« 上一頁繼續 »
Scott, with the proviso of Mr. HowARD, and carried: yeas, 101—nays, 70. After some remarks by Mr. CARSON, animadverting on the reasons assigned by Messrs. RAM.sex and MILLE: for their change of vote on the salt duty, and replies by these gentlemen, The question was (at 9 o'clock) put on ordering the bill to be engrossed, and read a third time, and decided in the uffirmative by the following vote: YEAS.–Messrs. Angel, Armstrong,Arnold, Bailey, Barber, Bartley, Bates, Baylor, Beekman, John Blair, Bockee, Boon, Borst, Brodhead, Brown, Buchauan, Butman, Ca. boon, Childs, Clark, Coleman, Condict, Cooper, Cowles, Hector Craig, Crane, Crawford, Creighton, Daniel, John Davis, Denny, Dickinson, Doddridge, Duncan, Dwight, Earll, Ellsworth, George Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Findlay, Finch, Ford, Forward, Fry, Gilmore, Gorham, Grennell, Hawkins, Hemphill, Hodges, Howard, Hughes, Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, Tho. mas Irwin, W. W. Irvin, Isacks, Jennings, Johns, Richard M. Johnson, Kendall, Kennon, Kincaid, Perkins King, Adam King, Lecompte, Letcher, Lyon, Magee, Mallary, Martindale, Thomas Voi Lewis Maxwell, McCreery, Mercer, Miller, Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Norton, Pearce, Pettis, Pierson, Powers, Ramsey, Reed, Richardson, Rose, Russel, Scott, Shields, Sill, S.A. Smith, Ambrose Spenser, Sprigg. Stanbery, Standifer, Sterigere, Henry H. Storrs, William L. Storrs, Strong, Sutherland, Swann, Swift, Taylor, Test, John Thomson, Vance, Varnum, Wintou, Washington, Whittlesey, Edward D. White, Wickliffe, Yancey, Young.—115.
NAYS.–Messrs. Anderson, Archer, John S. Barbour, Chilton, Claiborne, Conner, Crocheron, Davenport, Deberry, Gordon, Hammons, Harvey, Cave Johnson, Lea, Loyall, Martin, McIntire, Polk, Rencher, Augustine H. Sheppard, Richard Spencer, Taliaferro, Wayne, Weeks. Williams.-24.
Thursday, MAY 13, 1830. NAVIGATION AND IMPOSTS.
The House resumed the bill reported by Mr. CAMBRELENG from the Committee on Commerce, in alteration of the navigation laws, &c. * Mr. STRONG spoke half an hour in conclusion of his remarks against the bill, and then moved to postpone the bill to the 4th of July next, (tautamount to a motion to reject it,) but withdrew his motion at the request of Mr. CAMBRELENG, who desired to make some remarks in reply, stating that he would, after he had said what he intended, renew the motion of his colleague; but, The hour having expired, Mr. C. was precluded from proceeding to-day. |The following is a full report of the remarks of Mr. so Mr. STRONG said, the extraordinary character of this bill would, he thought, justify him in submitting some remarks upon its mischievous and ruinous operation upon the agricultural as well as upon the manufacturing and uavigating interests of the country. Its provisions, unless I totally misa prehend them, so Mr. S.] are utterly hostile to the o: principle of protection. The honorable chairman of the committee, [Mr. CAMBRELENG) by this uovel bill, would remove, the old safeguards, and leave our farms, factories, and ships almost wholly unprotected; would take away the superintending power of this House over the capital and industry of the country, and give it partly to foreign Governments, but mainly to the Executive of the United States. This will be a pledge to foreign nations which we cannot recall, and a power to the Presi*dent of the United States which we caunot coutrol. I can
high responsibility of protecting the skill, the labor, and the property of our constituents, is here on us—and on us let it rest. But, before I go into an examination of the bill, and its bearing on the great interests of the country, I must occupy a little time in reply to the honorable gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. WAYNE) So far as I understood him, his main object was to show that our tariff laws are exceedingly oppressive to the southern States, and to all parts of the Union; that this bill, should it become a law, would open foreign ports to us, and thereby give us steady foreign markets for our breadstuffs and provisions, and, in a word, for all the raw productions of our common country; and that, consequently, the agricultural interest of the nation, and especially the cotton, tobacco, and sugar planters of the south would be relieved. The tariff laws have become, in the hands of their enemies, a ready weapon for every species of warfare. Formerly, the objection to them was, that they favored the rich, and oppressed the poor; that they taxed the industry of the poor man, to protect the money of the rich man. But now the objection is, that they favor mechanics and laborers, and oppress the rich farmers and planters; that now they tax the wealthy and the rich, to protect the skill and industry of the laboring poor. What, sir, is the principle of the tariff laws, of this “American system,” so much reviled, because so little understood? It is the adequate protection of our capital, that is, of the produce of our labor and skill, whether this produce be in the shape of money, houses, factories, cloths, or ships, or of cotton, sugar, or tobacco, not only against the ruinous competition of foreign capital, but against the action of foreign legislation. The protective system rests upon the same principle as the other great national and constitutional means of defence. Both are for protection. The navy, army and fortifications are for the protection of persons and property against open enemies, whereas the tariff laws (even as revenue laws) are for the protection of property merely against the arts and legislation of professed friends. The protection, therefore, is not to A or B, because he may happen to be a manufacturer, or a shipmaster, or a cotton lanter; but it is to the Popo of whatever kind it may p. that he has invested in the factory, the ship, or the
plantation. Suppose any one man to have embarked his whole fortune, in equal proportions, in a cotton plantation, a co ton mill, and a ship. Is it not apparent that all
three must be protected? And is the protection to him, and not to his property? Is he protected as a manufacturer merely And is his plantation or his ship taxed for this protection, any more than his cotton mill is taxed for the protection of his raw cotton or his ship ! I have always defended the principle of these laws, upon the ground that the protection was wholly to the property; that the benefits to particular individuals were incidental mereal; and that our safety and prosperity mainly depend upon the vigilant and fostering care of Congress, in protecting American capital and American enterprise. Sir, we may as well . our army, and dismantle our navy and our fortresses, as to open our ports to the unrestricted introduction of the varied products of foreign labor. Among the earliest acts of this Government, there will be found one for the protection of the navigating interest. My colleague, [Mr. CAMBRELENG] in the title of his bill, seems to profess the same thing; but, on looking at its rovisions, there is not to be found a line or a word which H. any direct application to our shipping interest. It is known to the House that our mercantile marine has always been protected, but never, that I know of, too highly pro. Now, I suppose this protection was not, and could not have been given for the sake of the master or the
never agree to this. We may as well, and with more safety sailor, but for the sake of the large amount of American
,” up to the President the power of declaring war, The
property which had been and might be invested in ships.
No man now denies the policy or doubts the necessity of amply protecting the shipping interest; and yet the money laid out in a ship has no better claim for protection, than the same amount laid out in a cotton mill, or in a sugar, cotton, or tobacco plantation. One of the signal advantages of this protecting system, is, to put the property, the skill, and industry of our citizens upon an equality as near as may be. Nearly all the wealth of the country is invested in agriculture, in manufactures, and in ships or vessels. And the great end of rotection is to put all his property, however diversified its employment, in a condition of equal safety, so that all elasses of our citizens may be benefited, as all clearly will be, where the property and employment of each are fairly and fully protected. It often occurred to me, during the argument of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. WAYNE] how it could be, and whether it were possible that the southern States were ground down to the dust by the oppressive effects of the tariff laws, whilst all their great interests have always been, and still are, more highly protected by these same laws, than any other class of interests in the United States. Their greatest staple productions are cotton, sugar, and tobacco. Is it any part of their complaint that these are protected And do they propose to repeal this protection Oh, no! And what is it A protecting duty on sugar of three cents a pound; on cotton, three cents a pound; and on manufactured tobacco, (other than snuff and segars) ten cents a pound. The House, I hope, will recur with me, for a moment, to the early history of the Government. Among the strongest reasons assigned for the adoption of the federal constitution, was the protection it would afford to our commercial interests. As the old confederation had no power to protect them, and as the States did not and could not do it, the whole power over commerce, and over the means of sustaining it, was given to the Federal Government. And if Congress will not protect that sugar interest, for example, who will? How else can it be done? Now I take it for granted, because I have been informed by sugar growers, that if the duty of three cents a pound on brown sugar was taken off, the planters in the southern States would have to abandon the cultivation of the eane; because they could not compete in the home market with the West India sugar grower. It has been stated, with respect to the article of cotton, that the duty was imposed, not for revenue, but expressly for protection. The cultivation of the article was then in its infancy—the product small—its success uncertain. Then, but a few thousand—now, near a million of bales are annually produced. Still, at the present low prices of upland cotton, were the duty taken off, and the foreign article admitted duty free, our manufacturers would work up a portion of foreign cotton. There can be no doubt of it. I do not say that the cotton of Brazil, or of Egypt, would wholly take the place in our cotton mills of the southern cotton. The cultivation of cotton in the South is too far advanced to be ruined by any ordinary competition. But it is enough for my argument, if a single bale more of foreign cotton would be used here, in consequence of repealing the duty, because, there being an over-production of cotton, every bale of the foreign article consumed here would deduct the same quantity of southern cotton from the general market. The southern cotton planter, therefore, would lose by the operation at home, and would gain nothing abroad. The same course of remarks will apply to the article of tobacco. The *g of ten cents a pound on it amounts to prohibition. ere the duty taken off. I admit that foreign tobacco could not come into competition with ours, so as to ruin our tobacco planters, any more than the foreign growers of grain could ruin all our farmers. Yet, t cannot be disguised, that every pound of foreign tobac
co, and every bushel of foreign wheat, brought into the country, and consumed here, would take the place of the like quantity of American produce. The tobacco planter and the grain grower, therefore, while the home market gradually fell into the hands of foreigners, and the mar: kets abroad were closed against them, or were preearious as they now are, would soon find themselves obliged to produce less and less, until they ceased to produce altogether, except for their own necessary consumption. It is not a little remarkable that manufacturers are so unsparingly abused and vilified, when every one knows that the production of sugar and tobacco combine, most intimately, the manufacturing and agricultural interesta One part of the preparation, both of sugar and of tobacco, is as much a manufacture as is the fabrication of cotton or of wool. The first process is agricultural—the last, strict ly manufacturing. The two interests are often united on the same plantation, and in the same planter. With respect to the great interests of agriculture, manu. factures, and navigation, what has always been the policy of ol. And what, for several years past, has been the policy of France and of Russia? Has there ever been a period since manufactures were first commenced in Eng: land, when she did not protect them by her laws Or can a period be found when the manufactures of wool and of iron would have succeeded in that country, without the protection and aid that her laws gave them : If there be, I have never discovered it: nor have I ever met with any one who could, point it out to me. The gentleman himself [Mr. WAYNE], referred to the bounties which the British Government, in the infancy of her manufactures, paid di. rectly out of the treasury. But the bounties now given by that Government are of a different kind, being nothing more than a drawback of the excise on the articles ex rted. During a long series of years, England prohi ited, in terms, the importation of many articles of kind which she manufactured; and on others the duties were so high, as, in fact, to amount to prohibition. Her cotton manufacture is now the greatest she has. This is protected by an ad valorem duty of about twenty-eight per cent, and her printed calicoes, notwithstanding the cry of “free trade,” are protected by a specific . of six cents the square yard. This operates as a prohibition except perhaps to a few French prints, of a very fine quality and high price. In the o, of England, down to the present period, and notwithstanding the speeches of Mr. Huskis. son, and the assertions of others, which have been so often quoted upon us, about the revision of her revenue laws, we find the principle of her system the same. It is protection—there is no instance that I know of, in which she has purposely given up the principle of protection. While she has modified her laws in respect to navigation, and to some branches of manufactures, she has never for a moment lost sight of thoroughly protecting her manufactur. ing, navigating, and agricultural interests from all foreign competition. I am aware that she has reduced the duty on woollens to fifteen per cent.; and Mr. Huskissou as signs the reason for it. He says, that branch of industry is so well established, that a protection of fifteen per cent. will enable her manufacturers of wool to compete sue. cessfully with the world. But he goes on to say, that, if it can be shown that the cotton manufacture, or any other manufacture of the kingdom, cannot stand with the present degree of protection, the duty shall be raised—that he will not hazard one of these interests—that all shall be fully protected. France and Russia are steadily persevering in the same policy. Such also is our policy. So many allusions have been made to the various interests in different portions of the Union, that it may not be improper to look a little into the relative condition of the northern and southern States. Neither the skill, nor the labor, nor the staple produc
tions of the North, or the East, have ever been adequately
for home consumption wheat or corn from France or the
H. of R.] Navigation and Imposts. [MAY 13, 1830.
find ready markets, both here and in Europe. Of their cotton, nearly two hundred thousand bales are annually used in the cotton mills of the North : the residue of the crop is chiefly sent to England and France. Now, unless two good markets are worse than one, I think our southern brethren have much reason to be conteuted with their lot. But the southern people are highly favored in an: other respect. They have the monopoly of cotton, suar, and rice. None of these are raised in the North. heir mountains teem with minerals, and their rivers af. ford great water power. They can manufacture coarse cottons and woollens cheaper than anybody else: and if they will not avail themselves of these obvious advantages, it is their misfortune, and not our fault. It is contended that exports pay the duties on imports: and as the southern planters supply two thirds of the whole amount of the domestic produce exported, it is thence argued that the burden of taxation falls heaviest on them. It is easier asserting than proving that the American tariff imposes duties or burdens upon the Ame. rican producer, as producer merely. I wholly deny that the producer, as such, of cotton, or wheat, or tobacco, pays the duty or tax upon imports. He must be the exporter as well as owner. A gentleman in Georgia, for example, sells me a bale of cotton—I pay him the cash for it, and send it to Liverpool. As the owner and exporter, if the import duty falls upon either, it falls upon me. But, sir, neither the producer, nor the owner or exporter, pays the import duty, unless he is the consumer of the imported articles. Let us examine it. A cotton lanter, with proper economy, having fed and clothed himself and his laborers from his plantation, has, at the end of the year, a thousand dollars worth of cotton for sale. Now, if he exchanges it with his neighbor for land or labor, he pays no duty or tax; if he sells it in Charles: ton, New York, or Liverpool, and takes the silver or gold home with him, he yet pays no tax; if he sells it in Liverl, takes its value in British merchandise, which he rings to New York, and disposes of at a profit, he pays no tax yet; but, if he takes the merchandise home with him, and consumes it, then he pays the tax—he pays it as the consumer of dutiable goods. Butlet us see how the account will stand, upon the sup: ition that the exporter and owner pay the duties on imports. By looking into the treasury returns from 1821 to 1828, it will be found that, during these eight years, there were exported, of domestic produce, from Georgia, thirty-six million three hundred and fifteen thousand seven hundred and ten dollars; from South Carolina, sixty-one million five hundred and fifty-three thousand and ninetynine dollars; from Louisiana, sixty-eight million two hundred and three thousand three hundred and thirty dollars; and from New York, one hundred and two million two hundred and six thousand three hundred and forty dollars. Hence, it appears that Louisiana is the largest southern exporter, and that New York exports more than South Ca rolina and Georgia together. If, therefore, the exporter ys the tax, New York pays much the largest part, and ; : the most cause to complain. It is undoubtedly true that a part of the exports from New York consisted of the produce of the southern States. So did the produc. tions of North Carolina swell the exports from South Carolina, and so also did the cotton, tobacco, and grain of the Mississippi increase the exports from Louisiana. All this, however, alters not the result; for the question is not, who is the producer, but who is the exporter? Again, if either the producer or exporter pays the import duty, it is certainly matter of some surprise that northern farmers and so have not yet discovered that the one or the other of them was paying to the Government forty or fifty per cent. upon the value of the flour and other produce they sent abroad. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. WAYNE] informs
me that he did not mean to be understood as contending that the import duties fell exclusively upon the grower or producer of the exports. If I now understand him, he maintains that one part of the duties is chargeable on the consumer, and the other part on the producer; and that the tax upon labor is the mean quantity between our own tariff, and the tariff laws of foreign nations. I have shown that the grower or producer, as such, does not pay—and it seems difficult to prove that labor is taxed, unless the laborer be the consumer of the taxed artiele. There is one important view of this subject, to which I wish to call the attention of the House. It is this: that the tariff laws, that is, the protecting laws of each na’ tion act directly upon the producers of every other nation with whom there is commercial intercourse. It has been shown that our tariff does not tax our farmers or planters, as the growers of wheat and cotton; but the British tariff, for example, does tax them. Take a brief illustration or two of it. A Georgia planter has a pound (or any other quantity) of cotton for sale: it costs him five cents a pound to raise it; its stationary market price here is ten cents, and in England fifteen cents a pound; but the British tariff imposes on it a duty of five cents a pound. . . Now, it is apparent that the planter will realize in England but ten cents for his pound of cotton; and that the British duty of five cents will fall on the consumer. If, however, the British duty is gradually raised to ten cents a pound, the market price there remaining the same, it is then equally apparent that the pound of cotton here will fall from ten to nine, eight, and so on, down to five cents, which will take away all his profits, and compel the planter to abandon the growing of cotton. Hence it is that the American shipper, when he sends a cargo of goods to Liverpool, looks into the British tariff only. But when he is about to purchase, in Liverpool, a cargo of British goods for the American market, he then looks into the American tariff, and also ascertains the price current of British merchandise in America. Our tariff acts in the same way upon the foreign producer. The additional duty of five cents a gallon on molasses, imposed by the tariff of 1828, did not permanently raise the price of the article in our market. The truth is, that the whole additional duty fell upon the West India producer. And, sir, this is one of the fundamental laws of trade—it is one which my colleague [Mr. CAMBRELENG] seems to have overlooked in drawing his bill— and it is one, it appears to me, that makes it impossible, with due regard to national safety, to adopt a universal tariff of duties. The revenue derived from duties on imports is certainly a charge upon the nation. This no one will deny. The nation pays it. And so long as the tax is the price of protection, the nation is the gainer. Of the gross annual amount, every one pays that proportion which is properly chargeable upon the articles he consumes, and no more. If he consumes no article upon which a duty is charged. he pays nothing. But, in that case, he receives the benefit of protection, without paying anything for it. And when he consumes a dutiable article, it is by no means true that he always pays the full amount of the duty charged upon the article; because it often happens that the duty is divided between the foreign producer and himself, as the consumer. This result is well known to commercial men. So far as I could understand the gentleman from Geor. gia, [Mr. WAYNE] much of what he said seemed to tend to this conclusion, namely, that if the tariff policy was not abandoned speedily, Georgia would withdraw from the Union, and that some of the southern States would follow her. He did not say so in terms; but such I understood to be the result of his argument—I hope I have mistaken both its tendency and his intention. [Mr. WAYNE disavowed any such intention, and said there was nothing he deprecated more deeply than such
an event. He never would consent to it in any form. His fixed determination was to resist such a measure to the utmost of his ability.] I am indeed rejoiced to hear the worthy gentleman disavow any such purpose. It is a great relief to me. Our southern brethren have too much at stake to hazard such a step. I have undiminished confidence in their patriotism, and in their attachment to the Union. Partial disaffection is common. Restless and reckless spirits pester every community. But, fortunately, words are not deeds; and it generally happens that men bold of tongue are cautious of steel. And whence springs this disaffection ? What is it about? Why it is, whether the import duty shall be ten or fifteen per cent more or less, on a yard of cloth or a pound of iron The bare statement should quiet the fears of the timid. There is too much capital at stake to recede now. The honorable gentleman [Mr. WAYNE] thinks the whole manufacturing caP. of the country does not exceed fifty millions of dolars. This seems to be greatly underrating it. It is, poor. impossible to ascertain the exact amount; but I elieve I hazard nothing in saying that, in the State of New York alone, there is more than fifty millions of dollars actually invested in buildings, in machinery, and in other property, the profits of which depend entirely upon the success of her various manufactures. Great as her shipping interest is, she unquestionably has, at this moment, more property in factories and workshops, than in ships. It has been asserted, by those who know better than I do... that there is now employed a capital of some sixty millions of dollars in our sugar manufacture, the continued success of which depends upon the protection our tariff laws give it. Sir, the gentleman [Mr. WAYNE] was forced to admit that manufacturing establishments were valuable to the eountry around them. Here, they are not clustered in large towns, as in England, but are found springing up in all directions, about our numerous waterfalls. In the States where these establishments are, the lands improve, and the inhabitants prosper; but, in the States where they are not, the lands deteriorate, and the inhabitants grow poor. It is so the world over. Experience is daily demonstrating their great value to the whole country. The State of New York, whence I come, has a deeper interest in maintaining this “American system” of protecting her capital and industry, than any other State in the Union. And the people of the North and East cannot give it up. With them, it is wholly a question of competeney and comfort, or of poverty and want. I do not mean to say that the tariff laws are to remain unchanged. If they contain some bad j". they were not put in by me. They were forced in against my consent. And, being in, I am, for the present, against repealing or modifying any of the duties which will affect the manufacturing capital or industry of the country. Let the experiment be fairly tried. I do, however, mean to say that our great national interests—the large amount of labor and skill, and the enormous capital, which, in various ways, are employed in manufactures, must be protected. Whatever may be the rate of duty required, whether high or low, still they must be protected. Whenever the minority, in whose power, it always is to make a tariff law, either good or bad, will evince a disposition to arrange a scale of duties, with a single eye to the interests of all concerned, I will join them in the good work. But I have no desire to have the scenes of 1828 acted over again. The principal actors in the minority, on that occasion, o nly avowed their intention to be to make the tariff bill so bad that the majority would be forced to reject it. They were, however, deceived, as fluch minorities commonly are. ..So much for the remarks of the gentleman from Geor. gia, [Mr. Wayne.]
And now, sir, let us see what effect this bill is to have upon our agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navi. gation. The title of the bills speaks of navigation—but the bill itself proposes a sort of universal tariff, or scale of import duties, which is to beeome the standard rule of every nation and people.
The first section makes this broad proposition to every foreign Government, namely, if you—Great Britain, for example—will admit the produce and manufactures of the United States “at a rate of duty not exceeding thirty per cent on the actual value,” we will thereupon admit your produce and manufactures upon “reciprocal terms." Whenever an arrangement is made, the President is to announce the fact by proclamation. It is sufficiently ob. vious that any arrangement of this kind must be made either by treaty or by legislation. If by legislation, then there can be no need of the President's proclamation— because the statutes of the two Governments would necessarily prescribe the time and manner of carrying it into effect. But if by treaty, then the President's proclamation would be necessary in that as in every other simi. lar case. Now, either way, it is plain that the power of Congress to protect the property and labor of our citizens, will be gone. This high and essential power, for which Congress is held justly and severely accountable to the people, will be rashly given up to the President and to foreign nations. I understand from my colleague, [Mr. CAMBRELENG) that he expects to accomplish his purpose, if at all, through the treaty-making power. Let us, there. fore, inquire how the thing would work, provided the bill was a law. A negotiation is set on foot—a treaty is made upon the basis of this novel law—is submitted to the Senate—ratified—approved by the President—and becomes the supreme law of the land. Well, sir, if no a propriation is required to carry it into effect, it is not laid before Congress. But if an appropriation is required, then it is laid before Congress, and this House is called on for the money: can the House refuse it, without violating the faith and honor of the nation Clearly not—for this bill pledges both. What then Why, though the President and twothirds of the Senate are the sole judges of this matter, which really relates exclusively to the internal domestic policy of the country, Congress can do nothing—and though the stipulations in the treaty be ever so bad, the people must take them.
To understand fully the mischievous effects of this anomalous bill, it is ". to examine some other provisions, in it. The second section provides that the “actual value” of the produce and manufactures of the foreign nation shall be ascertained in the manner “prescribed by existing laws." These existing laws, therefore, are to be considered, together with the bill, as forming the basis upon which the new arrangements are to be made. , No duty, however, is to be charged on “any nominal valuation,” but the charge is to be on the “actual value" of the articles. And, by the existing laws here spoken of, which are our revenue laws, this actual value is to be ascertained, not in the United States, but at the place whence the articles of merchandise are imported. Our rule in this respect differs from that of other nations. The value of an article imported into Great Britain is ascertained in her own market, and not in the foreign country. For example, an American mer. chant sends a piece of cotton goods to Liverpool; its value is ascertained at Liverpool, and the British duty charged on it. A Leeds merchant or manufacturer, on the contrary, sends a piece of broadcloth to New York; its value is ascertained by our custom-house officers, not at New York, but at Leeds, and the American duty, by this bill, is to be charged on that value. But this is not the worst of it. Nearly all the American importers have been driven from the British trade, which is now almost wholly in the hands of the British agents; and, if our duties were