網頁圖片
PDF
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

the same articles on which the duties are paid. That part of the country in which two-thirds of the exports are produced, are not, nor are they expected to be, engaged in manufactures. I think it must be admitted that all the goods imported must, generally, be paid for by articles exported. And if the North and West consume two-third of the goods imported into the United States, if they pay for them at all, they must pay for them with the exports of the South. Here I will take occasion to remark, that the very able gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Gokham] sets forth, in the most clear manner, how he who furnishes what a planter of cotton or tobacco needs, acquires the power and right to consume part of the goods for which the tobacco or cotton is exchanged in a foreign market. There is no flaw in his reasoning, if the facts are as the argument sup: poses. But that is the very hinge on which this question turns. In the case supposed by me, the inhabitants of N entitled themselves to the moiety of the exports, or their proceeds, produced in T. But the law gave them forty per cent, advantage in the exchange, so that T gave one hundred and received sixty. How, then, do our northern and western brethren become entitled to the proceeds of one-half of the southern exports : The answer is, by things they sell us, or that they sell to others. But the statement shows that their exports are laid out in imports, and half the southern exports are required to make up the deficiency in their means of paying for imports consumed. One-half, then, of the exports produced by the South are urchased by the productious of northern and western bor. Do we pay them the average duty of forty per cent. in this exchange This is a matter not susceptible of that sort of proof which will make one who receives the bounty admit it; but the payer sees it plain enough. I know, indeed, that, between the South and West, there has been, and is, a trade in stock, which is not regulated by law; in other words, we are not compelled by law to give more than the market price to Kentucky for pork. I know, too, that the ship owner earns part of our exports, and he, it is true, is as far from being a favorite with Conress as the southern planter. But the great mass of pro#. received by the southern planter is from the North and East, upon almost every article of which the full amount of the duty is paid. Coarse cottons, I know, are sold for less than the duty itself; but it does not follow that we do not pay forty per cent, even on that article; it is now manufactured in England astonishingly low; and if the views gentlemen give us of that matter were founded on facts, they would at once reduce the duty to fifteen per cent, which is enough to secure the manufacturer against the effect of English bankruptcy. But suppose the coarse cottons be sold to us at a fair price. An estimate has been made, during this debate, of the cotton purchased by the North, (greatly too large, I suspect,) but the half of it, with the flour, tobacco, and corn of the South, consumed by the North, will pay for all the unprotected goods, we get of them, threefold. With regard to our trade with the West, I doubt whether the slaves annually sold to Louisiana, (which is also a tariff State,) added to the other things sold to the North for consumption there, will not pay for every article we obtain of the North and West, which is not affected by the tariff, to its full amount. But to this large amount add one-eighth of southern exports, and I know the sum will be sufficient, and more than sufficient. How then would stand the account? Upon the supposition that the southern exports in any year amounted to forty millions of dollars, and the whole import amounted that year to twenty-four millions of dollars, the burden on the South would be fourteen millions of dollars; and this is so, whether the manufacturer makes any thing by his trade or not; for Congress has induced him to go into a business at which he can only save himself, although others are compelled to pay him

forty per cent.: the penalty on them is the same as if the whole forty per cent was to him a profit; and it is attended with this aggravation, that they are deeply injured for no one's benefit. This view of the case makes the burden on the South one-eighth less than the more able one of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McDuFFIE] made it. That eighth is allowed in this estimate only because the remainder justifies the loud, the peremptory call for relief, now reverberating from every part of the planting country, except that in which sugar is produced. I say the admission is only made for that cause; for I do believe that the bread stuffs, cotton, tobacco, slaves, lumber, &c., sold by the South to the tariff States, (for their own use,) will more than pay for every unprotected article purchased by the South of any of them, including every article (if such there be) which is (now) not affected by the protection; and I mean in this statemeut to include freight and merchant's profit, paid to them on our foreign commerce. In drawing this conclusion, I have no guide but my opinions of the results of trade between the States, formed from simple observation. I believe that when the southern exports amount to forty millions, and the import duties to twenty-four millions, the burden imposed ou the South by the laws laying those duties, is sixteen millions; but of nothing (not resting on mathematical truth) am I more sure than that, from the same amount of exports and impost duties, the South are burdened with fourteen millions—a burden from which relief must and will be had. The sentiments I often hear expressed on this subject, “that no duties are paid on home manufactures, and that each individual contributes the same to the treasury, in proportion to his consumption of duty-paying articles," as an answer to the objection that our system of protecting duties bears unequally heavy on the non-manufacturing States or parts of the country, affects an ignorance of the applicability to our situation of the view I have taken of this subject, covering an insult to our understanding, gross as the system itself is oppressive and unjust. I did not and do not now, propose any particular reply to the arguments on the other side; but one of them is so extraordinary, I shall not pass it by. Sugar, says the gentlemen from Rhode Island, [Mr. BusGEs] is the only article, the price of which is increased by the tariff; and by the tariff on that article, the value of southern property, or labor, is increased, or kept up

many millions more than its owners have been injured by the system. He did not condescend to tell us why the competition, of the American producer of sugar with the foreign producer did not result, as he su es the forced woollen manufactures in Rhode Island to have resulted; that is, actually in lowering the price of both the foreign and domestic article. In this market, this distinction is founded, I suppose, on two facts; one, that sugar is a southern E. ; and the other, that, unless the tariff raises or keeps up the price of sugar, it is not conceivable how it would affect the price of slaves. But how is the southern planter bettered by the price of the labor employed by him being raised in the market, while the proquce of that labor is stationary, or lower, in price So far as the labor in question is designed for any use but sale, the inference of benefit is directly the reverse of the fact; and besides the manifest loss of an increased capital, producing the same interest, there is this other apparent loss, that so much of the produce of this labor as is vested in sugar, produces less than it would do by forty per cent.

I do admit that when, by unjust burdens, the planter is

[blocks in formation]

(which here he sees is the same thing) to the amount of

broke, his creditors get a better dividend, from the fact

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

° and of applying their labor better, may still lessen prices;

i

others.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

so long as the manufacturer gets more for his goods than

the least living profit on his capital, you may reduce the

price by increasing the quantity of goods; but when you conse below this, production must lessen, until the living profit, is again made Causes independent of our tariff

would have put, and did put European manufacturing

eapital down to this minimum profit, and labor down to the bare subsistence of the laboring classes. New inventions in machinery, modes of sustaining laborers for less,

but your tariff laws have had, and can have, no effect but to increase the price here in comparison with the price elsewhere. On this subject, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Goah AM] gives us full information, and there is no man, here or elsewhere, more capable of informing Nor do the different views we have taken of this and some other subjects, abate aught foom the idea I have formed of his possessing all the qualities befitting a representative of the cradle of American liberty. He tells us that if our present system of duties be repealed, not an axe nor a hoe, not a spade, shovel, or hammer, could be made at our shops; that not only would our work

shops and mauufacturing establishments on the seaboard

be annihilated in a moment, but that British goods of every description would penetrate throughout the whole country, and be sold so low, that they could not be made by our artists. Sir, this statement is undeniably true; and with a knowledge of it, of the amount of duties now by law assessed on imports, the quantity of the same articles manufactured and sold in the country, the amount of ex

oports and imports, and places which produce the exports, * with a knowledge of the fact that these domestic manufac

turing establishments are not, and will not be in the south

zern country, the monstrous injustice of saddling the South

•with half the burden they bear in rearing up these manu

a factures appears so plain, that it proclaims aloud that re

*lief must and will be had. This would be so, even were it true that the present list of protected goods would, in a reasonable time, need no protection. The direct benefit of the effect thus produced would be * exclusively, even then, confined to the manufacturing districts, and the indirect benefit to agriculture, out of all proportion, in favor of the same districts. ut this land of promise, this good to come, like human ...bliss, recedes as you approach it, and it is still to-morrow. : More than double the time needed to make the whole

2 southern eountry a waste has passed since the duties and , other charges have brought many articles into advantage... ous competition with the foreign commodity; yet no arti

..cle, which ever called for the protection of law, uow sells as low as it could be imported, but for the law. The day Vol. VI-119.

when the wages of labor will be low enough for merchandise generally to be manufactured here as low as they may be imported, is one for which a good man ought not to pray. It is too distant for our circumstances; justice, partial justice, at least, must be sooner done; no reference, even in thought, should be had to a severance of these States. But the o of public burdens exists as I have stated it, if not in all the aggravation of the statement, still enough, and more than enough, to justify the affirmation that no Government can maintain it, no people ought to bear it. Like the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Gorham] as I regard no threats, I make none; but if I see a course of legislation here which my constituents cannot bear, I should be false to them if I did not say so. I say it, therefore, because I believe it; and I call on New England in particular, and also on every tariff State, to examine this subject dispassionately; the results of the principles assumed, as j as the principles themselves, are undeniably true. The facts are believed. Into these facts, I beg that inquiry be made, and, if fairly made, I am sure justice will be done. But relief, in some way or other, must and will be had. I conclude, sir, that the amendment proposed ought to be adopted. That amendment would leave the protection of manufactures up to and above, the maximum of Alexander Hamilton. And, while the southern States would still be unequally and unjustly taxed, the actual amount would be, o a burden which they can bear. I have said nothing of the total want of constitutional power to keep up this most oppres: sive burden. Those who think they are unequally taxed, do also generally believe they are so burdened by unauthorized power—a state of things to which I refer simply to weigh as it should. Of the entire accuracy of these opinions, I have no doubt; but men of all parties here agree that Congress are not prevented by the constitution from doing what they want to do in any case. An argument, therefore, on that subject, would be useless. Mr. MARTINDALE said, he was very desirous of presenting his views to the committee on this momentous subject under consideration. He was [he said] desirous of doing so, not only because of its magnitude and sweeping character, but because he considered this the last tariff debate. A kind of crisis was now presented; and the argument being exhausted, or about to be exhausted, the alternative [said Mr. M.] is placed before us—either to submit to legitimate, constitutional legislation, or coerce a constitutional majority by the superior physical or moral power of a minority. The honorable gentleman who moved the amendment under consideration, has signified his intention of closing this debate, and expressed a desire that whatever can be urged against it, should be first submitted. I am anxious, [said Mr. M.] so far as the patience of the committee will allow, to comply with his request; for, notwithstanding the wide range of this debate, and the great talent it has elicited, all the aspects and relations of this subject have not yet been examined. Indeed, it is beyond the grasp of any single speech, or the compass of any single debate. But, in the hands of the gentleman from South Carolina, its circumference has been immensely enlarged. Here is a new basis of argument, and new ground of reproach and complaint. He has described the South as the tributaries of the North, at the rate of ten millions annually. The tariff takes the vast sum of ten millions annually, over and above their just proportion of the public burdens, from two millions of free men, and transfers it to ten millions of their more favored neighbors, who are represented as the taskmasters of the South, and insatiable monopolists. To sustain such extraordinary charges, it became necessary to assume an entire new theory, and the gentleman has boldly advanced the political heresy, that exportation pays the duty on imports. In as much as cotton, rice, and tobacoo constitute two-thirds of all the exported produce of the United States, the States producing these articles

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

pay, in that proportion, the entire revenue of the Union. The gentleman assumes what is manifestly absurd upon the face of it, and is, in terms, a direct contradiction of a truth almost self-evident, and of opinions universally received as true, and universally adopted in practice. "Let us consider it for a moment. The §: is, in fact, added after the o. and whatever be the price of purchase, the duty, like the per centage of the retailer, is superadded. As an undeniable matter of fact, then, the ultimate purchaser, who is the consumer, pays in the purchase price the sum total of the original purchase price, and all subsequent charges, whatever those charges are. The duty is a subsequent charge. He, therefore, necessarily pays that charge, unless it be thrown back upon the producer, by some retrospective ex post facto principle, operating upon future purchases. There is nothing voluntary or conventional in this business. The operation cannot {. effected by any arbitrary, predetermined act of the intermediate manufacturer. An uncontrolable law of trade is, that the supply of the market regulates the market price. There must be some intelligible process, by which the problem can be wrought out. It cannot be by disburdening consumption, for consumption is not charged with the duty. The proposition of the gentleman throws the charge upon the producer, the effect of which would be to diminish production and not consumption. I am utterly unable to comprehend the modus operandi of this strange hypothesis. Butlet us examine some of the consequences which must necessarily flow from the gentleman's doctrines. If it be true that the producer pays the tax upon consumption, it follows, of course, that the consumer does not pay it. And if this be true, we have been very unwise in reducing the duty on tea and coffee. We shall not diminish the price to the consumer. We have only alleviated the burdens we had imposed upon the Chinese, the Javanese, and the West Indians. We have thrown away ten millions of revenue, which we had contrived to make the foreign producer of these articles contribute to our treasury. But the gentleman's own recommendation contradicts this necessary conclusion from his present proposition. He has procured a reduction of the duties on tea and coffee, on the plausible pretence of making them cheaper to the consumer, whereas, according to his present reasoning, the reduction of the duty on teas and coffee will so increase the consumption at home, and thereby raise the demand abroad, as to augment the price abroad equivalent to the reduction of the duty at home. But how can the producer of one ingredient of the fabric be separated from the producer of another element of the same fabric # If the producer of the cotton, for instance, pay any portion of the duty imposed upon the manufacture, does he pay all that duty, or only that portion equivalent to the proportion of the value of the cotton to the value of the fabric: How does the manufacturer escape his portion of the tax? It is inconceivable. The gentleman's ingenuity will be taxed more severely than he has represented his constituents to be, to devise a scheme by which he can exonerate the manufacturer from contributing, at least, his proportion to the payment of the duty on the manufacture. Is it not so? Let it be remembered that the gentleman's proposition exonerates the consumer from the payment of the duty, because he eharges it upon the producer. The duty, therefore, does not raise the price of the manufacture to the consumer, for, if it did, he would necessarily pay the duty. It diminishes the price, therefore, in the hands of the producer, or the producer does not pay it. But it is the manufaeture upon which the duty is imposed. It is the manufac. ture, i. the price of which is diminished, or else the addition of the duty would raise the price, and the consumer would pay it. You must, of necessity, diminish the price of the manufacture before you can affect the price of the raw material. It is utterly impossible

in the nature of things to reach the raw material, by duty on the manufacture in any other way. This is self-evident, and will no doubt be admitted. On the gentleman's theory, the value of the entire manufacture is first diminished by the duty. All its elements (for these combined are the manufacture) must, of course, be diminished in value in the same proportion in which they enter into its composition. These elements, besides the raw cotton, are the skill, labor, and subsistence of the artisan, and the use of the machinery and capital of the master. On an average, these constitute four-fifths of the value of cotton manufactures. Four-fifths of the fifteen millions, therefore, which the gentleman charges upon cotton, should be charged upon the manufacturer and capitalist. For three millions, which, the cotton and tobacco planter pays, the British capitalist and manufacturer pay twelve millions into our treasury. This is inevitable, or the gentleman's theory is good for nothing. The gentleman's patriotism would . cheerfully acquiesce in the payment of three millions for the sake of a tribute of twelve millions from England and France; and the more especially, when he allows the proportion of the national revenue, justly chargeable upon the cotton growing States, to be about five millions. But, if the gentleman's assumption be true, our duties upon the manufactures which we do consume depreciate as much the value of those of the same kind which we do not consume, as of those which we do consume. The loss is in . calculable to England as well as the cotton-growing States. Our duties, of something more than ten millions, upon | cottons, woollens, iron, and hemp, and their manufactures, it is alleged, diminish the value of forty millions worth of raw produce by fifteen millions. This is effected by reducing the value, not only of the manufacture wrought of the raw produce just named, but also of woolleus, iron, and hemp, and their various manufactures. The thirty millions worth of cotton which we export produce one hundred and fifty millions worth of manufactures. We import, say ten millions worth of these, not more, on which we impose duty. But that which is left for foreign : consumption is affected just as much by our duty as that which we import. The market price of the whole is the same. So of all the other manufactures purchased with our cotton, rice, and tobacco, or else we do not lighten the burdens upon cotton, rice, and tobacco, by reducing the duty on woollens, iron and hemp. The mass of these manufactures and materials, from which we sup: ply our imports, it is impossible to estimate; but if the woollen manufactures of this country amount to seventy mil- . lions of dollars annually, according to numerous estimates, those of England, Holland, and France cannot be less than four hundred millions, the price of all which we have reduced by our duty in the proportion of fifteen to forty, that is, by an imposition of a duty of ten millions, we have annihilated a ". of at least two hundred and twentyfive millions. Indeed, this amount, extravagant as it may appear, is far below the actual loss, on the assumption of the honorable gentleman. This estimate excludes entirely . from the account, iron, hemp, flax, and their manufactures. But if a duty on cotton goods diminishes the value of tobacco nearly forty percent, it is impossible to estimate its influence upon the value of Saxon sheep in Germany, or Young Hyson tea in China. The extravagance of the gentleman's theory is its own refutation. But how can the duty on woollens and iron depress the price of cotton By diuminishing their price? This would be favorable to the consumer, and, so far as cheapness: could * such a result, would eneourage consumption... But a more extensive consumption of woollens ! would not increase the consumption of cotton, or in any way eneourage its production. But does the duty on irou and woollens enhance their price? Then the consumer pays the duty, and the producer does not, and then cot. ton is not charged with the duty on woollens and iron, * *

[ocr errors]

i

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

and the gentleman's proposition is erroneous. Indeed, its

is a notorious and very strong fact, that the comparative dearness of woollens, notwithstanding their present ruin. ous depression, has been the cause of substituting, very extensively, too, cotton manufactures for woollens; and this, more than any thing else, accounts for the rapid increase of the consumption of cotton from less than one hundred millions of pounds to three hundred millions of pounds in ten years. If the duty on woollens has diminished the consumption of woollens, it certainly has not diminished the consumption of cotton, and its repeal could by no possibility increase the consumption of cotton. But when did cotton, rice, and tobacco begin to pay the imposts on woollens, iron, hemp, flax, and silk Before or since the tariffs of 1824 and i828 It is manifest that if they pay the duties now in the proportion they bear to our other exports, they paid them before in the same proportion, and will continue to pay them in that propor. tion, even should these tariffs be repealed. The rate of duty, and the proportion which these raw products bear to the aggregate of our exports, cannot change their nature, nor alter the relation in which they stand to imported manufactures. The repeal of these tariffs, therefore, would only so far alleviate these oppressed productions as it dinished the revenue, and would, in no degree, distribute the burden complained of, only in so far as it mul. tiplied and distributed the various exports with which those manufactures are purchased. But it is not contemplated, and, I presume, not desired by the honorable gen. tleman, to substitute flour, and beef, and pork, for cotton, in the foreign market, in the purchase of our manufac. tures. But, unless this substitution were effected, the repeal of the tariff would not alleviate the unequal burdens of the South, nor transfer their due proportion to the North. Cotton must still pay the duties so long as it continues to be the medium of exchange for English and French manufactures. Neither is an essential diminution of revenue anticipated from this proposition, should it be adopted, but a greatly increased consumption of cotton. How this can be accomplished, without diminishing the price to the consumer, is to me incomprehensible. If goods do not become cheaper by taking off the duty, I cannot conceive why he should be induced to buy and consume more. But if the diminution of duty is a dimi. nution of price to the consumer, then the consumer pays the duty in just so far as the price is enhanced by the duty, and then the producer does not pay it, for both cannot pay the same duty. The gentleman's own proposition denies the applicability of his remedy. His proposition is false, or his remedy is inefficient. They cannot cohere. It remains certain, however, that cotton would still pay the duty, whatever it might be, and of course the revenue, and precisely in proportion to the amount of its exportation. On this hypothesis, the case of the southern States is utterly hopeless and incurable. They must secede from the Union. It is a desperate remedy; and even that, I will endeavor to show, ... no degree administer the relief hought for. Suppose a thorough conviction of permanent irreconcilable interests should produce a dissolution of the Union, and the cotton-growing States are erected into a separate Government—a new United States of America— (if a union could be accomplished among so . absolute sovereignties.) What then? Why, they would continue to grow cotton as now, and eschew all manufactures, and throw open their ports to all the world, and establish an unlimited freedom of trade, (as the most valuable freedom,) and supply their treasury by an income tax, or, what would amount to the same thing, a direct tax on slaves and real estate. ...The northern tariff States would pursue their present policy, and cherish and protect their manufactures, as the best means of promoting their agriculture and commerce. If placed on an equal footing with the most favored nations in our intercourse with the Southern Republic,

we should continue to buy and manufacture their cotton according to the present course of trade, and northern capital and northern ships would still continue to purchase and export the cotton, rice, and tobacco of the South. The intercourse between the North and the South is free now ; and so far as the export of cotton and tobacco is concerned, it is perfectly free to: England and the South; and yet northern ships transport all, or nearly all, the cotton of the South. This condition of trade would continue if the tariff should be repealed. It would continue if the cottongrowing Stutes should secede. They are not commercial States. They have neither ships nor seamen, nor can they have. The northern States would continue to buy foreign manufactures with southern cotton, so long as they imported foreign manufactures; and as long as they imposed duties thereon, the southern cotton would . them, if it pays them now. A little attention to this subject will make it perfectly clear that the change in the political relations of the States would not in the least vary their commercial' relations, provided the same freedom of intercourse was allowed as is now enjoyed. It would not transfer from the North their capital, their ships, nor their commercial imarine, and certainly not their manufactures. How, then, would it influence the course of trade It would relieve the South from the burden of the duties on manufactures; but for this alleviation, they would be compelled to substitute an imposition of a more onerous and intolerable character, upon cotton, or upon that which produces it. They would not alleviate the burden. They would only change its position from manufactures to cotton, and its character from a voluntary to a compulsory tax. They would not think of dispensing with a Government and its concomitants. They must have a navy, an army, and fortifications; and they would soon find themselves in the enjoyment of all the blessings of a national debt, and all the embarrassments of paying the interest and redeeming the principal. The conclusion of the whole matter would be, that the price of their cotton would not only be diminished, but the quantity also ; and the wealth and population of South $. would be transferred to the Texas, or the cape fields of Louisiana. Butlet us view this subject in a different aspect. Suppose the dissolution of our political relations should produce an alienation of friendship, and a suspension of intercourse. The South would prohibit the manufactures of the North, and the North the cotton of the South, both in the bale from Savannah and Charleston, and in the box from England and France. The South would lose the market, not only for the two hundred thousand bales now manufactured at the North, but of nearly half that amount now manufactured in England and France, and reimported and consumed at the North. The North would find their cotton in Louisiana, (for Louisiana is a tariff State) in Texas, in Mexico, in Brazil, in Egypt, in Liberia, in the whole belt of the earth, seventy degrees broad, extending at least thirty-five degrees each side of the equator. “New England, and her associates in this system of tyranny and oppression,” would then make these vast sections of the earth her “tributaries,” instead of Georgia and South Carolina, in so far as their cotton furnished the medium of exchange for any commodities on which she could impose duties for revenue or protection. What, then, would be the price of South Carolina cotton, with the loss of a market for at least one-half of her present crop. The disastrous consequences are sufficiently manifest, and certainly inevi. table. Then, indeed, would despair, desolation, and ruin sweep through the land, and leave but a blighted, barren, and trackless waste behind. It is not necessary to deepen the shades of this picture with the horrors of a civil or servile war, to render it terrific, and to arrest our progress to an exhibition of the reality. But the course indicated by the present temper, and new doctrines of South Carolina, leads directly to this black abyss. If the State of South Carolina nullifies the tariff, the Union is ipso facto dissolved, or is

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Preserved only by enforcing the tariff, and executing upon *he State the laws of the Ünion. If the Union be dissolved, still the mischief is not cured, but aggravated. No remedy is applied, but numberless and intolerable evils are engendered to be perpetuated forever. Now, let us look at the other side of this question. You ask us to repeal the tariff. We cannot do it. You complain that the tariff is intolerable to you. Its repeal would be inevitable destruc. tion to us. To us it is a proposition of self immolation. You must destroy our woollen, cotton, iron, hemp, and salt manufactures, or you accomplish nothing. Your object is, you avow it, to reduce us to the necessity of buying of England and France, with your cotton, all that we now produce or manufacture of these articles, to enhance the price of cotton, and to enable you to sell more. This is your proposition. This is what you intend to accomplish. It is what you must accomplish; or, however much you may injure us, you derive no advantage yourselves. There are two sides to this subject. It may be well to look at the magnitude of the interests which you propose to sacrifice, and which you must sacrifice, to build up your own. The woollen manufactures of the United State shave been esti. mated at the annual value of seventy millions. This, of itself, is more than double the whole cotton-growing interest of the Union. The manufacture of cotton is the next most important interest, and may be safely put down at thirty millions annually, fully equal in value to our foreign trade in cotton. Our iron, hemp, and salt manufactures cannot be less than thirty millions more of annual produc. tion. Here, then, is an annual production of at least one hundred and thirty millions, which you propose to annihilate or greatly to diminish. This, it should be remembered, is an annual production, and like so much interest is the measure of the capital employed in this production. Three-fourths of this amount are raw material and subsistence, and the wages of labor. One-half, at least, is agricultural produce, forming the elements of manufactures. Here, then, is a permanent and perpetually increasing market for more than sixty millions' worth of mere agricul tural produce involved in the preservation of these manufactures. This, we know, is of infinitely more value than all our foreign commerce, in the productions of the northern and western States. EThis interest cannot be abandoned. . It must be protected. It is of vital importance to the whole Union—to us it is indispensable. Every laborer, every mechanic, every farmer knows this. He knows that if manufactures cannot be sustained, he cannot find employment; if manufac. tures are not sustained, he cannot find a market for his wool, nor for his surplus provisions; and if he cannot sell them, neither will he produce them. We know that the repeal of the tariff ... sacrifice this market, and that it would be immediately seized upon by the French and English, without benefiting our southern neighbors. This we know, and we cannot permit it to be done. The South cannot, in justice, ask that, it should be done. They boast of the bounties of Providence they enjoy, the rich staple of cotton in which we cannot participate. But we, too, have our blessings; we, too, have our rich staples, of at least equivalent value. Our climate and soil are adapted to the culture of the finest wool, far superior in value to the cot: ton of the South. A market for it is as important to us as is a market for cotton to the South. This market must be furnished by manufacturing it here. It would be as absurd for us to import wool or woollen manufactures, as it would be for the South to import the cotton of Brazil instead of producing it themselves. The same may be said of all the elements of this manufacture; they are superabundant, and ruinously cheap; and here we are importing the wheat, the beef, the pork, the vegetables of England, when ours are perishing on our hands. Our minerals, too, are inexhaustible, and the means of converting them into iron, and manufacturing them to our use, are at hand. It may seem an

hy erbole, but, if it be, the honorable gentleman has fur. some precedents of that sort; but we might as well import the soil of Sweden and Russia to manure our wheat fields, as to import their iron to construct the ploughs that till them. According to the cost of production, it is probably somewhat dearer than our wheat; but increased competition is rapidly increasing the production, and the inequality will speedily be removed. One thing may be considered as finally and irrevocably settled; it will never be abandoned; the protection will never be withdrawn. This may be and should be considered the irrevocable, unchangeable policy of the tariff States. There can be no doubt in this matter, for this good, substantial, and very satisfactory reason; the policy is founded upon a clear perception and a full and perfect understanding of the great, permanent, and unchangeable interests of all that portion of the Union whose productions come in so with foreign productions which we are in the habit of importing. Mary: land, and Virginia, and Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, are bound in perpetual alliance with the tariff States, and committed, by their strongest and dearest interests, to the protecting .# forever. I have never allowed mysel

tion of the Union as possible. But if the gentleman's views of the interests of the cotton-growing States be correct, it is not only pessible but inevitable. It should not only not be opposed and prevented, but it should be immediately negotiated and amicably adjusted. I will not be chargeable with wrong and oppression, and tyranny, and plunder, and robbery toward any portion of the human family, much less toward any of my countrymen and fellow citizens. For myself and my constituents, and in behalf of the State which, in part, I represent. I repel the charge of the base intent imputed by the gentleman from South Carolina. We have not, knowingly and designedly, inflicted an injury upon South Carolina. Our constituents have demanded no such sacrifice of honor and principle at our hands., Make good the charge, prove the injury, and they will consent to the secession to-morrow; but they cannot and will not allow the repeal of the tariff. The Union is dear to them; it is consecrated by every feeling of patriotism; it is incorporated in every affection of their nature, and interwoven with every sympathy of the heart. The memory of their fathers reminds them perpetually of the Union: but they cannot, and will not, endure the charge of injustice, oppression, tyranny, robbery, plun. der. Go, in the name of God—go in peace—if #: be the least semblance of truth in the charge. But there is not. It is the merest fiction of a heated imagination, a perfect delirium of passion, a sublimated delusion of refined, ingenious ends, contradicted by the experience of every age and every nation, and the evidence of every fact. Is South Carolina oppressed ?. I deny it. Before this nation and the world, I protest it is not true. Where is the proof? It has not been exhibited. It does not exist; it is not in nature. In what does it consist? In the cheapness of cotton? The tariff has not reduced the price, but has contributed to keep it up. The price is controlled by a law beyond the reach of congressional legislation. It is the unchangeable law of trade; the relation between supply and demand. The South have overstocked the markets of the world, and the price has fallen in exact proportion to the excess of supply. The proof to this point is abundant. One fact alone is conclusive. More than half the annual

to contemplate the dissolu

[blocks in formation]
« 上一頁繼續 »