網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

"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." The committee would recommend this argument to the candid consideration of the House. Most especially would they invite to its calm consideration those of our fellow-citizens who honestly believe that a protecting tariff violates the Constitution. If there are any who have become regardless of the rights, interests, and welfare of the great majority of the nation; who are determined that all shall yield to their opinions; who insist that they are infallibly right, and every one else is absolutely wrong; on such, reason and argument can have no influence. Still the cause which enables our Chief Magistrate to give us such a glowing view of the prosperity of our country as he has done, must and will continue. The States, in their sovereign capacity, as expressed in the message, and cannot be denied, had the original power of imposing duties on imports. It is now transferred to the Government of the Union, in the most ample manner. Had the States retained it, they might have exercised it as they pleased, to accomplish any object they deemed proper. It might have been for revenue alone. It might have been employed solely to counteract the selfish policy of other States or nations. It could have been exercised for any purpose which suited the pleasure of sovereign power. But the States have delegated their whole power over imposts to the United States. would indeed be a strange anomaly, if it could not now be exercised by the Government to which it has been transferred, as fully as it could have been by the States from which it was derived.

It

The President has declared that, "while the chief object of duties should be revenue, they may be so adjusted as to encourage manufactures." It seems to the committee that this remark is in plain collision with the sentiments which he has previously maintained. He has observed that the authority to impose duties on imports having passed from the States, "the right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them." If it is "not possessed by the General Government," it must be extinct. Our political system would thus present an "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." If revenue alone is wanted, duties for that object should be imposed. If protection to domestic industry is required, let duties be imposed to "foster it." Why should the chief object be revenue? Why protection secondary, when the treasury may be full? Many now apprehend that our revenue is, and will be, too abundant. But protection against the "most selfish and destructive policy of foreign nations" can be secured by duties on importsby them alone. Then they should be adjusted to secure protection. This should be the primary object. The protecting power having once belonged to the States, and now transferred to the General Government, it may be used, as the good of the nation demands, for a primary, not a secondary object. It ought not to be loosely attached to the skirts of revenue. Domestic industry is a single, great, even pre-eminent interest of the nation. It has been entrusted to the guardian care of the constitution now demands the exercise of that power which the States have surrendered, for its promotion and preservation.

It

66

The President, in his message, further observes, that, in the adjustment of protecting outies, the government should be guided by the general go. d." As an abstract proposition, this may be admitted. "The general interest is the interest of each;" and it is only necessary "that that interest should be understood" to insure the cordial support of some who think “it encourages abuses which ought to be corrected, and promotes injustice which ought to be obviated." He also advises Congress that "objects of national importance ought alone to be protected. Of these the productions of our soil, our mines, and our workshops, essential to national defence, Occupy the first rank. Whatever other species of domestic industry, having the importance to which I have referred, may be expected, after temporary protection, to compete with foreign labor on equal terms, merit the same aftention in a subordinate degree." Suppose the opinion to be correct, that objects of national importance ought alone to be protected;" what then? The President has not, by this general expression, afforded the least aid in adjusting the details of a protecting tariff. If the action of Government could be confined to abstract rules and principles, little difference of opinion would probably exist in the nation. The great embarrassment is found in making an application of excellent theory to practical and useful purpose. The protecting system, the tariff, is composed of humble items; these, united, make up the great mass of national industry. Had the President been pleased to designate a few items only, which he supposed to possess "national importance," or had he pointed out what "comforts of life are taxed unnecessarily high;" what are the "interests too local and minute to justify a general exaction," which it undertakes to protect, and what kinds of manufactures, "for which the country is not ripe, it attempts to force," we should then have the light and benefit of illustration.

General theory may be adopted with perfect unanimity. Its application to real use, its coming down to the every day exertion of our farmers and mechanics, is a different affair. Under general theory, any one can make a retreat, and maintain that it has been done with consistency and honor, Theory is best explained by its application to the axe, the plough, the hammer, and the spindle. The Chief Magistrate presides over a people who are engaged in unceasing and untiring industry. Congress has for years, and on repeated occasions, exercised its wisdom on the tariff. Its best efforts have been made. If errors exist, it would seem reasonable to expect that the Chief Magistrate, looking abroad from his high station over all interests of the country, and observing their mutual relations and dependencies, should intimate to the representatives of the people what particular business of life has been 100 warmly cherished, what too coldly neglected. In adjusting the details of the tariff, Congress has done what it deemed best for the general good. To reach the employments of life, it must go down to particulars. If the President is still dissatisfied, it might have been hoped that he would have designated the precise error. It will always be borne in mind by practical men, and they compose the mass of the nation, that abstract theory, however splendid, does but little good, unless it comes to the aid of every muscle of labor. In what consists the defects of the existing tariff? Individuals may discover imperfections, but the collected wisdom of the nation has repeatedly declared that material change is not demanded. Nothing better, under existing circumstances, can be done. Then let doubt and uncertainty be avoided. They are evils next to the surrender of the whole system,

The message advises Congress that "objects of national importance alone ought to be protected: of these, the productions of our soil, our mines, and our workshops, essential to national defence, occupy the first rank." It is to be presumed that Congress has not been unmindful of productions "essential to national defence." But the President says "the present tariff taxes some of the comforts of life unnecessarily high." They are not defined. In the minds of many, what might be essential to national defence might also promote the comforts of life. If the message meant only guns, powder, and bullets, difference of opinion, even then, might exist, as to the extent of protection which ought to be afforded to the various elements of which they are composed. Its practical meaning is, therefore, obscure. Iron, it is presumed, would be considered essential to "national defence; and being the product of "our mines," should be protected. But that protection which would produce the material for a musket, would also furnish it for axes and ploughs. A duty that would give us domestic bullets is all that might be required to supply the country with domestic lead for every use. But are muskets, and powder, and bullets, all that may be essential to "national defence"? An army might be most abundantly provided with these, and yet be totally inefficient in the field, if it wanted hats, and coats, and shirts, and shoes, and blankets. The condition of our country during the last war furnishes a well defined illustration of this sentiment. Various manufactures then were considered of national importance, which the doctrines of free trade now erase from the catalogue. But a duty imposed for. promoting the domestic manufacture of these articles for military purposes alone, would be an anomaly in the annals of any nation. That protecting policy which would supply the wants of an army in war, must be allowed to operate in peace. Hence the difficulty of any classification of interests, while all are distinctly and equally governed by the same great constitutional po er, derived from the States. It is also to be remembered, that peace with the world is the natural condition of this country. It is not the foreign bayonet that we have the most reason to apprehend: it is the "selfish and destructive policy which might be adopted by foreign nations," To guard against this is an object of "national importance." For peace or war, the protecting system is equally adapted. And it is believed by the committee, that the best preparation for national defence may be found in the vigorous cultivation of the arts of peace. Our people cught not to be perpetually dependent on orders in council, or decrees of emperors. Our country ought not to wait until invasion surrounds it, and then beg blankets from invaders, to warm a shivering army, engaged in "national defence."

The President alludes to another species of industry, having the importance to which he had before referred, and which may be expected, after "temporary protection, to compete with foreign labor on equal terms." This species of industry, in his opinion, merits "the same attention in a subordinate degree;" while, in speaking of objects "essential to national defence," he prescribes no limitation, either as to the extent of protection, or its duration. The other class he considers entitled to the " same attention," yet qualified by the expression, "in a subordinate degree." This qualification seems to render it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the extent of the rule which he has adopted for his own action, and the guidance of Congress. Instead of opening a luminous pathway, in which all branches of the Government may move on in union and safety, new embarrassments appear to be added to those already encountered by Congress in adjusting. the detailed provisions of the tariff.

It would seem to be the meaning of the President, that, after a temporary protection has been extended to a manufacture for a reasonable period, if it "cannot then compete with foreign labor on equal terms," it does not merit protection. This doctrine has been repeatedly advanced in Congress, and the committee presume it to be the doctrine of the message. But it will not stand the test of experiment. Prior to the late war, the coarse musiins consumed in the United States were imported from India, and cost the consumer about twenty-five cents the yard. By the war, the supply was cut off; our cotton mills began to move. and a partial supply was furnished. At its close, when the India cottons were again imported, most of these establishments were ruined. By the tariff of 1816, establishing what was called the minimum duty on coarse cottons, the home market was effectually secured to our home manufacturers. Under its fostering influence, they have flourished and multiplied; and such have been our improvements in skill and labor, and machinery, that the consumer, instead of paying twenty-five cents, now purchases at home a much better article for eight cents the yard. Large exportations of them are made to foreign countries. They are carried to India, China, and South America, where they are sold to advantage. But suppose the protecting duty withdrawn, and the American manufacturer left to compete with foreign labor on equal terms. Admit the cottons of India, England, and Scotland, and what would be the effect? Within two years, not a single cotton mill in the United States would be in motion. The immense capital invested in them, amounting to many millions, would be utterly sunk to the country, and their owners irretrievably ruined. And why? Not because we cannot make the goods as cheap as in Manchester or Glasgow, but because a war would be waged by British capital against American capital-a war of extermination. Such a war has been waged upon every article of American industry, wherever the protecting duty has been inadequate, or the law extending the duty so framed that mercantile cupidity, and the cunning of foreign manufacturers, could evade it.

[ocr errors]

There is another rule laid down by the President, which the committee have thought proper to examine. It is contained in the expression, that "objects of national importance alone ought to be protected." The committee will not here enter into a discussion of the question, whether Congress may not protect objects local in character? The States, in their original independence, before the adoption of the Constitution, could have used the power of imposing duties on imports for the express purpose of protecting local objects. According to the doctrine entertained by the President, in which the committee fully concur, the several States no longer possess that power. Where is it? Where has it fled? On what shelf is it laid? The government of the Union possesses it, or it has become "extinct." If an object did present itself, purely local in its character, and its protection was demanded by the prosperity and happiness of a single State, and this could be best done, or done only, by the delegated power from the States to impose duties on imports, it should be well considered before Congress rejected a proposition for that purpose. The discussion of this subject, at this time, is not intended. It may, however, be intimated, that it is the duty of the General Government to protect every State, county, and town in the Union from invasion. The Government of the Union is bound to protect every inch of our soil from a hostile bayonet. It has equal power to protect every finger of domestic industry against foreign competition. Let it be firmly exercised.

ters but little to real national independence, whether foreign guns or foreign labor conquers us. However this may be considered, it is fully believed by the committee that the present tariff, taken together or in the minutest detail, is national in its character, although the language of the President may seem to imply that in this respect it is defective. He has also told us in his message, that it is an infirmity of our nature to mingle our interests and prejudices with the operation of our reasoning powers, and attribute to the objects of our likes and dislikes qualities they do not possess, and effects they cannot produce;" that our deliberations on this interesting subject should be uninfluenced by "partisan conflicts," and should not be made subservient "to the short sighted views of faction." The committee have a due regard, both to the admonition and the sentiments expressed by the President; and they, also, entertain a most ardent hope that our fellow-citizens will keep a steady searching eye on every movement of political ambition, in whatever quarter of our country it may appear. may speak well and pleasantly to the public ear in favor of a national protecting system, and yet, with a calm, fair, honest looking countenance, scatter such mysterious, yet captivating doubts, as to the value of its different provisions, that "small minorities" may be taught how to form a "combination" to overthrow it.

What gives national importance to an object or production of domestic industry? How is its national importance discovered? Whence derived? By what principle decided? Is it the place of production in the United States that imparts to it the character of "national importance?" Must production be found in every narrow subdivision of the country? Must it, of necessity, be "general, not local?" Should the answer be in the affirmative, the concentrated wisdom of the nation could never provide a protecting tariff. Our various soils, our different climates, our diversified objects of industry, would present an impassable barrier against the adoption of any system of protection. The farmer who grows wheat asks the aid of Government to protect that article. He knows that Poland, Russia, the Barbary States, and France, may furnish, at times, wheat cheaper on the seaboard than he can afford it. When he asks protection, an objection is made. Some portions of the Union do not produce wheat. Its production is not general. It must be rejected.

Butter and cheese are presented for protection. Our farmers can produce them in abundance. The Irish tenant, who subsists on the humblest fare that unfeeling oppression deals out, may furnish them cheaper than the cultivators of our soil. Yet, it is discovered that portions of our extended country are unable to produce butter and cheese. They cannot be protected. They are local, and not general."

Iron is mentioned. It is indispensable in peace and war. It may, perhaps, be for a time furnished by boors and serfs, laboring under the command of Russian and Swedish nobility, a little cheaper than the Pennsylvania and New Jersey forgemen can produce it, and live as independent citizens ought to live in a free country. But iron is a "local object, not geneval." It must be rejected.

Hemp is named-an article so valuable to the independence of all branches of the navigation of our country. The strong arm of protection holds foreign navigation away from our domestic trade. It should unfurl American canvass with delight. It should also be well kept in mind, that the great body of American consumers of foreign productions sustain navigation engaged in

« 上一頁繼續 »