« 上一頁繼續 »
ously to relieve every branch of industry from taxation,
and to moderate every burden which we have unneces. sarily heaped upon the country pending the Presidential contests, and absolutely for no other than electioneering purposes. In accomplishing this desirable change in our impost system, I shall use my humble efforts to secure a wise and just medium between the acknowledged right of a vast community of consumers on the one hand, and the moderate, and, I trust, well founded expectations of the manufacturers on the other. Immoderate imposts can be of no permanent utility to them or to the country. I am much mistaken, sir, if the time is not rapidly approaching when the gentleman from Massachusetts will be glad to accept even my humble aid in resisting that reaction which must inevitably follow, when, under temporary excitement, and for no wise purpose, we carry our measure of in post beyond the point of justice, or endurance. With the reduction of our public debt, and our federal expenses, we must anticipate a repeal or diminution of some of our
taxes. It may yet require our united and strenuous efforts to prevent our rates of impost from being so suddenly and so greatly reduced as to produce calamitous consequences.
And let me tell gentlemen that this evil will not be either postponed or moderated by any fruitless and unjustifiable
attempt to perpetuate our present immoderate and prohi
... fore, concludes that a reciprocal duty would operate un
favorably for us. Our rule of observation corresponds sub-
crimination, equal privileges. If, under the proposed
ters his opposition. But he must pardon me for withhold
ing my confidence in his judgment on the present occasion. I cannot surrender my opinions to any gentleman who will venture to condemn a new and important measure without condescending to examine its provisions, or to reflect on its operation. ... I was surprised, sir, to hear agentleman so distinguished for moderation, denounce the bill reported by the committee as a monstrous measure, which would “derange our whole revenue system, change all our com mercial relations at home and abroad, and introduce an endless series of frauds and perjuries.” But my surprise entirely subsided when the same gentleman declared, in debate, a few days after this unmeasured denunciation, that he had never even read the report of the committee, the main object of which was to explain the policy of this identical measure, and to point out its commercial and national advantages | Such a condemnation was at least premature, and not altogether just towards a majority of the committee of which that gentleman was a member. While, sir, I had not anticipated so sudden and harsh a judgment on the part of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I by no means expected his support of any measure calculated to introduce an equitable reciprocity in our commerce with foreign nations. He is not only opposed to this bill, but to every law or treaty enacted or negotiated since the war, proposing or stipulating a mutual aboli. tion of all discriminating duties of tonnage and impost. He avows his hostility to a policy which I have never known questioned by a committee in either House, and which no party or administration has ever opposed. It is no wonder that those who attribute the relative decline in our navigation to such salutary and just measures, should be startled at any proposition threatening to remove unnecessary and unprofitable restrictions on our intercourse with foreign countries. But, sir, the honorable gentleman tells us that the bill contains an alarming provision, “which transfers to the President the whole control over the commerce and revenue of the country.” And what is this tremendous transfer of power to the Executive Nothing more, sir, than what is assigned him by every act of Congress—the mere duty of executing the law according to its express provisions. The bill proposes that, upon the compliance of any foreign nation with certain conditions, which are minutely and expressly provided for, and over which he has no control whatever, “the President of the United States shall issue his proclamation,” merely declaring that the condi tion of the act has been complied with ; and the law which we make, and not the President's proclamation, establishes a reciprocal maximum duty in the following words: “And from and after twelve months from the date of such proclamation, it shall be, and it is hereby declared to be lawful to import into the United States the produce and manufacture of such country,” &c. The power is not in the President or his proclamation, but in the act of Congress. This novel and alarming provision may be found in almost every act regulating our intercourse with foreign nations since 1789. Without referring to the important measures which preceded our late war, I will merely direct the gentleman's attention to the acts of March, 1815, and May, 1828, repealing conditionally our discriminating duties of tonnage and impost; and, moreover, to all our acts reo our intercourse with the British West India colonies and involving uot merely questions of discriminations or rates of impost, but the absolute interdiction of the commerce itself. This alarming provision, sir, is nothing more than an authority given to the President to announce to the Union that some foreign country has reciprocated the commercial provisions of an act of Congress. words, that, by the laws of the two countries, all high and prohibitory duties are mutually abolished, preserving on each side a duty amply sufficient to guard against any sud. den or injurious consequences to our internal interests, and establishing a maximum for their permanent security.
Considering that the gentleman from Massachusetts has so repeatedly declared that he was no advocate of high duo ties, his opposition to a measure so well designed to carry his avowed principles into practical operation, is, to say the least, somewhat unaccountable. The gentleman from Massachusetts was much alarmed. too, for the fate of our sugar planters; “the prosperity of Louisiana would be destroyed at a blow.” . And how was this calamity to be effected He told us that Spain eould not accept our terms of reciprocity; that the sugar trade with Cuba must be continued under the old duty, which was equivalent to about fifty per cent, while Brazil would engage with us in a reciprocal commerce, by which her sugar would be admitted at thirty per cent. ad valorem. Thus, he says, our whole sugar trade with Cuba, “one of the most flourishing and important branches of our commerce,” would be destroyed. The gentleman must pardon me for saying that he has pushed his argument beyond his conclusion. He may see it very clearly, sir, but it is Lot so easy for others to perceive how the destruction of our sugar trade with Cuba, the most powerful competitor and nearest neighbor of Louisiana, can possibly destroy the prosperity of our sugar planters. Nor is it at all probable that distant Brazil will ever become, under any circumstances, a rival half so dangerous to Louisiana, as an immeusely productive and fertile island bordering on the frontier of our sugar-planting region. But the gentleman from Massachusetts may dismiss his apprehensions; the case he has supposed will never happen. Whether Spain can or cannot accept our proposals, the bill will never interfere with our valuable commerce with Cuba. We have, during the present session, reduced the duty on coffee to one cent, a rate far below the maximum of thirty per cent.: and before any arrangements could be made with Brazil or any other country, that gentleman may be assured the duty on brown sugar will not exceed a rate equivalent to thirty per cent, ad valorem. This is a matter which the consumers of this country will regulate for themselves. We may, in this House, have what understanding we please; but the authority of those whom we represent, will inevitably overthrow all our political plans, whether for the preservation of party, or the protection of capital. The tax on brown sugar is one of those heavy burdens from which the country must be partially relieved, and it will require no inconsiderable effort to prevent the duty from being too much reduced. The time is near at hand when Congress will be called upon to adjust a permanent rate of duty, in which the interests of the planters and consumers must and will be mutually consulted. A higher tax than one equivalent to thirty per cent ad valorem, ought not to be calculated upon by the planters of Louisiana. The gentleman from No. apprehends that
[May 14, 1830.
“British and French goods would come through the Hanse
Towns, Holland,” &c. It might be so; but no harm could
result from that. They would be liable to the same duty
as if directly imported, and to forfeiture if an attempt were made to introduce them under the provisions of the bill proposed. Whenever British manufacturers are disposed to run the risk of forfeiture, they have a much easier channel through Canada; where, if successful, they may save the thirty per cent. levied on importations under the au. thority of this measure. But foreign countries would be interested to prevent such an evasion of our act; they would not willingly permit British or French manufactures to pass through their ports, to the exclusion of their own, and under the reciprocal privileges secured by such a commer. cial arrangement with the United States.
The last objection urged by the gentleman from Massa. chusetts is, in his view, undoubtedly the most formidable. He thinks that France and England would desire nothing better than to see us make these commercial arrangements with foreign powers, while, as he tells us, “holding firmly to their restrictive systems towards us, they would en
while we were securing to ourselves, by a more liberal
policy, the commerce of almost all Europe and America. When the proposed measure is thoroughly examined, gentlemen o be surprised that it should have encountered so much opposition from Massachusetts. That opposition has, no doubt, originated more from the apprehension of some general reciprocal arragement, with Great Britain, than from any very profound knowledge of the probable operation of the measure proposed, or the national policy on which it is sounded. Gentlemen may dismiss their fears—whatever partial engagements may be made with Great Britain at some future period for the mutual benefit of the people of both countries—she can never
, accept the provisions of this bill, until one of its great ob
jects is accomplished—until she is compelled to abandon all the restrictions she has imposed on foreign nations in their commerce with her whole empire, and to surrender her ancient colonial trade system. . Her corn laws are not the chief impediment—even the o landed interest of England must ultimately yield to the cries and suffer. ings of an overgrown population. Nor does the difficulty arise from any stubborn adherence to a system of high duties for the protection of industry; these are fast disappearing from the statute book. No, sir, ministers are restrained from engaging in a general reciprocal commerce with us, by the more imperative considerations of political necessity. They dare not disturb their colonial system, lest they *† excite serious discontents in various portions of the British empire. After the emancipation of her colonies from the mother country, she transferred to her northern provinces, and to Ireland, the privilege of furnishing certain staple supplies which had been, before the revolution, furnished from this country, and principally from New England. Ireland has now for fifty years supplied her West India colonies with salted provisions; her fisheries of the North monopolize the markets of the Bri. tish empire; her northern colonies enjoy the advantage of discriminative duties, which almost exclude the lumber of foreign countries. These, sir, are some of the great diffi. culties growing out of a long established colonial system
Navigation and Imposts.
which render it impossible for Great Britain to reciprocate a measure so comprehensive as that now proposed, till she is compelled to decide on the commercial dissolution of her colonial empire. To take from Ireland a privilege guarantied by an undisturbed possession of half a century, would rouse a spirit of discontent, almost equal to that so recently allayed; to touch the commercial monopolies of her proud and distant northern colonies, would hazard her colonial dominion on this side of the Atlantic. Thus has Great Britain, by her ancient plans of monópoly in colonial commerce and navigation, voluntarily deprived herself of all opportunity to reciprocate general commercial privileges with foreign nations. Embarrassed as she is with this colonial system, she can never engage in any but special commercial arrangements; should she, however, ever find herself compelled to open the commerce of her whole ...]. to the United States, in accordance with the broad and reciprocal provisions of the measure proposed—let me tell the gentlemen from Massachusetts, notwithstanding their violent hostility to the bill, that New England will be as deeply interested as any portion of the Union in securing an unlimited commerce with all the dominions of Great Britain. It will be for her to determine whether she will sacrifice so large a market for the produce of her fisheries, her forests, and her agriculture, merely to perpetuate a rate of duty higher than thirty per cent for the protection of her manufactures! Should it ever be in the power of Great Britain to disembarrass herself of her colonial regulations, and to accept the provisions of some measure like that under consideration, however it might alarm the apprehensive capitalist, New England would be the last section of the Union to deny herself the markets of the British empire. But no such event is near at hand; and gentlemen may therefore treat the measure proposed by the committee with more candor, moderation, and justice. In recommending this measure, the committee consulted our national interests alone. They believed that they were pursuing a course of policy which had been acted upon by the Government since 1815, in our intercourse with foreign nations. This is the third of a series of measures designed to remove impolitic restrictions on our commerce with other countries. The first, of March, 1815, proposed to all nations the removal of discriminating duties of tonnage and imposts, but limited its operation to the direct trade; the second, of May, 1828, embraced the principle of the first, and offered the privilege of importing the productions of every country into the United States, to any nation who would grant us corresponding advan|tages in their ports: in other words, a proposal was made by us to all nations mutually to nationalize navigation. The measure now proposed removes the last and only obstruction to our commercial intercourse with foreign nations. The principle is the same ; the oy novelty in the proposal consists in carrying the rule of reciprocity one step beyond the act of 1828. The privileges of the act of March, 1815, were extended by law and treaty to Great Britain, Russia, Norway, the Netherlands, Sardinia, Oldenberg, and the Papal Dominions. National privileges have been reciprocated with us in accordance with the principle of the act of May, 1828, by Central America, Denmark, Sweden, the Hanseatic League, Prussia, Brazil, and Austria. To all these measures, removing our discriminating duties and restrictions on foreign invigation, the gentleman from Massachu. setts decidedly objects. He even ventures to ascribe the relative decline in our navigation to this policy. I am compelled to say that those who entertain such opinions take but a limited view of the question. What, sir, was the state of our commercial relations with foreign countries when we proposed to abolish our discriminating duties : We .Pthen, as we have now, the largest proportion of navigation in every branch of our foreign trade, on which were levied abroad discriminating duties of ton*
nage and impost, equal to, and in some instances greater than those imposed on our side. Almost all the valuable importations from abroad came in our own ships, giving us little or no advantage in the discrimination on impost duties on importations in foreign vessels, while we were charged with tonnage duties abroad to seven times the amount of those levied on foreign navigation in our own ports. The proportion of foreign to American tonnage is now as fifteen to one j What, then, sir, was the arrangement which is so much deprecated by the gentleman from Massachusetts A proposition on our part to relinquish our discriminating duties on foreign tonnage, provided other nations would relinquish a similar charge on seven times the amount of American navigation. I am at a loss, sir, to comprehend how such an arrangement can be considered disadvantageous to the United States. The policy contended for by the gentleman from Massachusetts might be very sound, provided he could regulate the tonnage duties not only of this but of every other country. That gentleman's system would no doubt operate much to our advantage, if we could impose discriminating duties on our side, while other nations would indulge us with the privilege of entering their ports without any such discriminating charge. But so long as foreign Governments will take the liberty of regulating their discriminating duties for themselves, and will impose charges on our commerce and navigation precisely equal to the rates we may levy on theirs, it is manifestly for our interest that they should be mutually abolished. A policy which in effect merely stipulates with foreign countries for the removal of their taxes on the trade and tonnage of this country, can never, under any circumstances, be one of the causes of the late paralyzed condition of our navigation. There is no difficulty in accounting for the present state of our shipping, when compared with its former prosperity, or with the actual condition of British navigation. We have levied enormous taxes on the materials for shipbuilding, and have imposed prohibitory duties to destroy our commerce with foreign nations. The second proposal of this Government took a wider range, and essentially departed from those ancient notions concerning navigation, which have so long governed the foreign policy of Great Britain. We boldly proposed to grant to the ships of all countries all the privileges of our national flag in our own ports, in exchange for corresponding privileges in theirs. They might import not only ther own produce directly, but the productions of all countries, and from any country. This policy had been introduced into some of our treaties at an earlier period, and was made the basis of our navigation laws in May, 1828, without a division either here or in the Senate. Such arrangements are unquestionably advantageous to a country, situated, as we are, in a position midway between Europe on the one hand, and the southern nations of America on the other—to a people naturally commercial and enterprising—and to a republic already entering the lists for naval empire. Great Britain and France dare not venture to accept the terms of the act of 1828—our position is too advantageous, and the commerce between a temperate and tropical region so natural, that we should, under such a treaty, in a very few years, supply the markets of these countries with the productions of Mexico, Central America, Colombia, Brazil, &c. &c. Such proposals can, moreover, never be accepted by nations tenaciously adhering to their ancient navigation laws, and jealous as France and Great Britain are of their maritime ascendancy. There are, however, other powers in Europe and America, whose commercial and naval interests do not conflict with ours, and with whom we have already entered into treaties on this mutually national basis. The measure now proposed is absolutely necessary to give full or. and effect to this important branch of our national policy. Sir, this is no small affair, nor to be measured by nar
row views and petty calculations of local interest. It is a measure of great national concern—one on which the prosperity and power of this country essentially depend—and it is urged upon us by paramount considerations of political necessity. It is for us to determine whether we will look on with indifference, while our great competitors for national power are stretching the arm of commercial empire into every quarter of the globe. It depends on our decision whether we will take advantage of our commercial position, and of the colonial embarrassments of our rivals, and steadily pursue that liberal line of policy which can alone countervail and neutralize all the advantages monopolized by nations holding extensive possessions abroad. It is in our power, by adopting a bold, liberal, and wise policy in our foreign commercial relations, to estab lish on a permanent foundation a friendly commercial union with nations whose political interests harmonize with our own, and who possess no colonial dominions—a union infinitely more durable and powerful than any political alliance whatever. This country cannot avoid ultimately adopting the policy now proposed, huwever it may encounter this premature hostility. Republics never have and never will permanently pursue a narrow, unambitious, and selfish policy. We may, for a time, sacrifice our na. tional interests, to turn the fluctuating tide of an election, or postpone them in a contemptible struggle for the transient honors of official station; but this proud and aspiring confederacy will never consent to withdraw from that great contest for naval empire in which the commercial world is engaged. Our foreign relations are of a pacific and friendly character—we have no colonies to defend, to keep in subjection, or involve us in distant wars. Our march is on the ocean—that must ever be the theatre of our contests, and on that theatre we must lay the foundation of our national power. We have peculiar advan. tages in engaging in the contest for maritime ascendaney. Our great rivals, France and Great Britain, are shackled with ancient interests at home, and colonial dependencies abroad. They are compelled from political necessity to decline that mutual commerce which may be reciprocated by other nations. We are comparatively unshackled; and the time is near at hand, when we shall be still more free to adopt the reciprocity measure now proposed, in our commerce with most of the nations of Eu: rope and America. The redemption of our public debt must inevitably be attended with an adjustment of our impost system of taxation, better adapted to harmonize the various interests of a great confederacy.a. As we approach that condition of our-finances and commerce, we shall be better able to mature the measure now under consideration, and to appreciate the important advantages it promises to every portion of this Union. Gentlemen will pardon me, sir; but, hurried away by their own suspicions, they have not paused to appreciate the comprehensive advantages which would probably result to this country, should we adopt and p. in the policy proposed. Our southern neighbors are still young, and comparatively unshackled. We have a deep and powerful interest in securing upon some permanent and equitable basis a mutual commerce with Mexico, Central America, Colombia, Brazil, Buenos Ayres, Chili, and Peru. We have with these young nations a commerce of great and growing importance—an intercourse particularly interesting to our western, middle, northern, and eastern States. If gentlemen will trouble themselves to examine our exports to these coun. tries, they will find them composed aimost exelusively of the produce of our fisheries, manufactures, and agricul ture—particularly of the two latter. Of these exports, a very inconsiderable portion is the produce of the Štates south of the Potomac. It is of no importance, sir, to out manufactures to secure their permanent admission into these young countries, under commercial arrangements
"mutually stipulating that prohibitory duties shall be aboolished. An arrangement of that character, for ten years, **would prove so decidedly advantageous to all parties, that *it would soon become the permanent basis of our commerce. Is it of no consequence, sir, to countries in tem**perate latitudes to secure the markets of nations in tropi*cal climates Should no step be taken to secure the *opportunity of supplying the absolute wants of southern "Europe and America, and the overgrown population of older nations? Our furnishing a home market for our *Agricultural supplies, is an illusion rapidly disappearing ; *it is following the shades of other illusions which have *temporarily sustained our modern and incongruous system *of taxation. Sir, either of our larger central States could o the whole Union with grain; our great Western *Valley could furnish enough to supply the deficiencies of *all Europe and America. It is all important to our agririoulture that our commerce should be enlarged, and our to markets for its productions should be extended in every opart of the globe. But, sir, the boundaries of this ques:*ion are not limited by mere commercial considerations of securing markets at home or abroad. It is with us a queszion of national honor, safety, and power. Commerce ound navigation are the foundation on which these rest. In a proportion as they flourish, shall we be enabled to keep one too aspiring ambition of other nations in check, and ozzo protect our national interests, rights, and honor. It is to question, sir, whether we shall wisely use the advantages sawhich Providence has placed within our reach. Our poartition is admirable for all the substantial purposes of foanreign commerce. Is it not for our interest to look abroad Î gas it not our policy to make an experiment at least, to in22:erpose our country as a medium of commerce between gourope and the two Americas? It is impossible to comouprehend, in one view, the commercial and political relaisions of all countries—to contemplate the geographical position of this confederacy, and to appreciate the bold ...and enterprising character of our countrymen, without oeing sensible of the imperative necessity of exercising a oberal and enlarged policy in our commercial intercourse orith foreign nations. With mutual and intimate commerial relations with Mexico, Central America, Colombia, .3razil, Buenos Ayres, Chili, and Peru to the South—and on the east with Portugal, the Italian States, Switzerland, Hermany, Holland, the Hanseatic League, Prussia, Den...Anark, Sweden, and Russia—with the privilege of nationelity to our flag in almost all these countries, and with a muual and general abolition of prohibitory duties—the navio:ation of this country would soon acquire a decided ascen: lency through its enlarged employments between Europe ind both Americas. The flags of Great Britain and orance would, in a few years, almost disappear in every hannel of trade that might be secured to us under such eciprocal arrangements. They never could successfully * ontend against a power enjoying national privileges in so 'many foreign countries on both sides of the Atlantic, and ubstantially monopolizing a commerce with a hundred millions of people. These great rival powers would oither be driven to the necessity of abandoning their coto onial systems and ancient navigation laws, or compelled *so submit to a decline in their commerce, which would be *atal to their naval ascendency. If they persisted in adtering to their existing policy, their navigation would be imited to those direct channels which are marked out in : "heir ancient statutes—and the poor monopoly of their ommerce with their colonial dependencies; while, on "he other hand, by steadily persevering in the policy now *ecommended, we should soon surpass all nations in the **.xtent of our commercial marine—and while thus emoloyed in friendly commerce with all countries, we should oe gradually acquiring a naval ascendency, which would oe too much. respected by all nations, to be voluntarily *ncountered by any one power. o ol. VI.-125.
Such, sir, are some of the considerations which have in|ali a majority of the Committee on Commerce to report this bill for the mature deliberation, not ouly of this House, but of the nation. They ask, at this time, neither its discussion nor adoption. The time is approaching when this policy must be adopted as the basis of our commercial relations with foreign countries. Gentlemen have forced the friends of the measure into a premature debate upon its merits. I trust, sir, that I have explained its operation sufficiently to satisfy the House, that whatever may be its fate at some future session, the measure proposed is at least worthy its candid and mature consideration. Mr. STORRS, of New York, moved that the bill be laid on the table, with the view [he said] that it should not be taken up again. Mr. CAMBRELENG intimated that, as he would have the power to move its consideration any time hereafter, should it be laid on the table,he would not oppose the motion. The question was then put on laying the bill on the table, and carried by the following vote: YEAS.–Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Armstrong, Arnold, Bailey, Noyes Barber, John S. Barbour, P. P. Barbour, Barringer, Bates, Beekman, John Blair, Bockee, Boon, Borst, Brodhead, Brown, Buchanan, Burges, Butman, Cahoon, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carson, Childs, Chilton, Claiborne, Clay, Clark, Coke, Coleman, Conner, Cooper, Cowles, Hector Craig, Robert Craig, Crawford, Crockett, Creighton, Crocheron, Crowninshield, Daniel, Davenport, Deberry, Denny, Desha, DeWitt, Dickinson, Doddridge, Earll, George Evans, Joshua Evans, Findlay, Forward, Fry, Gilmore, Green, Hall, Hawkins, Hemphill, Hughes, Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, Ingersoll, William W. Irvin, Johns, R. M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Kennon, Kincaid, Perkins, King, Adam King, Lecompte, Letcher, Lumpkin, Lyon, Mallary, Martindale, Thomas Maxwell, Lewis Maxwell, McCreery, McCoy, McIntire, Miller, Mitchell, Monell, Muhlenberg, Nuckolls, Overton, Pearce, Pettis, Pierson, Polk, Potter, Powers, Ramsey, Roane, Rose, Scott, Wm. B. Shepard, Aug. H. Shepperd, Shields, Semmes, Samuel A. Smith, Ambrose Spencer, Richard Spencer, Sandifer, Sterigere, Stephens, Henry R. Storrs, William L. Storrs, Sutherland, Swann, Swift, ". Taylor, Test, Tracy, Tucker, Vance, Varnum, Verplanck, Washington, Whittlesey, Edward D. White, Wickliffe, Williams, Yancey, Young.—130. NAYS.–Messrs. Alexander, Alston, Barnwell, James Blair, Chandler, Condict, Crane, John Davis, Drayton Dwight, Edward Everett, Foster, Gaither, Gordon, Hammons, Harvey, Haynes, Hinds. Hodges, Hoffman, Lamar, Lea, Loyall, Lewis,Martin, Randolph, Reed, Richardson, Russel, Speight, Strong, Wiley Thompson, John Thomson, Trezvant, Winton, Wayne, C. P. White, Wilde.—38. The House took up the amendments of the Senate to the bill reducing the duties on tea, coffee, and cocoa, and, after some explanation thereof by Mr. VERPLANCK, concurred therein. [The principal amendment is to extend the provisions of the bill to teas now imported, which shall remain in warehouse when the act goes into operation.]
REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, Mr. WICKLIFFE in the chair, and resumed the consideration of the bill “providing for an exchange of lands with the Indian tribes, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi.” Mr. LUMPKIN was entitled to the floor; but, [he said] considering the circumstances under which he obtained it ..". he felt it his duty to resign it to Mr. BELL, who ad not finished his remarks. Mr. BELL then rose, and, after acknowledging, the courtesy of the gentleman from Georgia, proceeded with the argument which he commenced yesterday, and addressed the