distribution provision, Messrs. Williams, Wright, Buchanan, and Sturgeon, Democrats, voted in favor of the bill; and Messrs. Archer, Clayton, Mangum, and Merrick, Whigs, who had voted for the first bill, now voted in the negative.

So in the House, on the second vote, the provision for distribution having been left out of the bill, several members on both sides changed their votes.

The tariff act having been secured, a separate bill was passed repealing the proviso of the distribution act, so as to allow the distribution to be made, notwithstanding the increase of duties; but the bill was retained in the hands of the President, and thus defeated.

t

CHAPTER XIII.

Effects of the tariff of 1842. Remarks of American and English papers. Prices of manufactures before and after the tariff.

In the discussion of every tariff, a great diversity of opinion has been expressed on the subject of protection to domesindustry. Few have taken the ultra ground of "free trade," in the strict sense of that term-that. no legislation at all should have reference to the encouragement of home labor. All, with few exceptions, consent to the raising of an adequate revenue by laying duties on imports; and nearly all concede the propriety and expediency of a discrimination in favor of certain articles, in laying the revenue duties; that is, the duties may and ought to be laid upon articles of that class, the home production of which is most essential to our national independence and prosperity. But as to the arti cles in favor of which the discrimination is to be made, and the measure of duty proper to be imposed, there has been, at all times within the last forty years, such a difference of opinion as to divide the people and their representatives into two nearly equal parties on the tariff question.

In the abstracts of the reports and debates on the several tariffs, given in preceding chapters, we have presented all the principal arguments by which the parties have supported their conflicting opinions. Such is the ability with which they have advocated their respective theories, and such the plausibility of their arguments, that it is not strange that public sentiment is so divided upon this subject. And as the interests of all classes of the people in every section of the Union are involved in this question, a correct decision of it is of the highest importance. Is there no means of aiding the people in making such decision? We believe there is. The friends of protection have always been willing to have their theory submitted to the test of experiment. To the results of their policy, they have always appealed with confidence. They have challenged their opponents to point out a single instance in which a protective tariff has operated unfavorably upon any of the great interests of the country, or to show that, in the operation of any tariff which they have opposed as being too highly protective, their predictions of its injurious effects have been fulfilled.

So numerous and varied are the interests represented in our National Legislature, that it has been impossible to adopt a system of duties which gave entire satisfaction to every friend of protection; yet of the acts of 1824, 1828, 1832, and 1842, the most imperfect one has been, on the whole, beneficial to the country at large, not excepting those sections from which have come the loudest complaints. These acts-except that of 1832, by which the duties on some articles were reduced-were called for in times of general depression and distress; and not one of them, the provisions of which have been duly executed, has failed to afford relief, and to improve the general condition of the country.

The law of 1842 was supposed to be as effectually protec tive as any that preceded it. Its provisions were probably, on the whole, as objectionable to the South and to anti-tariff men generally, as those of any other; and its injurious ef fects were as confidently predicted. As this was the last tariff, emphatically protective, which has been enacted by Congress, and as its effects were as clearly marked, perhaps, as those of either of its predecessors, we have thought proper, among the various information collected in this Chapter, to show the practical operation of this law during the brief period of its existence.

The bill, though intended to supply the deficiency in the revenue under the compromise act, and hence called a revenue bill, was equally a protective measure, designed to aid in reviving the industrial interests of the country which had been prostrated by causes, of which the great reduction of duties effected by that act was not the least. If, then, the law of 1842 fully answered the purposes of its authors and friends, and disappointed the fears of its enemies, as had been done by former acts of a similar character, why should not the fact be admitted as conclusive evidence in favor of the protective policy?

The immediate effect of the passage of this law, and of the supposed permanent settlement of the long agitated question of a protective tariff, was a restoration of confidence, and the consequent revival of business. In many quarters, notices appeared of factories that had been suspended, being about to resume work, and of their owners inquiring for hands. Within a few days after the act was passed, a New York paper announced, that the Matteawan factory had set to work 400 hands; and that the proprietors of a factory at Haverstraw had put the same in operation.

Another New York city paper said: "Confidence in a better state of things is becoming more general, and most business men begin to feel that we have seen the worst. We can not anticipate a very large business, nor, if it were practicable, do we consider that it would be desirable. The means of the community have been materially reduced. The circulation of the banks is at a very low point; and, although they could safely expand, ånd would gladly do so, yet an increase of discounts must take place with the general restoration of confidence, and founded upon the legitimate wants of the community."

Said another paper of the same city: "The tariff is felt already. We have seen gentlemen from New Jersey who inform us, that up to the present time, more than forty mills that have been closed are to be speedily opened. In the iron regions, the ore which has been on the banks of the canal as quiet as stones, and almost of as little value, is contracted for. In this city, there is an evident improvement in trade; confidence begins to increase, particularly among manufacturers."

A Boston paper said: "Since the passage of the tariff bill, the business of this city has taken a new start. The transportations for the last two days have been on an extensive scale."

A Baltimore paper said: "Since the passage of the tariff bill, a better state of things has succeeded to the previous depression in almost every department of business. The general feeling in the community is more cheerful and lively than it has appeared to be at any time within the last few years. A gradual return to the full flood tide of enterprise and prosperity, is to be desired in preference to any sudden

movements.

"If party politics can be kept from subverting the firm. foundation now laid for the establishment of national interests on the basis of home industry and domestic resources, the most salutary results may be anticipated, as time advances, and opportunities are offered for the resuscitation of the prostrate energies of the country. We hope that party violence will not be permitted to overthrow this well begun system. The people can not fail to sustain it, if they fully understand the issue that is made up on this question, and begin to realize the benefits that flow from this domestic and genuinely American policy."

These are but specimens of public sentiment expressed in

the papers throughout the Northern States. But there were not wanting indications of an early effort, even in these States, to disappoint the hopes expressed by the Baltimore editor in the paragraph quoted above, "that party violence would not be permitted to overthrow this well begun system." Opposition to it was soon manifested by the Democratic party, as such. But it was at the South that it received the most violent opposition.

The Richmond Enquirer, having presented the reasons offered by the four Democratic Senators, [Williams, of Maine, Buchanan and Sturgeon, of Pa., and Wright, of N. Y.,] for voting for the bill, said: "With every disposition in the world to treat with every liberality gentlemen who have hitherto distinguished themselves in the Democratic ranks, yet we beg leave most respectfully to say, that we shall hold them to the letter and spirit of their averments-that we shall never rest satisfied until this bill of abominations is expunged from the statute book, or completely changed in its enactments; and that we count upon Messrs. Buchanan, Sturgeon, Wright and Williams, to cooperate with us, and take the cross upon their own shoulders. Repeal! Repeal! is now the word."

Determined opposition to the law was also declared in public meetings, as well as in the papers, in the Southern States. The Southern Democracy—or at least a portion of themwere also dissatisfied with their brethren of the North, who did not quite come up to extreme Southern notions on the tariff question. The following extracts from an article in the Albany Argus, attracted attention at the South:

"The two political parties are divided upon this matter. The Democracy go for a tariff sufficient to defray the expenses of the National Government, economically administered, discriminating in the duties, laying them mainly on such arti cles as come in competition with those produced in this coun try, thereby affording incidentally' a strong, and by most people believed a sufficient protection to American industry. The Whigs go for a tariff which does not stop here. They would increase it still higher upon articles which can be supplied in this country, and raise their price still higher for the sake of protection' only, although it should increase the reverue above the wants of the National Government, and produce a surplus, again to be distributed among the States." To this the Charleston Mercury thus demurred:

"The Democracy,' according to this exposition, goes for