congress, uses this emphatic language:

"The safety and interest of the people require that they should promote such manufactures as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly for military, supplies."

On the 15th of January, 1790, Congress responded to this suggestion of the President, by adopting the following resolution:

"Resolved, That it be referred to the Secretary of the Treasury to propose and report to this House a proper plan or plans, conformably to the recom

The Tariff Bill—Mr. A. H. H. Stuart.

mendation of the President in his speech to both Houses of Congress, for the encouragement and promotion of such manufactories as will tend to render the United States independent of other nations for essential, particularly for military, supplies."

In conformity with this resolution, the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. IIamilton) made his cele. brated report in favor of protecting American industry. I should be glad, sir, if this invaluable document was in the hands of every citizen of this Republic. The grounds upon which he rested the policy are very briefly summed up in the following paragraph, which I commend to the consideration of the committee:

"The embarrassments which have obstructed the progress of our external trade have led to serious reflections on the necessity of enlarging the sphere of our domestic commerce. The restrictive regulations which, in foreign markets, abridge the vent for the increasing surplus of our agricultural produce, serve to beget an earnest desire that a more extensive demand for that surplus may be created at home; and the complete success which has rewarded manufacturing enterprise in some valuable branches, conspiring with the promising symptoms which attend some less mature essays in others, justify a hope that the obstacles to the growth of this species of industry are less formidable than they were apprehended to be; and that may not be difficult to find, in its further extension, a full indemnification for any external disadvantages which are or may be experienced, as well as an accession of resources favorable to national independence and safety."

For some years after this report was made, the American people were subjected to great inconvenience by the refusal of the Governments of Europe to enter into commercial treaties with the United States, founded upon principles of justice and reciprocity. On the 14th of February, 1792, President Washington brought this subject to the attention of Congress, that it might adopt such measures as the interests of the country seemed to require. This communication was referred to a select committee, who made a report, which was submitted to the Secretary of State (Mr. Jefferson) "with instructions to report to Congress the nature and extent of the privileges and restrictions of the commercial intercourse of the United States with foreign nations, and the measures which he should think. proper to be adopted for the improvement of the commerce and navigation of the same."

On the 14th December, 1793, Mr. Jefferson made his report, from which I have extracted the following passages, in order that the committee and the country may see what were his views of the constitutional powers and duties of the Government of the United States. [Am. State Papers, vol. 1, p. 300-1.]

"But should any nation, contrary to our wishes, suppose it may better find its advantage by continuing its system of prohibitions, duties, and regulations, it behooves us to protect our citizens, their commerce and navigation, by counter prohibitions, duties, and regulations also. Free commerce and navigation are not to be given in exchange for restrictions and vexations, nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them.

"The following principles, being founded in reciprocity, appear perfectly just, and to offer no cause of complaint to any nation:

"1. Where a nation imposes high duties on our productions, or prohibits them altogether, it may be proper for us to do the same by theirs; first burdening or excluding those productions which they bring here in competition with our own of the same kind; selecting, next, such manufactures as we take from them in greatest quantity, and which, at the same time, we could the soonest furnish to ourselves, or obtain from other countries; imposing on them duties, lighter at first, but heavier and heavier afterwards, as other channels of supply open. Such duties having the effect of indirect encouragement to domestic manufactures of the same kind, may induce the manufacturer to come himself into these States, where cheaper subsistence, equal laws, and a vent of his wares free of duty, may ensure him the highest profits from his skill and industry. And here it would be in the power of the State Governments to co-operate essentially, by opening the resources of encouragement which are under their control; extending them liberally to artists in those particular branches of manufacture for which their soil, climate, population, and other circumstances, have matured them; and fostering the precious

On the 4th of January, 1794, Mr. Madison brought forward in Congress his celebrated resolutions, which were known to be the joint production of Mr. Jefferson and himself, and were designed to carry into effect the policy recommended in Mr. Jefferson's report. These resolutions distinctly assumed the power to protect American industry; and, after a long and able debate, they received the sanction of the House. In the course of this debate, Mr. Madison used the following emphatic language in regard to the protection of manufactures:

"The States that are most advanced in population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to have their particular interests attended to in some degree. While these States retained the power of regulating trade, they had the power to protect and cherish such institutions. By adopting the present Constitution, they have thrown the exercise of their power into other hands. They must have done this with the understanding that those interests would not be neglected here."

Without adverting to other recognitions by President Washington of the power and duty of Congress to protect domestic industry, I will add but a single passage from his last address to Congress on 7th December, 1796, in which he says:

"Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much importance not to ensure a continuance of their efforts in every way which shall appear eligible."

Passing over the administration of the elder Adams, which is known to have favored the same policy, I beg leave to invite the attention of the committee to some evidences of the opinions of Mr. Jefferson, the apostle of Democracy, and the author of the political doctrines by which the opponents of protection profess to be guided. Hear what the sage of Monticello says, in his second message to Congress on the 15th of December, 1802:

"To cultivate peace, and maintain commerce and navigation in all their lawful enterprises; to foster our fisheries as nurseries of navigation, and for the nurture of man, and protect the manufactures adapted to our circumstances; to preserve the faith of the nation by an exact discharge of its debts and contracts, expend the public money with the same care and economy we would practise with our own, and impose on our citizens no unnecessary burdens; to keep in all things within the pale of our constitutional powers, and cherish the federal union as the only rock of safety:-these, fellow-citizens, are the landmarks by which we are to guide ourselves in all our proceedings. By continuing to make these the rule of our action, we shall endear to our countrymen the true principles of their constitution, and promote a union of sentiment and of action equally auspicious to their happiness and safety."

From this extract, it will be perceived that Mr. Jefferson, in enumerating the "landmarks" by which his administration was to be guided, assigns a most prominent position to the duty of protecting manufactures.

But this is not all. In 1806, the revenue from imposts had increased to such an amount, that Mr. Jefferson had grounds to believe that there would be, "ere long, an accumulation of moneys in the treasury, beyond the instalments of the public debt, which the Government would be permitted by contract to pay." In other words, it was apparent to Mr. Jefferson that there was about to be a surplus in the treasury, above the wants of the Government economically administered. What did he recommend in that contingency? A reduction of duties down to the re enue standard? Let the following extract from his message of the 2d of December, 1806, answer those questions:

"To what other objects shall these surpluses be appropriated, and the whole surplus of the impost after the entire discharge of the public debt? Shall we suppress the impost, and give that advantage to the foreign over domestic manufactures?"

He proceeds to say, that upon some articles the

impost might be suppressed; but with regard to the mass of them, he expresses the belief that the "patriotism" of the people would "prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers."

Thus it will be perceived that Mr. Jefferson not only recognised the right to protect domestic manufactures incidentally, by just discriminations; but that he contended for the doctrine of protection per se, as a distinct and substantive principle! And to such an extent did he carry his devotion to it, that when the wants of the Government no longer required the money levied by imposts, he was unwilling to reduce the tax, because it would withdraw the necessary protection from American labor; but sought, by an amendment of the constitution, new sources of expenditure, by which the surplus should be absorbed!

But lest it might be supposed that this was a mere temporary policy which Mr. Jefferson proposed to introduce, I will submit one additional passage, extracted from his message of the 8th November, 1808, and then leave it to the disciples of the Jeffersonian school of politics to reconcile their opposition to the system of protection with the solemnly declared opinions of the great author of their political creed! In that message he says:

"The suspension of foreign commerce produced by the injustice of the belligerent powers, and the consequent losses and sacrifices of our citizens, are subjects of just concern. The situation into which we have thus been forced, has impelled us to apply a portion of our industry and capital to internal manufactures and improvements. The extent of this conversion is daily increasing, and little doubt remains that the establishments formed and forming will, under the auspices of cheaper materials and subsistence, the freedom of labor from taxation with us, and of protecting duties and prohibitions, become permanent."

But will it be said that Mr. Jefferson changed his opinions on this subject? Where is the evidence of any such change? I maintain that none can be produced. On the contrary, we have the most conclusive proof, in his letter to Benjamin Austin, in 1816, that his opinions had become more and more confirmed in favor of the doctrines of protection. Mr. Jefferson had, in 1785, in his Notes on Virginia, expressed some opinions adverse to the policy of manufactures in this country. 1816, when the subject of a protecting tariff was about to come before Congress, his opinions were much relied on by the opponents of that measure; and Mr. Austin addressed a letter to him, informing him of the fact, and asking an expression of his sentiments. The following are extracts from Mr. Jefferson's reply, dated 9th January, 1816:

In

"You tell me I am quoted by those who wish to continue our dependence on England for manufactures. There was a time when I might have been so quoted with more candor. But within the thirty years which have since elapsed, how are circumstances changed! We were then in peace; our independent place among nations was acknowledged. A commerce which offered the raw material in exchange for the same material after receiving the last touch of industry, was worthy of welcome to all nations. It was expected that those, especially to whom manufacturing industry was important, would cherish the friendship of such customers by every favor, and particularly cultivate their peace by every act of justice and friendship. Under this prospect the question seemed legitimate, whether, with such an immensity of unimproved land, courting the hand of husbandry, the industry of agriculture or that of manufactures would add most to the national wealth.

*

*

"This was the state of things in 1785, when the Notes on Virginia were first published; when the ocean being open to all nations, and their common right in it acknowledged and exercised under regulations sanctioned by the assent and usage of all, it was thought that the doubt might claim some consideration. We have since experienced what we did not then believe-that there exist both profli gacy and power enough to exclude us from the field of interchange with other nations; that, to be independent for the comforts of life, we must fabricate them ourselves. We must now place the manufacturer by the side of the agriculturist. The former question is suppressed, or rather assumes a new form: the grand inquiry now is, shall we

The Tariff Bill-Mr. A. H. H. Stuart.

make our own comforts, or go without them, at the will of a foreign nation? He, therefore, who is now against domestic manufacture, must be for reducing us either to a dependence on that foreign nation, or to be clothed in skins, and to live like wild beasts in dens and caverns. I am proud to say I am not one of these Experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort; and if those who quote me as of a different opinion will keep pace with me in purchasing nothing foreign, where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained, without any regard to difference of price, it will not be our fault if we do not have a supply at home equal to our demand, and wrest that weapon of distress from the hand which has so long wantonly violated it."

Who now will venture to doubt that Mr. Jefferson was an advocate of the doctrine of protection, to the fullest extent?

I have thought it incumbent on me, as a Virginian, to give this full exposition of the true opinions of Mr. Jefferson, because I have reason to know that they have been much misunderstood and misrepresented, even in his own State.

The sentiments of Mr. Madison, the father of the Constitution, and its wisest expounder, have been so frequently expressed in favor of the principle of protection, and are so well known to the country, that I do not think it necessary to furnish any extracts from his messages recommending the subject to the favorable consideration of Congress. In his latter years, when he had retired from the political arena, and was free from all the distracting interests of public life, he had occasion to review the whole subject, and he embodied his matured opinions in two letters, addressed to Mr. Jos. C. Cabell of Virginia-one dated 18th September, 1828, and the other 30th October, 1828-which contained probably the most clear and conclusive argument in favor of the power of Congress over the subject that has ever been submitted to the public.

Mr. Monroe and Mr. Adams adopted, both theoretically and practically, the same construction of the Constitution, and recommended and sanctioned legislative acts to give effect to the principle of protection in the tariffs of 1816, 1824, and 1828. These sentiments, thus avowed and urged upon Congress by all the incumbents of the executive chair, have been promptly responded to, in every case, by the legislative department of the Government; and the judicial sanction has also been afforded, in every form in which the question has been presented to the tribunals of the country for adjudication.

Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Lowndes, General Jackson, Mr. Van Buren, and almost every distinguished politician of every party, have recorded their votes in favor of the principle; and in 1816 it found upon the floor of Congress no champion more able, more ardent, more devoted, than Mr. Calhoun, as will plainly appear from the following extracts from his speech in 1816:

"Neither agriculture, manufactures, nor commerce (said Mr. Calhoun,) taken separately, are the cause of wealth; it flows from them combined, and cannot exist without each. The wealth of any single nation or individual, it is true, may not immediately be derived from the three; but it always pre-supposes the existence of the three sources, though derived immediately from one or two of them only. Taken in its most enlarged sense, without commerce, industry would have no stimulus; without manufactures, it would be without the means of production; and without agriculture, neither of the others could exist; when separated entirely, and permanently, they must perish. War, in this country, produces, to a great extent, that separation; and hence the great embarrassment that follows in its train. The failure of the wealth and resources of the nation necessarily involves the ruin of its finances and its currency. It is admitted, by the most strenuous advocates on the other side, than no country ought to be dependent on another for its means of defence; that, at least, our musket and bayonet, our cannon and ball, ought to be domestic manufacture. But what is more necessary in the defence of a country than its currency and finance? Circumscribed as our country is, can these stand the shock of war? Behold the effect of the late war upon them! When our manufactures are grown to a certain perfection, as they soon will, under the fostering care of Government, we will no longer experience those evils. The farmer will find a ready market for

H. of Reps.

his surplus produce, and, what is of almost equal consequence, a certain and cheap supply of all his wants. His prosperity will diffuse itself to every class of the community."

Having described the effect of war upon our industry and currency, its obstruction to the exportation of our bulky articles, while a demand would continue for foreign articles, to be supplied through the policy of the enemy or unlawful traffic, resulting in a drain of our specie to pay the balance perpetually accumulating against us, he proceeded to say:

"To this distressing state of things there are two remedies, and only two: one in our power immediately, the other requiring much time and exertion; but both constituting, in his opinion, the essential policy of this country. He meant the navy and domestic manufactures. By the former, we could open the way to our markets; by the latter, we bring them from beyond the ocean, and naturalize them in our own soil."

Having spoken of the effect of the war in giving existence to manufactures, and in bringing them them to some degree of maturity, he said:

"But it will no doubt be said, if they are so far established, and if the situation of the country is favorable to their growth, where is the necessity of affording them protection? It is to put them beyond the reach of contingency."

There is but one other authority to which I will refer as sustaining the constitutionality of the protective principle, and I will then pass to the consideration of another branch of the subject. I alJude to the message of President Jackson to Congress, on the 7th December, 1830. In that paper the whole argument is condensed into the narrowest possible limits, and presented with a force that cannot be resisted. He says:

"The power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the several States. The right to adjust these duties, with a view to the encouragement of domestic branches of industry, is so completely incidental to that power, that it is difficult to suppose the existence of the one without the other. The States have delegated their whole authority over imports to the General Government, without limitation or restriction, saving the very inconsiderable reservation relating to their inspection laws. This authority having thus entirely passed from the States, the right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them; and, consequently, if it be not possessed by the General Government, it must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anomaly of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry, and to counteract the most selfish and destructive policy which might be adopted by foreign nations. This, surely, cannot be the case. This indispensable power, thus surrendered by the States, must be within the scope of the authority on the subject expressly delegated to Congress. In this conclusion I am confirmed, as well by the opinions of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, who have each repeatedly recommended the exercise of this right under the Constitution, as by the uniform practice of Congress, the continued acquiescence of the States, and the general understanding of the people."

With this review of the opinions of the Fathers of the Republic, and of the reasons upon which they are founded, I leave it for the committee and the country to decide whether I am departing from the true principles of the Constitution, in giving my support to a measure intended primarily to raise revenue for the Government, and incidentally to afford protection to American industry.

I will proceed now, Mr. Chairman, to meet some of the more prominent objections to the exercise of the protective power, drawn from considerations of expediency.

Many gentlemen have treated this subject as if it were a mere sectional question-a struggle between the North and the South. For my part, I look upon it in a very different aspect. I regard it as a national question-an American questionone which belongs to the whole country. It is true, that there may be partial and temporary inequalities resulting from the operation of laws like that now before us, as there will be from all human Jaws. But they will be but temporary in their duTation. The country will soon accommodate itself to the new condition of affairs; and the general benefits will greatly outweigh the partial evils. In my

27TH CONG.... 3D SESS.

opinion, it will be found, if we take a comprehensive and statesmanlike view of our whole Confederacy, that there is, in truth, no necessary conflict of interest between the North and the South, or the East and the West. The very diversities of soil, of climate, of population, and of production, which, at the first view, might be supposed to create antagonist interests are, when rightly considered, the most fruitful sources of strength, and union, and harmony. Providence seems to have wisely ordained that, as we are separated by the broad Atlantic from the eastern hemisphere, we should have all the elements of national greatness, and wealth, and power, within our own borders. We have a climate and a soil adapted to every constitution, to every production, and to every occupation. We have all the elements of national prosperity, vegetab'e and mineral, in the greatest abundance; and all that is necessary for their full development, is a liberal and enlightened system of legislation. Who can unroll the map of this great Confederacy, and cast his eye over its extended surface, without feeling emotions of pleasure and of pride, mingled with sentiments of gratitude to the great Disposer of Events, for the magnificent inheritance which he has been pleased to bestow upon us? Let him, then, contemplate, for a moment, the separate and distinctive characteristics impressed upon each geographical division by the hand of the Creator himself, and how will these sentiments be strengthened and invigorated! Then let him reflect upon the mutual relations and dependence of each division upon the other, and of the capacity of each to minister to the wants of the others; and how profoundly must he be penetrated with a sense of the wisdom and the beneficence of Him "whose hands prepared the dry land!"

If we look to the extreme South, we find a broad belt of territory, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Rocky Mountains; which, whilst it yields its rich tributes of sugar and other productions of a tropical climate, to supply the wants of more northern regions, furnishes to them in return a market for their cotton, and breadstuffs, and live stock, and manufactures of every description.

Advancing a step northward, the broad fields of the cotton region are spread before our eyes. Here we see the planter busily employed supplying the wants of the sugar country, and the grain-growing, and grazing, and manufacturing districts, by producing the raw material; which, when worked up into the various fabrics, is to furnish them the means of comfort and luxury. In return, he receives from those districts his sugar, his provisions of all descriptions, and the manufactures which are essential to his enjoyment.

Progressing yet another step towards the north, we behold the unlimited resources of the middle country and great West-the grain-growing and grazing region--whose flocks and herds spread over a thousand hills; and whose fields, surpassing Egypt in fertility, can produce an amount of breadstuffs, and of the other necessaries of life, which knows no limit but the absence of all further demand. But the farmers and the graziers must be furnished with their sugar, their molasses, their cotton, and their manufactures and merchandise; and where can they look so naturally for their supplies as to those parts of the country which consume their wheat and corn, and pork and beef?

When we turn our eyes to the extreme north, we find a country with a less genial climate, and a soil whose comparative sterility discourages the labor of the husbandman. But even this less favored region possesses its peculiar advantages. It is blessed with a population hardy, industrious, intelligent, and adventurous. Its wealth consists in the labor of its citizens; and hence they are found to be devoted to manufactures, to commerce, and to the sea: and, whilst they derive their supplies mainly from the more southern divisions of the Union, they repay them with the products of their manufactories and their fisheries, and by merchandise imported from foreign markets.

These diversities of climate, and soil, and population, necessarily produce diversities of production and occupation among the inhabitants of the various districts. Through them, the Supreme Ruler has ordained that there shall be a natural division of labor. The laws of nature forbid that the great staples of one district should be produced in another. Thus, there is no danger of rivalry springing up between them; on the contrary, the wants of one are supplied out of the abundance of the others. A mutual interchange of superfluities naturally takes

The Tariff Bill-Mr. A. H. H. Stuart.

place, and thus a commercial intercourse is generated, beneficial to all; and, as if it had been the design of Heaven to facilitate this profitable exchange of commodities, we see the Father of Rivers-commencing his course near the northern boundary of the Union, flowing thence nearly due south, through the heart of all the grand divisions, to the Gulf of Mexico-bisecting this vast continent, and furnishing a channel of commercial intercourse between the various districts unequalled upon the face of the globe in extent and excellence, and binding them all together by ties of interest as broad, as deep, and as strong, as the current with which his mighty volume of waters rolls onward to the ocean!

When we undertake to legislate for a country like this, we should look at it as a whole, and not confine our views to mere local or sectional interests. We should indulge a catholic spirit-a spirit of enlarged patriotism, which can embrace in its grasp the whole Confederacy, from the St. Lawrence to the Sabine. We should look at the great interests of the nation, not as something separate and distinct from each other, but as constituting parts of a grand system, intimately connected together, wisely fitted to each other, and, when properly brought into action, working harmoniously together, and mutually giving and receiving nutriment and support.

When I have suffered myself to be lost in the contemplation of the wide extent of our confederacy, with its members reaching from the Atlantic to the Rocky mountains-with its rivers and lakes, and canals and railroads, and other channels of internal communication, penetrating into every part of it--I have almost imagined it to be some vast animal organization, whose life blood, supplied by agriculture and manufactures, is thrown out from the great centre of the system in New York, and transmitted through the various arteries of commercial intercourse, diffusing health, and vigor, and vitality to its remotest extremities! Let us, then, hear no more, Mr. Chairman, of local inter.ests upon this subject; let us remember that the prosperity of the nation is made up of the prosperity of its parts. Let us recollect that the cottongrower is interested in the manufactures of the North, and that the manufacturer of the North is interested in the growth of cotton in the South; and that the prosperity of both is, in turn, intimately connected with the welfare of the graingrowing and sugar districts. For of what use is it to either district to have a large surplus of its products, if the other districts have nothing to give in exchange for it? Of what avail is it to have merchandise, if there is no market for it?

But if gentlemen, discarding these enlarged and American views of the subject, will insist upon treating this question as a sectional one, however unwilling I may be so to regard it, I shall not shrink from the discussion of it in that aspect. I must be pardoned, however, if, before I enter upon the argument, I require that the proper parties to the controversy shall be presented to the country. I cannot consent that this shall be treated as a question between Massachusetts and South Carolina; nor between New England and the extreme South; nor yet between the manufacturers and the cottongrowers. I insist that if there is to be a sectional division, the middle country and the West--the grain-growing and grazing and tobacco districts-shall have their appropriate position assigned to them. I have the honor to represent a district situated in the heart of Virginia, which has a deep interest in this question; and I claim that it shall be heard by its Representative, before judgment is pronounced.

What, then, is the natural position of my district in regard to this question? This inquiry will be best answered by ascertaining the amount and character of its productions; and I have accordingly prepared, from the official returns, the following tabular statement of the principal staples which are cultivated by my constituents: Statistical Table exhibiting some of the products of the 17th Congressional District of Virginia.

From this table it clearly appears, that though my constituents cultivate tobacco to some extent, their great staples are wheat, rye, Indian corn, oats, hogs, neat cattle, sheep, horses, and mules. These are the principal articles which they raise for mar. ket. They are, therefore, interested in obtaining for these articles the highest possible price. How is this to be effected? It is a well-settled principle, that it is the relation between the supply and the demand which regulates the price of every article. If the demand be large, and the supply small, the price will be high; and, on the other hand, if the demand be small, and the supply large, the price will be low. No one will venture to dispute these propositions. Let us now give them a practical application. My constituents are interested in having the demand for their commodities as great as possible-or, to state the proposition in another form, they are interested in having as many consumers and as few producers of their staples as possible. How is this effected? Obviously, by inducing the people of the North, who are engaged in the same occupation, to turn their attention to other branches of business, such as manufactures, commerce, and navigation; for thereby we not only get rid of their competition as producers, but we gain them as customers, to buy and consume our productions. This simple view of the case shows very clearly where our interest lies.

Now, let us look for a moment at the interest of the cotton planting States, and see how far it coincides with that of Western Virginia. From the statistical tables furnished to us from the Department of State, I find that my district alone produces considerably more wheat than the whole State of South Carolina, and within a fraction of as much as the four States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas taken together. The following table shows the whole amount produced in each of those States:

These States, it is apparent, are obliged to buy their supplies of breadstuffs; and we know that they are also dependent on the Western and Middle States for their beef and pork, and horses and mules, and various other articles, which cannot well be raised in the southern country. As the cotton-planter is compelled to purchase these articles, he is of course interested to get them as low as possible. He, therefore, will wish to see as large a supply, and as small a demand for them, as possible-or, in other words, it is his interest to have as many producers and as few consumers as he can. He will naturally wish, therefore, to see the manufactories broken down, and the population of the North devoted to agricultural pursuits, so as to come into competition with us, and bring down the price of the products of our farms. Suppose, for a moment, that the eight hundred thousand people now engaged in the manufactories were suddenly to cease their operations, and to become farmers: what would be the consequence? Would it not cause a complete prostration of the farming interests? The effects on prices would be most disastrous in two ways; for the farmers would have not only to meet the competition of these 800,000 producers, but they would lose them as consumers. But how would this operate on the cotton interest? It would have exactly the opposite effect. It would enable the planter to buy his supplies at the lowest possible rate. Thus, it is apparent that, if we look at this matter as a sectional question, without regard to

27TH CONG....SD SESS.

more expanded and statesmanlike considerations, the interest of the cotton-planter on the one hand, and that of the farmer and grazier on the other, are directly opposed-the one being the seller, and the other the buyer, of particular commodities.

If, then, Mr. Chairman, this subject of the tariff is to be treated as a question between the North and the South, it is plain that the interests of my constituents are much more strongly allied to those of the North than the South. The same remark is applicable, in its fullest extent, to every other district in Western Virginia, and to many, if not to all parts of the eastern division of the State. It will not, therefore, be a matter of surprise to any one, if, in case the question assumes that aspect, I ain found co-operating with the Representatives of other graingrowing and grazing districts, in endeavoring to foster the interests of the farmer, by preserving and enlarging the home market.

There are many considerations in support of the principles of this bill, which I had proposed to submit to the committee if I had obtained the floor in an earlier stage of the debate. But, as other gentlemen have anticipated me in regard to them, I shall forbear from repeating them, and proceed to examine some of the arguments which have been urged by gentlemen on the opposite side of the question.

Among other things, we are told that a tariff will tend to raise the price of merchandise, and thereby impose a burden on the farmers and others who consume it. This is, to some extent, true; but do not the farmers receive an equivalent for this burden, in the blessings of a Government which protects them in the full enjoyment of the rights of person and property, and in the increased price of the productions of their labor? What is the proportion between the outlay of the farmer for articles which are subject to duty, and the whole amount of the sales of his crop? Suppose it to be one-half: if he pays ten per cent. additional price for his goods, and receives from the improved home market but five per cent. increase on the price of what he has to sell, is it not plain that he is fully compensated? But this is not the only advantage to the farmer. He is benefited not only in his income, but his capital is also greatly augmented in value. Let me illustrate this idea by an example. A farmer raises on his land 1,000 bushels of wheat, which, in the present condition of the country, is worth 90 cents per bushel, or $900 in the aggregate. Let us then suppose that, by the passage of the tariff bill, and the consequent improvement in the home market, the value of wheat is increased to ten cents per bushel: what are the benefits which will accrue to the farmer? In the first place, he receives the ten cents per bushel, which is equal to an addition of $100 to his income; and, in the next place, the value of his land (which is his capital) is greatly enhanced. The amount of this enhancement may be estimated by treating the $100 as the additional annual profit arising from it; and, as $100 is the amount which a capital of $1,666 66 would yield at six per cent., we will not be far out of the way if we assume that sum to be the measure of the increased value of the land. If the owner wished to sell or to lease it, would he not require a much larger price or rent, if its annual proceeds were worth $1,000, than if they were worth but $900?

But there is another consideration connected with this branch of the subject, which must not be overlooked. The duties on merchandise fall principally on articles which are not indispensable, and are paid by the wealthier classes. The man who wears fine broadcloths, and dresses his wife and daughters in silks and velvets, and walks on rich Turkey or Brussels carpets, and drinks his costly wines, pays hundreds of dollars; whilst the farmer in the country, who owns property of equal value, but does not choose to indulge in such extravagant tastes, pays comparatively nothing. This is a malter which every man can regulate for himself, and if he thinks proper to purchase the articles which are subject to taxation, he incurs the tax voluntarily, and has no one to blame but himself.

But it is said that many of the articles subject to duty are indispensable to the comfort of a family. This is true. But does any gentleman pretend that the Government can be supported without money? We must raise revenue from some quarter; and the true question is, not one of taxation or no taxation, but whether we will have the revenue collected indirectly by duties on foreign goods, or by direct taxes and excises on our lands and workshops!

But let us examine the operation of the duty upon

The Tariff Bill—Mr. A. A. H. Stuart.

some few articles which are indispensable, and see how wisely the system is adjusted to confer a benefit on the farmer, by way of compensation for the burden which it imposes. The first that I will mention is the duty on foreign wool and woollens. These are indispensable articles, and the tax on them is a burden to the farmer. But does not this tax, at the same time, have the effect of increasing the value of the wool which he shears from his own flocks? and is he not thereby, in many instances, more than compensated? But it is thought to be very hard that iron and salt, which enter into the consumption of the poorer classes, should be subject to duty. Here, again, those who make the objection overlook the fact, that the iron-works and the salt-furnaces bring large sums of money into the country, and supply extensive markets to the farmers, which frequently repay them a hundredfold for the very small increase in the price of their salt and iron.

Let us look at the provisions of the present bill, and see what additional burdens they impose upon a farmer, who annually consumes 100 pounds of iron and six bushels of salt. The duty upon bar iron, prior to the 1st of January last, was $21 per ton, or about ninety-four cents per 100 lbs., and the duty on salt about 44 cents per bushel. Under the present bill, the duty upon bar-iron is $27 50 per ton, or about $1 22 per 100 lbs., and the duty upon salt is eight cents per bushel; so that, in the worst aspect you can view it, the increased tax which the farmer pays on his 100 lbs. of iron is 28 cents, and on his six bushels of salt 21 cents; making the aggregate of 49 cents per annum! And to compensate for this, he has the advantages of the withdrawal of the labor of thousands of operatives from raising the very articles which come into competition with his own, and of the market which they will furnish for his produce.

But I deny that the proposition is universally true, that the price of articles is necessarily enhanced by laying an increased duty on them. The effect of the increased duty is to enhance the price for a time; but it eventually stimulates our own citizens to engage in the manufacture of the protected articles; and experience, which is better than all reasoning, has shown that, in almost every instance, an increased duty has, in the end, been followed by a diminished price. Let us take, by way of illustration, the articles of coarse cotton cloths and nails, omitting many others which have been already referred to in this debate. About the close of the last war with England, the most indifferent imported cottons were worth from 17 to 20 cents per yard. The tariff of 1816 imposed a heavy protecting duty on them, which has been continued to the present time, and which induced our citizens to enter into the manufacture; and now a better article can be had for from 6 to 8 cents a yard.

But the most conclusive evidence of the fallacy of the notion, that every duty upon an article of importation produces an increase of its price equal to to the addition of the duty, is found in the article of nails. Nails were, until very recently, subject to a duty of five cents per pound; and, of course, if the doctrine which I have stated was correct, we should expect to find the price of nails equal to the cost in the foreign market, the cost of freight and insurance, the profit of the importer, and the amount of the duty; but, to the utter confusion of the supporters of that doctrine, the prices current exhibit the fact, that, while the duty continued, the nails could be bought for 4 cents per pound-or less than the amount of the duty! The fallacy of the reasoning of those who contend that an additional duty necessarily produces an increased price, consists in an utter disregard of the most important fact, that a protective duty, instead of creating a monopoly in favor of the home manufacturer, tends to destroy the foreign monopoly, by stimulating domestic competition!

But I am admonished by the rapid flight of time not to dwell too long upon this topic. I will take this occasion, however, to state, in a very few words, my idea of the general principles which should govern us in the arrangement of our system of imposts. In my opinion, our duties should be laid with a view to revenue and to incidental protection, but not to prohibition. We should carefully examine into the exact condition and wants of every interest; and we should extend to all, as far as we can, the fostering aid of a parental Government. But we should have no pet interests. Equal protection should be given to all. How is this equality to be attained? Is it by a uniform ad valorem duty in

H. of Reps.

all cases? Certainly not; for that would produce the very inequality which you are seeking to avoid. One manufacture may have arrived at a high degree of perfection, and may be able to enter into competition with the fabrics of other nations, without any aid from legislation; whilst another, being in its infancy, may require the most careful protection. A duty of ten per cent. ad valorem would exclude foreign cottons from your markets, whilst a duty of twenty per cen. would not afford adequale protection to your woollens. It is the province of the statesman to obtain precise information in regard to all these interests, and to adapt his legislation to the varying circumstances and condition of the country. If he should find that Great Britain, by her superior machinery, greater skill, larger capital, and cheaper labor, has an advantage over our manufacturers of 30 per cent. in woollens, of 20 per cent. in iron, and of 10 per cent. in cottons, is it not obvious that a uniform ad valorem duty on these articles would have a most unequal operation?

In such a case, it would seem to me, that equality and justice would require that the protection should be proportioned to the wants of the various branches of manufacture, and that the duties on the articles named should be laid at 30 20, and 10 per cent. respectively, instead of being uniform. Then competition would ensue-the ingenuity of both nations would be taxed to find out new and cheaper modes of manufacture, and, in a few years, the price of the article would be brought down to the lowest point at which it could be afforded..

But suppose that, instead of thus graduating your duties, you were to adopt the principle of my Southern friends, and impose a uniform duty of 20 per cent.: you would exclude the foreign cottons altogether, and thus give the home manufacturer a monopoly. You would place the iron manufacturer upon a fair ground of competition with the foreign producer; and you would afford no protection to the woollen manufacturer, who would be compelled to discontinue the business, and leave it to be monopolized by Great Britain! And thus, instead of destroying one monopoly, you would establish two!

I will now leave this branch of the subject, and proceed to consider the great argument against a tariff, which has been urged through all time, and has been put forth, in every modification, by various gentlemen in this debate. I allude to the allegation, that every duty laid upon an imported article operates as a tax upon the (consumer, for the benefit of the domestic manufacturer.

I have already had occasion to show that this proposition rests, to some extent, upon an unsound basis, by exhibiting facts to prove, in the first place, that it is not true, in all cases, that an increased duty causes an increased price; and, secondly, that if it does, such increase is not equal to the enhancement of duty. But there are other views of the subject, to which I invite the attention of the committee. If it be true, that every duty or tax which is imposed upon an article of merchandise, either in its raw state, or in its progress through the various stages of manufacture, or in the form of an impost duty, constitutes an addition to its price, which must be paid by the person who buys and consumes it does it not follow, by parity of reasoning, that every bounty granted upon an article of merchandise, at any time up to the period of its consumption, must tend to diminish, to that extent, the price to be paid by the consumer? Or, to state the proposition in a more condensed form: if every tax on an article is a burden to the consumer; is not the correlative proposition equally true, that every bounty upon an article is a benefit to the consumer? No gentleman will pretend to deny that the second branch of the proposition is an inevitable deduction from the first: but to what consequences does this lead us? It proves that all the bounties which England gives upon her exported glass, and other articles which are the subjects of bounty under her laws, are not benefits conferred on her glass manufactures, &c., but mere gratuities to the American consumers! It proves, also, that our whole system of drawbacks and fishing bounties is radically wrong, and, instead of benefiting our own citizens, whose interests they were intended to promote, amount in effect to donations to strangers! Yet every intelligent man knows that such results do not ensue; and hence we are authorized to infer that the theory of the gentlemen must be unsound.

But I propose to subject this theory to another