and the whole country overwhelmed with worthless paper money; and the unchecked importing of foreign fabrics still farther multiplied and magnified debts, deprived us of our specie, broke down the prices of our products, and created general stagnation and distress. From the state of desperation thus engendered, arose the disgraceful outbreak of insurrection in Massachusetts known as 'Shay's Rebellion.' This was but one symptom of a general disease.

Repeated attempts were made to put an end to this state of things, by imposing duties on imports. But the Congress of the old confederation had no power to do this, except with the concurrence of each of the state governments. It was attempted, but failed. Rhode Island, then almost wholly a commercial state, objected, though the duty proposed was but five per cent. and the object the paying off the debts of the Revolution. Here was presented that stringent necessity which alone could have overcome the prevailing jealousies of, and aversion to, a stronger and more national government. A Convention was called, a Constitution framed and adopted; and the second act of the new Congress stands on the records entitled: "An Act to make provision for the necessities of government, the payment of the national debt, and the protection of American manufactures." This act passed both houses of Congress by a substantially unanimous vote.

Great Britain now became alarmed for the stability of her market for manufactures in America. Her Board of Trade made a report on the subject in 1794, urging the negotiation of a commercial treaty with the United States, based on two propositions; the first being, "that the duties on British manufactures imported into the United States shall not be raised above what they are at present." The other proposed that the productions of other nations should be admitted into our ports in British vessels, the same as if imported in our own. But the government did not venture to press these propositions.

It was plainly discerned by the British economists of that day, that, while our Congress had explicitly asserted the principle of protection, and had intended to act consistently with that principle, yet, from inexperience and a natural hesitation to change abruptly the direction which circumstances had given to our

national industry, they had fallen far short of this. The few articles of manufacture already produced in the country to a considerable extent, were, in general, efficiently protected; but the greater portion of the manufactures essential to our complete emancipation from colonial dependence were left unprotected by duties of five to fifteen per cent. Years of hard experience and of frequent suffering were required to teach the mass of our statesmen the advantage and beneficence of extending protection also to those articles which had not been, but might easily and profitably be, produced in our own country, if the producers were shielded from the destructive rivalry always brought to bear upon a new branch of industry by the jealous and powerful foreign interests which it threatens to deprive of a lucrative market. We had but begun to learn the truths which form the basis of a wise and beneficent national economy, when the breaking out of the great wars in Europe opened to us large and lucrative foreign markets for our raw staples, and the heads of our most sedate thinkers were nearly turned by the tempting prizes proffered to mercantile enterprise by the convulsions of the old world. It seemed as though we had but to produce whatever was easiest and most natural to us, and Europe would take it at our own price, and pay us bountifully for carrying it where she wanted it. This was a pleasant dream while it lasted, but a brief one. We were awakened from it by seizures, confiscations, embargoes, and at last war, which imposed on us the necessity of commencing nearly every branch of manufacture under the most unfavorable auspices, and of course at a ruinous cost. with Great Britain was, in this respect, a substantial benefit to the country. The Congress of 1816 failed to impose a tariff at all adequate (save on a few articles) to the real wants of the country, but the germ of industrial independence had been planted in a soil fertilized by blood, and the plant was destined to live and flourish, though exposed to rude blasts and chilling frosts in its springtime. From 1816 to 1824, it might well have seemed doubtful whether the country would not discard all the dear-bought experience of the past, and blast all the well-grounded hopes for the future, in a heedless pursuit of what seemed (deceitful seeming!) to be the sordid interest of the present. But better counsels ul

The war

timately prevailed, and the passage of the tariff of 1824 may be regarded as the resting of the ark of national independence on the dry and solid ground of efficient and positive protection to home industry. From that hour until the duties were sensibly reduced under the operation of the Compromise Act, the course of the country was due onward to more and more decided prosperity.

Experience and observation are of little use if we fail to regulate our conduct by them. The same policy which the British Government pursued towards this country whilst in its dependent colonial state, still forms the favorite measures of that government towards the United States. It would be no difficult matter to show that upon every agitation of the question of protection in Congress, the British Parliament have introduced some proceedings in order to distract, if possible, the attention of our statesmen, and to induce among us an opposition to any measures which should establish protection to our own industry, as the settled policy of the nation. The Parliament even carried the farce so far, that in May, 1840, a time when the whole people of this country were thoroughly waking up to the importance of the home system, they raised a select committee in the House of Commons, to inquire whether the duties levied by the British tariff "are for protection to similar articles" manufactured in that country, or "for the purposes of revenue alone." This select committee, in their report of August 6, 1840, appear to have lost sight of the principal object apparent on the face of the resolution authorizing their examination and report, and content themselves with observing that the English tariff" often aims at incompatible ends; the duties are sometimes meant to be both productive of revenue and for protective objects." But they state that they had discovered "a growing conviction, that the protective system is not, on the whole, beneficial to the protected manufactures themselves."

After such a discovery, and its solemn announcement by a select committee of the House of Commons, it would reasonably be imagined that some steps would be taken towards rectifying that "incompatibility" in the British policy, and in abandoning that system which they represent as having been found not to be beneficial to their protected manufactures. If, however, we expect any such

thing from that quarter we shall be much mistaken in our anticipations. That report was grown and manufactured for the American market, and was not designed for any real effect upon the proceedings of the British House of Commons. It was intended to convince the American Congress and the American people that Great Britain was almost ruined by her protective system, (a system of ruin which she adheres to with astonishing pertinacity up to the present moment,) that our protective tariff would in like manner be ruinous to us, and that our only salvation was in adopting at once the principles of free-trade,-opening our ports to all British manufactures, and becoming, in fact, merely a market for British labor. Whether, following a change on our side of the policy, they would admit our agricultural products freely, or how our own mechanics should find employment to keep them from starving, they would leave to be afterwards discovered.

Finding that their recommendation to us had no effect upon the measures of our government, they cease to be careful of the principles they put forth to the world, and seeing no longer any good reason for disguise, the leading men in both houses of Parliament afford us a fine commentary upon the text of that report of the select committee. The Duke of Wellington very recently, with the frankness of his known character, stated in the House of Peers, the true and permanent policy of Great Britain, in observing that "when free-trade was talked of as existing in England, it was an absurdity. There was no such thing, and there could be no such thing as freetrade in that country. We proceed (says he) on the system of protecting our own manufactures and our own produce-the produce of our labor and our soil; of protecting them for exportation, and protecting them for home consumption; and on that universal system of protection it is absurd to talk of free-trade."

The necessity of a modification in our duties upon imports, which became apparent early in 1842, afforded a further insight into the course of British policy towards this country. So soon as the cry for protection to American industry became so loud and long as to require an answer to its demand from the supreme legislative authority, we were told throughout the whole length and breadth of our land, the information originating in

England for our benefit, that Great Britain was willing to take our surplus bread-stuff in exchange for her manufactures; and that there was therefore no necessity of changing our tariff policy in order to build up a home market for our grain-growers in the Western and Middle states, as well as our cotton-planters in the South. This would have been the tale to this day if we had not settled our protective system. It continued to be used as long as it could be with any effect; and when it became apparent to the British administration that the people of the United States could be no longer deluded by their interested and mystified views of state policy, volunteered for our service, they at once changed their note, as will be seen on reference to the speech of Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons, in May, 1843, upon the motion of Mr. Villiers for a repeal of the English corn-laws. Sir Robert sustains and advocates the British system, and that motion was rejected by a majority of one hundred and ninetysix votes! Those who had previously flattered themselves that the British ministry were prepared to go, in some modified form, for free-trade, will do well to notice the horror expressed by Sir Robert Peel of the consequences of abandoning "the principle of protection;" and they will see by that most decisive vote that the House of Commons agree with him in sentiment. As to the judgment of the House of Peers on the subject, there cannot be a question that they are more thoroughly opposed, from interest, to any kind of free-trade, than even the Commons. The Duke of Wellington in his speech (to which we have previously referred) expressed the sentiments of a large majority of that house.

It follows then, that unless we are determined to be infatuated, we must see that Great Britain does not intend, under any possible state of circumstances, to abandon the full and entire protection of her own agriculturists, and her own manufactures. We do not see then why we should for a moment hesitate about effectually protecting ours. It does not become us as a people to suffer ourselves to be hoodwinked by interested British statesmen,--to have our state policy indicated to us by British capitalists and manufacturers-a policy which they are very careful not to adopt themselves.

And with the knowledge which our people have, or may have by merely

looking into the history of the world about us, it is beyond measure strange that there should be a difference of opinion amongst our citizens on the subject. The new school of political economists, disciples of Adam Smith, have set up for their chief maxim, that nations should buy where they can buy cheapest. This may at any time be a sufficient rule for the present by itself; but they seem never to have reflected that with nations as much as with individuals, a smaller present good is often to be foregone for a greater good in the future. Great Britain was once dependent on Flanders for her woollen goods, on the East Indies for her cottons, on France for her paper, glass, and various articles. Had she continued to act on the present-advantage system, she would have been so dependent to this hour. She now makes them all for herself, besides gathering in half the wealth of the world by selling the surplus. It is the same policy which alone can raise us to any permanent height of strength and prosperity, or even keep us from sinking into a second state of colonial dependence. The advantages and blessings which have followed the adoption of the present tariff, the act of 1842, should open the eyes of all who are not intentionally blind. Just before the passage of the present tariff in August, 1842, there were forty thousand unemployed persons in the state of Pennsylvania alone; and at the same time full ten thousand of the industrious classes in the city of Philadelphia were vainly endeavoring to earn the means by which to buy bread to feed themselves and their families. Our tariff has fed the hungry, found employment for the destitute; and the blessing of those who were in want, and ready to perish, sanctifies it as one of the most righteous measures of a government founded for the good of the people.

The enemies of the American system are accustomed to assail it as unconstitutional. We consider this point to have been effectually settled by Mr. Webster's late clear and powerful argument at Albany. We do not see how any one can read that argument, or can be in any other way familiar with the history of those times, and not be convinced of the existence of such powers in the Constitution to the full extent claimed by the friends of the tariff. It is known, as well as any thing can be known, that the exercise of such powers by the new

Congress "was the expectation, the belief, the conviction that prevailed everywhere;" that the first three petitions presented to that body were from tradesmen, manufacturers, and mechanics, in different sections of the Union, for protection, and that Congress recognised the propriety of such petitions, and passed acts for their benefit.

History makes it certain, also, that our great men, throughout that eventful period and at a later day, whatever opinions they may have expressed when mere party or political interests were at stake, at other times, when looking alone at the true interests of the nation, the whole nation, have uniformly held and expressed but one opinion, and that in favor of the American protective system. Of the sentiments of Washington on this point there is not and cannot be a doubt. They have been too often expressed to leave it a matter of question. Our opponents, however, are rarely found quoting Washington on any point; they believe in Jefferson rather. They should have better known the opinions of the man to whom they so constantly and pertinaciously appeal. The sentiments of Hamilton, Franklin, Madison, on the subject, and others of the Men of the Revolution, it would be a waste of time to call forth in array; but as it seems to be somewhat the fashion of the day to represent the leaders of the Democratic party as opposed to the Protective System, we shall occupy a few moments to show most clearly, if they are so now, it is because they have abandoned the primitive faith of Democracy, as known in the time of Thomas Jefferson, and much later. We do this in no invidious sense, but merely to show that but one system of policy has ever been held in the country, from the first formation of our federal government to the present time.

And first, the Free-Trade and Texas party will be delighted to hear the words of one whom they are proud to call "the Apostle of Democracy." In Jefferson's Report on the privileges and restrictions of the commerce of the United States" are the following sensible passages:

we take from them in greatest quantity, and which at the same time we could the soonest furnish to ourselves, or obtain from other countries; imposing on them duties light at first, but heavier and heavier afterwards, as other channels of supply open.

"Such duties, having the effect of indirect of the same kind, may induce the manufac encouragement to domestic manufactures turer to come himself into these States, where cheaper subsistence, equal laws, and a vent for his wares, free of duty, may insure him the highest profits from his skill and industry. The oppressions of our agriculture in foreign parts would thus be made the occasion of relieving it from a dependence on the councils and conduct of others, and of promoting arts, manufactures, and population at home."

Corroboratory views are given by him in his Message of Dec. 2d, 1806. After representing the accruing revenue as being more than sufficient for the wants of government if peace should continue, he proceeds :—

ward, to what other objects shall these sur"The question therefore now comes forpluses be appropriated, and the whole surplus of impost, after the entire discharge of the public debt, and during those intervals when the purposes of war shall not call for them? Shall we suppress the impost, and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures? On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression, in due season, will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who enough to afford themselves the use of prefer its continuance and application to the them. Their patriotism would certainly great purposes of public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers."

are rich

It is fitting that this should be followed by a maxim or two from Adam Smith, from whom this school have derived all their new tenets:

"Whatever tends to diminish in any country the number of artificers and man. ufacturers, tends to diminish the home market, the most important of all markets for the rude produce of the lands, and thereby still further to discourage agriculture.

"If the free importation of foreign manufactures were permitted, several of the home manufacturers would probably suffer, and some of them perhaps go to ruin alto

gether, and a considerable part of the stock and industry employed in them would be forced to find out some other employment." -Smith's Wealth of Nations, vol. i. p. 321.

These maxims are altogether the truth; we are not bound to consider whether the Doctor falsifies in them his own theory. The name of Thomas Cooper, again, is constantly in the mouths of our opponents as an upholder of their favorite notions. They should learn to read less obliquely. We quote from his Principles of Political Economy, written during or soon after the War:

"We are too much dependent upon Great Britain for articles that habit has convert. ed into necessaries. A state of war demands privations that a large portion of our citizens reluctantly submit to. Home manufactures would greatly lessen the evil.

By means of debts incurred for foreign manufactures, we are almost again become colonists-we are too much under the influence, indirectly, of British merchants and British agents. We are not an independent people. Manufactures among us would tend to correct this, and give a stronger tone of nationality at home."

Consistent Democrats are always lamenting the influence of manufactures on agriculture. They will be comforted by discovering that Judge Cooper thought otherwise. He remarks:

"The state of agriculture would improve with the improvement of manufactures, by means of the general spirit of energy and exertion which nowhere exist in so high a degree as in a manufacturing country; and by the general improvement of machinery, and the demand for raw materials.

"Our agriculturists want a home markel. Manufactures would supply it. Agriculture at great distances from seaports languishes for want of this. Great Britain exhibits an instance of unexampled power and wealth by means of an agriculture greatly dependent on a system of manufac tures and her agriculture, thus situated, is the best in the world, though still capable of great improvement."

It should ever be brought out into the light and kept before the people, that we possess an immense country, with every variety of soil, and climate, and geological structure, calculated for all the staple manufactures in use among us, and for all kinds of agricultural products, especially those grown away from the tropics; and that one part of the country is fitted

to produce what another part cannot. One section may therefore just as well exchange commodities with another as with a foreign country, aside from the vast advantage of having a market nearer and surer. On this point and some othfree-traders among us some judicious reers at the same time, we commend to marks of their favorite, Judge Cooper :

"The home trade, consisting in the exchange of agricultural surpluses for articles of manufacture, produced in our own country, will, for a long time to come, furnish the safest and the least dangerousthe least expensive and the least immoral

the most productive and the most patriotic employment of surplus capital, however raised and accumulated. The safest, because it requires no navies exclusively for its protection; the least dangerous, because it furnishes no excitement to the prevailing madness of commercial wars; the least expensive, for the same reason that it is the safest and the least dangerous; the least immoral, because it furnishes no temptation to the breach or evasion of the laws; to the multiplication of oaths and perjuries; and to the consequent prostration of all religious feeling, and all social duty: the most productive, because the capital admits of quicker returns; because the whole of the capital is permanently invested and employed at home; because it contributes, di. rectly, immediately, and wholly, to the internal wealth and resources of the nation; because the credits given are more easily watched, and more effectually protected by our own laws, well known, easily resorted to, and speedily executed, than if exposed in distant and in foreign countries, controlled by foreign laws and foreign customs, and at the mercy of foreign agents; the most patriotic, because it binds the persons employed in it by all the ties of habit and of interest to their own country; while foreign trade tends to denationalize the affections of those whose property is dispersed in foreign countries, whose interests are connected with foreign interests, whose capital is but partially invested at the place of their domicil, and who can remove with comparative facility from one country to another. The wise man observed of old, that where the treasure is, there will the heart be also.'"

"Nor can there be any fear that for a century to come, there will not be full demand produced by a system of home manufacture for every particle of surplus produce that agriculture can supply. Of all the occupations which may be employed in furnishing articles either of immediate necessity, of reasonable want, or of direct connection with agriculture, we have in