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

slaves Since they are already amongst us, we can only regard them as human beings committed to our guardianship; and I will maintain before any enlightened tribunal, in opposition to all the visionary fanatics in christendom, that we shall consult their happiness as little as our own safety, by their emancipation. "I am glad to perceive that some of the States of this Union have been brought to their senses on the subject of free negroes, by actual observation of their character and condition. I confidently assert that there is not upon the whole face of the earth a more lazy, miserable, and degraded people than the free negroes of the United States. If I desired to fix the curse of heavenupon the southern slaves, I would undoubtedly set them free, and let them go forth as wretched outcasts to beg, steal, or perish. Their present condition is proud and envia. ble, compared with that in which wild enthusiasts and calculating politicians would place them. Sir, I will not contend with Aristotle, that the African race were made to be slaves, but I do say that God himself has drawn the line of discrimination, both moral and physical, between them and the white race, in characters too strong ever to be obliterated. And although the people of the North, from an overweening anxiety to attend to the concerns of other people, are very eloquent in preaching up in favor of our slaves, the doctrine of the universal equality of all mankind, they would shudder at the idea of amalgamating with them, as much as the people of the South. There is no subject upon which such erroneous notions prevail throughout the civilized world, as on that of the negro slavery of the southern States. Yielding to the influence of a mawkish and mis. taken humanity, our own statesmen have generally conceded that slavery is a political evil, as it regards the white population. Now, sir, I firmly believe that there never has existed a form of servitude so favorable to the happiness of the servants, and at the same time so conducive to political freedom, as that which we are considering. Where those to perform the menial and degrading offices of society constitute a part of the political body, and participate in the Government of the country, through the elective franchise, this high privilege is degraded, and the spirit of liberty, as well as its security, diminished. . It is not in the nature of things, that a mere dependent, who brushes your coat and cleans your boots, can be regarded by you with the feeling of equality which is due to a free man, nor is it expected that he should have the proud feelings that belong to a free man. A state of servile dependence is utterly incompatible with political freedom; and, by conferring the right of suffrage upon persons in that condition, whatever may be their color, you do not elevate them to the character of free men, but degrade liberty to their level. What, sir, would you expect from an election where hostlers and grooms, and postillions and footmen, should come to the polls, and control the result #,Gentlemen may talk as much as they please about equal rights, but I know they do not indulge those feelings of respect for their servants which every man in the southern States indulges towards the humblest citizen. Where all the offices of dependent servitude are performed by a separate caste, distinguished by color, and wholly excluded from all participation in the Government, it is not to be doubted that the spirit of freedom is rendered much more proud and lofty among those who are free, by the very contrast. No man in the southern States, whatever may be his rank or station, would think of speaking to the very poorest white man in the community with the imperious tone of insolence and authority which are habitually used towards the white servants of the North. These views of the political effect of slavery are conclusively sustained by the philosophical exposition of Mr. Burke, in his celebrated speech on conciliation with the American colonies. And I will venture to predict that if ever the liberty of this country shall be extinguished, the

last glimmering of that glorious light will beam forth from the South. Before I take my seat, I must trouble the committee with a very few words in reply to some very significant allu. sions which have been made as to the motives and objects by which I have been actuated in submitting to the com: mittee the amendment which I offered, and the argument by which I attempted to sustain it. The gentleman from assachusetts [Mr. GoRHAM] imagines he can perceive some deep laid scheme of political ambition at the bottom of all this. [Mr. GORHAM rose to make an explanation, disclaiming any intention to impute such designs.] Mr. McDUFFIE said, he was glad to find that he had mistaken the gentleman, as he had great personal respect for him, but that he certainly was not mistaken in what had fallen from another member, [Mr. BURGEs] who spoke of artful and ambitious politicians who regarded political power as the summum bonum. Now, sir, was there ever a more farfetched and extravagant notion, than that any man, in the ordinary use of his faculties, would throw himself into the breach, and wage a war of extermination against the protecting system, with a view to political advancement! Every one must see, that, situated as things are, no man can take such a course, without cutting himself off from every hope of political elevation. The alternative is presented to every southern man to select between the rights and liberties of his constituents, and his own promotion. If they would basely and treacherously surrender the dearest . of the people they represent, if they would even vise their constituents to submit passively to the oppres: sive despotism of the majority, the avenue to the houors of this Government would perfectly open to them. But, sir, as it regards myself, so far from seeking or desiring such honors, no human inducement could prevail upon me to accept of any office under this Government, until the State of South Carolina is redeemed from the colonial vassalage to which she has been reduced, and raised from the condition of a tributary province to that of an independent State. No, sir, if I know my own heart, I would not accept of the very highest office in the gift of the American people, while a system of legislation exists, which it would be my duty to enforce, and which reduces my fellow-citizens to a state of degrading bondage. As God is my judge, I would rather perish in the last ditch, contending for the violated rights of my constituents, than to wave the barren sceptre of power over the ruin and desolation which the unconstitutional and tyrannical legislation of this Government has spread over the fairest portion of God's creation. Mr. GORHAM, Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, and Mr. BURGES severally made some explanatory remarks on points of Mr. McDuffIE's speech, in which they were referred to; after which, the question being loudly called for, The *: was put on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr. McDuffie, and was decided in the nega. tive : yeas, 62—nays, 112.

Mr. BUCHANAN then proposed a substitute for the bill,

which he had intimated, some time ago, he would offer, when in order—a substitute which [he said] was, with very little exception, not his own. He had been [he said] for some time negotiating between the Secretary of the Trea. sury and the chairman of the Committee on Domestic Manufactures, to agree on some effectual plan which would be mutually agreeable and acceptable to all. The result had been the bill which he now offered in lieu of the bill before the committee. [The substitute embraces a variety of provisions for appointing assistant appraisers, &c., a correct copy of which could not be obtained.] Mr. BUCHANAN followed his amendment with a number of remarks in explanation and support of the proposition, and in reference to proceedings on the tariff of 182s; which gave rise to some explanations by Mr. CausarLENG, and rejoinder by Mr. BuchanaN.

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

Mr. MALLARY made some remarks on the subject, going generally to a concurrence in the amendment of Mr. BuchanaN. Mr. MARTIN decidedly preferred the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. [Mr. BuchanaN] to the bill as reported; and having said this, he would, as a member of the Committee on Manufactures, give a short history of the origin of that bill. The Committee on Manufactures, having before them that part of the President's message relative to the encouragement of domestic manufactures, sought out some objeet to act upon, and conceived that they found it in that part of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of frauds on the revenue. They had brought in a bill upon the subject, which, so far from removing whatever evils might exist in relation to this matter, would be of the most pernicious tendency to our eommerce, by rendering the tariff, setting aside the injustiee of the system upon which it was based, tenfold more complicated, annoying, and vexatious in its operations. Mr. M. observed, that a correspondence had taken place on the subject of frauds on the revenue laws, with the Se...? of the Treasury, whose letter on the subject he moved the reading of [Here the letter was read by the Clerk.] Mr. MALLARY replied to, and controverted the objecjections of Mr. MARTIN to the original bill. The question was then put on the adoption of the substitute of Mr. BuchanaN, and it was agreed to without a division. Mr. SCOTT then moved the following amendment: “That, after the thirty-first day of July next, there shall be paid the same duty on all manufactures of iron and steel, not enumerated, or charged with specific duties, in any of the laws now in force, as is directed to be paid on bar or bolt iron made wholly or in part by rolling, under the act of the twenty-ninth of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight; and that all such iron shall be liable to the same duty that is charged on iron in pigs.” Mr. SCOTT shortly explained the nature and object of his amendment, which he argued did not go to increase the duties at present existing upon iron, but simply to make a regulation for a due execution of the laws which were ne: cessary for the prevention of frauds upon the revenue. Those frauds were, notwithstanding, perpetrated in the importation of iron of various qualities and descriptions. His amendment would provide against such evasions of the law. The amendment was adopted—79 to 67. Mr. HOWARD moved a further amendment in the shape of a proviso, that where iron is imported for railroads, and shals be proved to have been so used, a drawback shall be allowed, provided the duty thereon shall not be less than twenty-five per cent, ad valorem, nor in quantity less than twenty tons, --Mr. CRAWFORD opposed the proposition; and a long debate took place, in which Mr. MALLARY, Mr. SCOTT, and Mr. BUCHANAN participated. Mr. WAYNE moved the following amendment to the amendment : Provided all railroad iron, used in the construction of mill carriages, inclined planes, to sugar mills, and upon roads for the transportation of grain, sugarcane, or other agricultural produce, from the fields in which the same may grow to their places of preparation for market, shall be charged with no higher duty than the same now pays. The question being taken upon this amendment, it was rejected. After a few remarks by Mr. CAMBRELENG in support of Mr. Howard's amendment, it was agreed to with out a count. The Committee then rose, and reported the bill as aimeuded. Mr. McDUFFIE moved that his repealing proposition be

added by way of amendment to the substitute adopted
in committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS called for the yeas and nays; and
Mr. BARRINGER required a division of the question,
so as that it be taken separately on each member of the
amendment.
The question was then put first on agreeing to the follow.
ing portion of Mr. McDUFFIE's amendment, viz:
“And be it further enacted, That, from and after the
30th of June next, so much of the act of the 19th of May,
1828, as increases the duties on wool manufactured, and on
manufactures of wool, or of which wool shall be a compo-
nent part, be repealed, leaving the duties on said articles
as they stood previous to the passage of that act; and that,
from and after the 30th of June, 1831, so much of the act
of the 22d of may, 1824, as increases the duties on the
aforesaid articles, be also repealed, leaving the said duties
as they stood previous to the passage of said act.”
And was decided in the negative by the following vote:
yeas, 68—nays, 120.
The question being stated on the second member of the
amendment.
Mr. MERCER rose, and made a few remarks explana-
tory of the reasons for his course on this subject. They
were, generally, that as Congress had, by a course of le.
gislation, given a certain direction to the capital and indus-
try of the country—a misdirection of them, he always
thought, and which he had always opposed—and had per-
severed in that policy, until a vast amount of the capital
and industry of the country had been turned into that chan-
nel, he could not now vote for retracing the steps thus
taken, and bring the ruin and desolation upon the portion
of the Union, which would ensue from a sudden change of
the long established policy of the Government.
After some auinadversions by Mr. CARson on Mr. M.'s
course, and a rejoinder by Mr. MERCER,
The question was put on the following second member
of Mr. McDUFFIE's amendment, viz:
“SEC 2. And be it further enacted, That, from and
after the 30th, of June next, so much of the aforesaid act
of the 19th of May, 1828, as increases the duty on iron in bars
and bolts, whether manufactured by rolling or hammering,
on hemp, on flax, on cotton bagging, on molasses, on in-
digo, and on manufactures of cotton, or of which cotton
is a component part, be repealed, leaving the said duties
as they stood previous to the passage of the said act; and
that so much of the aforesaid act of the 22d May, 1824,
as increases the duty on any of the aforesaid articles, be
repealed from and after the 30th of June, 1831, leaving the
duties on the said articles as they stood before the passage
of that act.”
And was decided in the negative, without a division.
The third member of the amendment next coming up, it
was modified at the suggestion of Mr. BARRINGER, so as to
provide for a reduction on the duty of salt to fifteen cents
a bushel from and after September next, and to ten cents
from and after the 31st December, 1831.
The question being put on agreeing to this amendment,
it was carried in the affirmative as follows: yeas, 105–
nays, 83.
#. WILDE said, as the tariff of 1828 had been de-
nounced on all sides as injurious to the country, he would,
without detaining the House with any argument on the
subject, offer a motion to test the professions of gentlemen
on the subject. He, therefore, moved an amendment to
strike out all the amendment of the Committee of the
Whole, and insert a substitute, simply repealing, after the
30th of June next, the tariff act of 1828, with the excep.
tion of the duty on salt, which he proposed to let stand as
just decided by the House. -
Mr. WILDE demanded the yeas and hays on his amend.
ment, and they were ordered.
Mr. STORRS, of New York, observed, that, after the

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

decision of the House on the salt duty, he, as one of the representatives of New York, which State would be deeply affected by the decision, felt it his duty to make a motion, for the purpose of giving members an opportunity for considering what course it was proper to adopt on the subject. He, therefore, moved an adjournment. The motion was negatived. I. The question was then put on the amendment offered by Mr. WILDE, and was decided in the negative: yeas, 68– nays, 119. Mr. GORHAM now rose, and moved a reconsideration of the vote on the second member of Mr. McDUFFIE's amendment. He had voted in good faith with the friends of protection against what was regarded as a general hostile movement against the tariff. His own original objections to the tariff were known, and his reasons for refusing to repeal it after the system had been established. He had now voted with the friends of the system against any part of the repeal proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina, even on those articles, iron, hemp, &c. on which he most disliked to continue the duty; but as the decision of the House on the salt duty showed that it was willing to diminish the duty on one article, it was necessary to reopen the subject, and see whether it would not also modify the duty on the other articles equally deserving of reduc. tion. He, therefore, had made this motiou, and went on to sustain it by argument at considerable length. Mr. STORRS, of New York, concurred with Mr. G. in his objections to the repeal of the salt duty, and in favor of his motion. The State of New York had been a firm supporter of the protecting system: but let its friends repeal the salt duty, and thus touch one great source of her canal fund, and force her to resort to a direct tax to supply the loss, and gentlemen would find that State not going with them much longer in supporting the other parts of the tariff. He was going on to show the condition of the State duty on the domestic production of salt in New York, why it was imposed by a provision of the constitution ; when Mr. CAMBRELENG called Mr. S. to order. The question on the salt duty was decided, and the argument on it was not in order. If it were, he should take the opportunity of expressing his own opinions on the subject; he should like to address the gentleman's constituents relative to the salt duty, and meet his colleague on the subject. The SPEAKER. The gentleman is out of order. may submit his objection, but not argue it. Mr. CAMBRELENG. If I am out of order, my colleague was, of course. The SPEAKER. That does not follow. Mr. STORRS said that his colleague could take the opportunity when and where he pleased, to address himself to his [Mr. S.'s] constituents; but he now assured him that he would find them fully competent to appreciate justly anything which he could say to them. He would tell him one thing more, too: that the last thing which would frighten their representative here would be the threat of his colleague, that he [Mr. S.] was to meet him on this or any other question before them. Mr. S. then went on to argue the motion for reconsideration. Mr. BARRINGER regretted that a measure which promised some little alleviation to the South, should produce so much excitement. The reduction of the duty was voted for, from a sense of its intrinsic propriety, and of duty to the nation at large; and he spoke at some length to show that it was an isolated question, not connected with the tariff question ; was no just cause of complaint with those who desired the duties to be removed from other articles; that it ought to be judged and decided by itself, &c. When Mr. B. concluded, it being half after seven o'clock, Mr. WINTON moved an adjournment; which motion prewailed.' '

He

WEdNESDAY, MAY 12, 1830. The House resumed the consideration of the bill to regulate the collection of the duties on imports, with the depending amendments. The question under consideration when the House ad: journed yesterday, was on the motion of Mr. GORHAM to reconsider an amendment agreed to, concerning the du: ty on iron, &c.; which motion grew out of the adoption of the other amendment for reducing the duty on salt. Mr. GORHAM, of Massachusetts, briefly explained his object in making this motion. He considered the vote upon the salt duty as breaking in upon the present system of revenue, instead of regulating its collection, which was the object of the original bill now under consideration. He appealed to gentlemen whether it was possible to any bill on this subject at this session, if the whole field of debate was thus thrown open. Mr. G. concluded by saying, that, under this view of the case, if any gentleman would move to reconsider the vote upon the salt duty, so as to make it possible to agree on any bill upon this subject, he would, to make way for such a motion, withdraw the motion which he had made. Mr. DODDRIDGE, of Virginia, having intimated a disposition to make the motion suggested by the member from Massachusetts, Mr. GORHAM withdrew his motion; and Mr. DODDRIDGE moved to reconsider the vote upon Mr. BARRINGER's amendment for reducing the duty on salt. Mr. WAYNE, of Georgia, asked whether it was the intention of the gentleman from Massachusetts to renew his motion if the pending motion was rejected. Mr. GORHAM declining to make any pledge on that oint— Mr. WAYNE, taking it for granted that such was the intention of Mr. GoRHAM, made a decided speech against the course now proposed, considering it as a mere proposition, call it by what name gentlemen would, of bargain and sale : against which he inveigbed with considerable warmth and zeal. Mr. BARRINGER, of North Carolina, deprecated a protracted debate on this question of reconsideration, and expressed great regret that so much difficulty should exist in obtaining a reduction of the duty on this necessary of life. He dwelt upon the course of i. State of North Carolina in reference to this duty and to the tariff generally, and made a very strong appeal to the magnanimity and spirit of conciliation of members from other States to grant this little boon to a State which had heretofore asked for so little, and submitted so cheerfully to the laws regulating the duties on imports, and to the general legislation of Congress. Mr. B. concluded his speech by a motion for the previous question, (which would have been upon the question immediately pending, viz reconsideration.) The house refused to second the previous question, by a vote of 98 to S3. Mr. REED said, that when the vote of the House was taken, yesterday to reduce the duty on salt, he was surprised at the result. I feared so Mr. R.] that I, as well as others, had been remiss in the discharge of my duty, in F. the question to be taken without discussion. am aware that the main question before the House was a bill to enforce the due observance of our revenue laws, and to prevent smuggling and fraud in their execution. An amendment had been introduced into the bill by a gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. McDuFFIE] materially altering the tariff. We have had, for a number of days, a debate, able and spirited, but of a very general cha. racter, investigating the whole tariff principle. I supposed that to investigate the subject generally was the object of the debate, and I had no expectation that any changes in the tariff were contemplated at this session. The amendment referred to contained a number of articles on which a reduction of the duty was proposed.

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

In the discussion before the House, little or nothing has been said as to the policy or expediency of reducing the duty on those articles. , Nor has anything been said as to the effect of the reduction of duty on those articles, either to the manufacturer or consumer. . I could not suppose that a repeal of any duty was seriously contemplated, with. out a more particular examination of the subject. I could not imagine it, because this House have repeatedly expressed a different opinion by their votes, and because they had on the very same day voted entirely different as to other amendments. I hope, then, sir, this House and my constituents will forgive me, if, under such circumstances, I refrained from saying that which, under other circumstances, I should have felt under the highest obligations to urge upon their consideration. I trust it is not too late yet; and I beg the attention of the House while I state, as well as I may be able, the reasons why I think they ought to reconsider the vote of yesterday. I have been no advocate for the tariff, but I am an advocate for some permanency in duties deeply affecting the interests of all. We must have revenue. "We shall not vote for direct taxes. We shall, therefore, continue to raise revenue by duties as heretofore. In assessing this tariff of duties, I have no hesitation in saying it should be a discriminating tariff. It should have reference to the means and wants of the country—to manufacturers and consuliners. Of the tariffs that have passed this House, in my opinion no part of the country has suffered more than that which I have the honor to represent; and I am quite sure no interest in the country has suffered so much as the navigation interest. Without sufficiently examining the subject, I know that interest is severely oppressed by high duties, and it is now compelled to contend with foreign nations under great disadvantages. I, therefore, have always hoped we should modify the tariff of 1828, made under the most unfavorable circumstances. No subject can be presented to statesmen, of greater dif. ficulty than that of fixing a just and expedient tariff, unless it be the subject of altering and repealing a tariff when made. If we would consult the public good, we must divest ourselves of party spirit. Some gentlemen contend that “we have a right to repeal duties when we please, regardless of the consequences to manufacturers." We have the power, the physical power; but do we possess the moral power? Are we not bound to look with atten: tion and regard to the interests of all, and every part Whatever might have been our political views or votes in Congress, are we not bound to regard and protect, as far as we may be able, those interests which have grown up in consequence of the laws and regulations of our country : I have always felt and acknowledged these obligations, and endeavored to act accordingly. I have always admitted the rights and claims of minorities; and, in that view, I have always given full weight to the representations of the South. Minorities have rights, and majorities are morally bound to regard them. If southern people are suffering as they represent, and those sufferings result from our tariff laws, those laws ought to be modified. But these are questions which must first be decided; and as prosperity and adversity are but comparative, the interests of the whole and the parts must be carefully examined. Our duties were laid for revenue, but adapted to the situation of the country and the wants of the country, and were calculated to call forth the effort of the country to relieve those wants. If valuable interests have grown up under such a state of things—under the fostering influence of our laws, who would wantonly destroy such interests I trust, no one. Sound policy forbids frequent innovation upon these subjects. I have no hesitation in saying that, so far as relates to property, our Government is one of the worst possible, unless there be permanency in our principles and policy. No wise man can consider the question, as now

presented, to be what would have been wise and good in relation to the tariff, and decide accordingly. No ; a very different state of things is presented. Our great duty now is, to look at the laws, and the interests of the country, superinduced by those laws, and do what is right and expedient. We must view things as they now are, he interest of every part should be consulted. I am always happy to hear a member of this floor state the situation of his own constituents; and I have never had any hesitation in presenting, so far as I might be able, the situation of those whom I have the honor to represent. In that way we obtain actual knowledge of the situation of the country, and are enabled to act wisely, if we are governed by the knowledge we obtain. The subject now under consideration, the repeal of the duty on salt, either in part or whole, is one of importance to all, and more especially to those engaged in the manufacture. Salt manufactories have grown up under governmental recommendations and governmental encouragement. As I esteem the early history of our country invaluable, allow me to ask you to go as far back as July, 1775—the very period of the declaration of our independence. No salt was then manufactured in this country. What was the situation of the country in relation to salt, so necessary to life itself? A few recollect; others have heard. I will refer to some short abstracts from the journals of the old Congress, lest there should be doubt in the mind of any one. In July, 1775, a few days after the declaration of independence, a committee of thirteen (one from each of the States) were appointed to make inquiry for virgin lead, leaden ore, and the best method of collecting, smelting, and refining it; and, on the same day, the same committee were directed, in the recess of Congress, to inquire into the easiest and cheapest method of making salt in these colonies. December 29, 1775. Resolved, That as the importation of any universally necessary commodity, and the exportation of our produce to purchase the same, must give É. portionably greater opportunity to our enemies of making depredations on the property of the inhabitants of these colonies, and of oil; distressing them by intercepting such commodities, it is earnestly recommended to the several assemblies or conventions immediately to promote, by sufficient public encouragements, the making salt in their respective colonies. May 30, 1776. Resolved, That it be recommended to the Committee of Observation and Inspection in the United Colonies so to regulate the price of salt as to prevent unreasonable exactions on the part of the seller, &c. December 9, 1776. Whereas, in consequence of many complaints that engrossers had distressed the public by raising salt to an exorbitant price, the Council of Safet of Pennsylvania, with the approbation of Congress, too the management of the affair into their hands, and have endeavored, by as just and equal a distribution as possible of the salt imported from time to time, to supply the different parts of the country, yet it is found upon trial, &c., that the remedy has been ineffectual; and, on the contrary, salt continues scarcer and dearer in this port, than when no regulations have been tried: therefore, Resolved, That it be recommended to the Council of Safety of Pennsylvania to take off all restraint upon the sale of salt, &c. June 3, 1777. Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to devise ways and means for supplying the United States with salt. June 13, 1777. Resolved, That it be recommended to the several States to offer such liberal encouragement to persons importing salt, as they shall judge will be effectual, &c. That it be recommended to the several States to erect and encourage, in the most liberal and effectual manner, proper works for the making of salt. July 17, 1777. That, in consideration of the scarcity of salt, &c. the Committee on Commerce take the most effect"

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

ual and speedy measures for importing into differents parts of this continent large quantities of that article, &c. October 22, 1777. Whereas there is an immediate demand for the article aforesaid, in the middle district, (referring to other resolutions respecting salt.) Resolved. That the supreme executive authorities of the States of Massachusetts Bay and Connecticut be respectively requested to assist the Commissary General of Purchases in procuring wagons or teams for removing twelve thousand bushels of salt from the eastern to the middle district, &c., and in removing the salt from thence to such places on the North river as he shall judge most convenient. The above extracts from the records of the old Congress show most conclusively the situation of the country at that time, and their distress for the want of this necessary of life. They show the anxiety they felt to introduce the manufacture of salt into the country, and that they used all the power they then had to encourage it. At that time the manufacture of salt from sea water, by solar evaporation, was commenced in my neighborhood and district. In the beginning, their inventions were crude and imperfect, but the manufacture has steadily advanced, and improvements have constantly been made from that time to the present. No patent was taken, and their improvements have been introduced into Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, and other places, and may be used by all who feel inclined to use them. At present, as appears by the return, they have in Massachusetts, and principally in my district, a capital invested in the manufacture jo. amounting to one million seven hundred and fifty-four thousand five hundred and seventysix dollars. They manufacture annually five hundred and three thousand six hundred and eighty-six bushels of salt, of the best quality, and fit for any use whatever, fully equal to alum or Turk's Island salt. Permit me to inquire for a few minutes what has been the legislation of our Government upon this subject. In the very commencement of the Government, in 1789, a duty of six and a quarter cents per bushel was laid upon the importation of salt. This duty was undoubtedly laid for revenue; but have we not every reason to believe that those men who composed that Congress, and who were in part the same men who composed the old Congress, had a full knowledge and recollection of the acts of that Congress in relation to salt Had they not a full knowledge of the distress of the country, and the exorbitant price paid for the article? and had they not, in furtherance of the repeated resolution and recommendation of the old Congress, the intention, by laying the duty, to encourage its manufacture? I cannot believe it admits of doubt. In August, 1790, the salt tax was raised to twelve cents per bushel. In 1797, to twenty cents. This duty was continued until 1807, when it was repealed. The repeal had a bad and almost ruinous effect upon the manufacturer, with very little temporary benefit to the consumer. In the year 1813, the same duty of twenty cents per bushel was laid. This act was limited to continue until one year after the close of the war and no longer. Hence it has been called a war duty in this House. I perceive not the distinction attempted to be set up, but let gentlemen remember, that on the expiration of the period limited, in April, 1816, the limitation was removed, and the tax was made as perpetual as any other tax. It has continued from that period until the present. Under the influence of this duty, the various salt manufactories, on the seaboard and in the interior, have been brought into operation. They have been every year increasing. They have been in a great measure successful. New improvements have been added every year in the cheapness and quality of the salt. The capital employed, I think, must exceed eight millions of dollars. It can be used for no other purpose. We manufacture at this time, in the country, nearly five millions of bushels

yearly, and more than half the average quantity used for fourteen years past. The competition in the market on the seaboard, where foreign salt must be brought, has reduced the price very much. It could not be much reduced by a repeal of the duty, and in a few years would be higher if the duty was repealed. Salt is imported principally in ships as ballast. The importer gains little, very little, for freight, for the reason I have given ; otherwise, a fair charge for freight would be three times what is now obtained. I regret it, on account of the merchant; but in such a case he ought and must yield his profit for the public good. It should be understood that the manufacture of salt on the seaboard can be successfully prosecuted with a small capital. Those who are no longer able to pursue the life of seamen, in many cases erect a small manufactory for salt. There are more than eight hundred of these small factories in my district; their salt is taken away in small vessels, and carried to market to various parts of the country. Nothing can be so well calculated to produce severe competition, and thereby reduce the o as these manufacturers meeting the importer. Their competition with each other, and with the importer, has reduced it to the lowest price, not exceeding thirty cents for fifty-six pounds. But some gentlemen seem to suppose that the duty on salt is no part of the tariff. What is the tariff What do gentlemen understand by encouragement to manufactures? Have we any law by which manufactures are encouraged, other than the tariff of duties on the importation of similar articles? Have we any pledge for the permanency of those laws, except it be the wisdom and discretion of Congress; Have I not shown that salt was an article for which the country suffered much in the days of the revolution—that they were anxious then to encourage it—that the laws, from the commencement of the Government, and especially since 1816, more than fourteen years, have had that effect: and are we not to suppose they were intended to have that effect Is it not an article essential to life, and, therefore, to independence Who, then, can say, with any plausibility, that the duties on salt were not intended to bring forward and encourage its manufacture, at least as much as that of any other article in the tariff? How are we to learn what article is to be protected, but from the duties and the law Much has been said of the exorbitant price paid for salt in various parts of the country. Yet, by the mercy of a kind Providence, the whole ocean affords the means of producing it, and springs much salter than the ocean abound in the interior, in various parts of the country; and all now have skill to manufacture salt. The price is not, as it once was, high in any part of the country. Neither the poor or rich are suffering on that account. Salt, compared to its value, is heavy, and transportation expensive. The price, therefore, must, in a great measure, depend upon the distance it is transported on roads, and the character of those roads. But, inconsiderately, the price of transportation is charged to the duty. The price of salt on the seaboard is regular and reasonable. Our duties, in the first instance, if they affect the price at all can only affect it on the seaboard, where it is imported. How, then, can men expect the relief in the interior so much talked about? I know it may be a popular subject to hold out to a certain class of men, but it is delusive. The price is now low where it is imported. The very duties so much complained of have contributed to keep it low and prevent fluctuations; and the relief sought by those alone who have occasion of complaint, is sought from a 'wrong source. Reduce the priee of transportation by canals, railroads, or other .." roads, and then the object will be effected, and not till then. Then, indeed, will the poor farmer— and no class of men are entitled to higher respect and consideration—find relief. I regret to find so much opposition to this duty from the South. The manufacturers at the

« 上一頁繼續 »