will be known to the whole world. You invite the woolgrowers of Europe to send their wool hither, and give them more than a whole year in which to do it. The imported wool will be cheap, and will reduce as well that which will be shorn in 1829, as any shorn before. If you increase the duty, your act should go into effect before foreign wool can be ordered in, to anticipate your law and the rise of the article.

The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Mallary,] has told us that the Committee feared that, if the duty on wool should go into operation as soon as the duty on woolens, the country could not furnish the wool necessary for our manufactures ; and that the duty on wool was postponed to enable our citizens to increase their flocks, and meet the demand. I think the assertion, that we are not now able to produce the requisite quantity of wool, is unfounded in fact. There are vast quantities on hand-double or triple the quantity imported. It is not imported for consumption, but to reduce the price. Not one-twentieth of the quantity used by our manufacturers is imported; and that twentieth can be supplied for the present by the vast quantities on hand, and hereafter by the increase of our flocks.

Mr. Stevenson, of Pa., one of the Committee on Manufac tures, though a protectionist, opposed the bill. He said: It pours wealth into the lap of the New England capitalist, while its tendency is to break down the humbler efforts of our Western industry. It suffers New England to accomplish her great object, while she concedes nothing. It lures the wool grower to be accessory to its passage, but deceives his expectation by failing in reciprocity. The Eastern manufacturers opposed the increase of duty on wool; and with such effect, that the majority of the Committee decided against the duty; and it was not until the last meeting, when the Committee were admonished to be wise, that they inserted the duty on wool. The wool-grower is won by a fallacy. The duty on woolens goes into effect on the 1st of August, 1827. The merchant who has a large stock on hand, is to feel the immediate benefits of a rise. The manufacturer is to feel it in August next. How is it proposed to treat the wool-grower? On the 1st of June, 1828, he is to have the benefit of an increase of 5 per cent, on all wool now chargeable with a duty of 30 per cent. ; but foreign wool, which costs at its place of purchase not over 10 cents, now pays only 15 per cent. duty; of course there is no additional duty on wool of this class.

On the 1st of June, 1829, there is to be a further increase of duty of 5 per cent. on wool costing over 10 cents. Thus, then, the bill proposes ultimately to give an increase of 10 per cent. on imported wool costing upwards of 10 cents in the foreign market, and to leave all under that at a duty of 15 per cent. only. I ask that the duty shall go into operation on wool and woolens, hand in hand as to time and rate.*

Mr. Wright, of Ohio, believing that the friends of the bill should take measures to secure an immediate vote upon it, moved the previous question. The previous question was ordered by a vote of 105 to 95. And the bill, (Feb. 8,) was ordered to a third reading, 108 to 99.

On the 10th, the bill was read the third time; and the question being on its passage,

Mr. Cambreleng took the floor, and addressed the House at length in opposition to the bill, and moved its postponement until the 4th of March next. He withdrew the motion, however, at the request of

Mr. Buchanan, who moved its recommitment to the Committee on Manufactures, with instructions to make the duties on wool and woolens commence at the same time, and to increase the duties on spirits and hemp.

Mr. Lawrence, of Pa., opposed this motion at this late hour, and briefly defended the bill against the objections of his colleagues; denying that it was exclusively for the benefit of the manufacturer. He believed it would equally promote the interests of the farmer and the manufacturer. Their interests were blended; and the protection to the one was directly or indirectly felt by the other. He believed Pennsylvania would be benefited by the passage of the bill.

The debate was continued by members from Pennsylvania; Messrs. Buchanan, Wurtz, and Stevenson, in favor of the recommitment and against the bill; and Messrs. Miner, Lawrence, and Stewart, against the recommitment and in support of the bill.

A motion by Mr. Cook, of Illinois, to lay the bill on the table was negatived: Yeas, 84; nays, 108.

*The friends of protection, though generally agreed upon the principle, that the interest of both the producer and manufacturer of wool requires that the latter should be supplied cheaply with the raw material, differed materially as to the rate of duty by which its production should be encouraged. That the duty on a raw material should not exceed, but should generally be less than that upon the manufactured article, scarcely admits of dispute.

Mr. Ingham, of Pa., closed the debate in a speech of considerable length in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Bartlett, of N. H., after an unsuccessful motion of Mr. Mitchell, of Ten., to adjourn, demanded the previous question, which was sustained, 97 to 85. The main question was ordered, 102 to 98.

Mr. Cambreleng moved to adjourn. Negatived, 81 to 105. The question on the final passage was then taken, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas, 106; nays, 95, as follows:

New Hampshire: Yeas, 6.

Massachusetts:

Ver

Maine: Yeas, 3; nays, 4. Yeas, 12; nay, 1. Rhode Island: Yeas, 2. Connecticut: Yeas, 6. mont: Yeas, 4. New York: Yeas, 26; nays, 6. New Jersey: Yeas, 6. Pennsylvania: Yeas, 18; nays, 5. Delaware: nay, 1. Maryland: Yeas, 2; nays, 4. Virginia: Yea, 1; nays, 19. North Carolina: Nays, 13. South Carolina: Nays, 9. Georgia: Kentucky: Yeas, 4; nays, 7. Tennessee: Nays, 9. Ohio: Yeas, 13; nay, 1. Louisiana: Nays, 3. Mississippi: Nay, 1. Indiana: Yea, 1; nays, 2. Illinois: Nay, 1. Alabama: Nays, 3. Missouri: Yea, 1.

5.

In the Senate, the bill was taken up on the 13th of February, and referred to the Committee on Manufactures. On the 15th, the Committee reported the bill without amendment. On the 19th, a motion was made to refer the bill to the Committee on Finance; and after considerable debate, in which the reference was advocated by the opponents of the bill, the question was taken, and decided in the negative: Yeas, 23; nays, 24. Several motions to recommit the bill with instructions were negatived. On the 28th, but three days before the close of the session, the bill coming up in its course, Mr. Hayne said it was obvious that it could not be acted on at this session, and moved to lay it on the table: Yeas, 20; nays, 20. By the casting vote of Vice-President Calhoun, the question was decided in the affirmative.

CHAPTER IX.

Harrisburg Convention preceding the tariff of 1828. Congress meets in December, 1827. Secretary Rush's report. Bill reported by Committee on Manufactures. Debate on the bill; its passage in the House. Debate and passage in the Senate. Debate on the bill, and its passage.

DISAPPOINTED in their expectations by the defeat of the "Woolens Bill," the manufacturers early resolved on a renewal of their application to Congress for relief. At a meeting of the Pennsylvania Society for the promotion of Manufactures and the Mechanic Arts, held on the 14th of May, 1827, Charles J. Ingersoll presiding, in view of "the depressed state of the woolen manufacture and of the market for wool, together with its injurious effect on other departments of industry and on the general welfare," resolutions were adopted calling on the farmers and manufacturers, and the friends of both branches of industry, to hold conventions in their respective States, and to appoint at least five delegates from each State, to meet in general convention at Harrisburg, on the 30th day of July, to deliberate on measures to be taken in the present posture of their affairs, and appointing a committee of twenty-seven, to frame an address to the citizens of the United States.

The Committee, in their address, discussed the policy of protection, and set forth the causes of the depression of the manufacturing interest, and the effect of this depression upon the other great interests of the country. Above eighty per cent, of the population was engaged in the pursuits of agriculture; and for the large surplus of the produce of the soil, there was no market at home or abroad. The want of a market operated severely upon the Middle and Western States. Europe no longer wanted their grain and flour, and her ports were closed against them, while these States consumed of the manufactures of Europe to the amount of $10, 000,000 to $12,000,000 in value annually.

To show the effects of the closing of the European ports against our breadstuffs, the amount of our exports of breadstuffs during the year 1825, were compared with the amount exported while our wheat and flour had a foreign demand

It appeared that, while our population had nearly trebled since 1796, the exports of all the articles produced, exclusive of cotton and tobacco, had diminished nearly one-third. The arguments in favor of the desired protection and of the general policy, were substantially the same as those offered in previous discussions of this subject.

In pursuance of the call of the "Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of Manufactures," &c., State Conventions were held, and delegates were appointed to the National Convention at Harrisburg. From the proceedings of these State Conventions, and the names of the persons who composed them, there appears to have been greater unanimity at that time among the people of the Northern States on the subject of the tariff than there was at a later period.

The New York State Convention was held at Albany. Jesse Buel, of Albany, was the President of the Convention, and Edmund H. Pendleton, of Dutchess, and David E. Evans, of Genesee, were Secretaries. The Convention was addressed by Col. Samuel Young, of Saratoga, Gen. Van Rensselaer, of Columbia, and other gentlemen, in support of the purposes for which it had been called. Among the delegates appointed to the Harrisburg Convention, were some of the most prominent citizens of the State, viz.: Eleazer Lord, Peter Sharp, Gen. James Tallmadge, Jacob R. Van Rensselaer, Samuel M. Hopkins, Samuel Young, John B. Yates, Alvan Stewart, Victory Birdseye, Enos T. Throop, Francis Granger, Philip Church, and others, together with the officers of the Convention.

A long series of resolutions was adopted, of which we copy the following as expressive of the common sentiments of the people, at that time, of the different political parties in the Northern States:

66

Resolved, That agriculture, manufactures, and commerce are social pursuits, and flourish best in the society of each other; and that equal protection by the Government is due to each.

66

Resolved, That, as wool and the woolen trade were the principal foundation of the prosperity, first of the Netherlands, and afterwards of England; so the people of the Northern and Middle States ought to look to the same article as an unfailing source of wealth to their agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests.

Resolved, That, inasmuch as the staple agricultural products of the South, to wit, cotton, tobacco, and rice, are ad