SENATE.] The Tariff. [FEB. 22, 1833. or one-half; but the difference, in fact, would be still now about to be put on the amendment offered by the greater. It is openly, publicly, repeatedly, and ostenta- Senator from Kentucky, it became necessary for him to tiously proclaimed on this floor, by the friends of the bill, determine whether he should vote for or against it. He that twenty per cent. upon the home valuation is more must be permitted again to express his regret that the than thirty per cent. on the value! Assume it at thirty, Senator had thought proper to move it. His objection and what will be the result? On one hundred millions of still remained strong against it; but as it seemed to be adimportations, the Government will receive thirty millions mitted, on all hands, that the fate of the bill depended of revenue instead of twenty; on every hundred dollars' on the fate of the amendment, feeling as he did a soliciworth of goods, the consumer will pay thirty dollars tax tude to see the question terminated, he had made up his instead of twenty! Both, as a reduction of revenue to mind, not, however, without much hesitation, not to inthe Government, and as a reduction of tax to the con- terpose his vote against the adoption of the amendment; sumer, the valuation contradicts the ultimate point and but, in voting for it, he wished it to be distinctly undermain object of the bill, and renders it wholly deceptive stood, he did it upon two conditions: first, that no valuaand illusory. tion would be adopted that should come in conflict with Mr. B. objected to the home valuation, because it would the provision in the constitution which declares that dube injurious, and almost fatal to the southern ports. He ties, excises, and imposts shall be uniform; and in the confined his remarks to New Orleans. The standard of next place, that none would be adopted which would valuation would be fifteen or twenty per cent. higher in make the duties themselves a part of the element of a New Orleans than in New York, and other northern ports. home valuation. He felt himself justified in concluding All importers will go to the northeastern cities, to evade that none such would be adopted; as it had been declared high duties at New Orleans; and that great emporium of by the supporters of the amendment that no such regulathe West will be doomed to sink into a mere exporting tion was contemplated; and, in fact, he could not imagine city, while all the money which it pays for exports must that any such could be contemplated, whatever interprebe carried off and expended elsewhere for imports. tation might be attempted hereafter to be given to the Without an import trade no city can flourish, or even expression of the home market. The first could scarcefurnish a good market for exports. It will be drained of ly be contemplated, as it would be in violation of the conits effective cash, and deprived of its legitimate gains, stitution itself; nor the latter, as it would, by necessary and must languish far in the rear of what it would be if consequence, restore the very duties which it was the obenriched with the profits of an import trade. As an ex-ject of this bill to reduce, and would involve the glaring porter, it will buy; as an importer, it will sell. All buy-absurdity of imposing duties on duties, taxes on taxes. ing and no selling must impoverish cities as well as indi. He wished the reporters for the public press to notice viduals. New Orleans is now a great exporting city; she particularly what he said, as he intended his declaration exports more domestic productions than any city in the to be part of the proceedings. Union; her imports have been increasing for some years; Believing, then, for the reasons which he had stated, and, with fair play, would soon become next to New that it was not contemplated that any regulation of the York, and furnish the whole valley of the Mississippi with home valuation should come in conflict with the proviits immense supplies of foreign goods; but, under the in-sions of the constitution which he had cited, nor involve fluence of a home valuation, it must lose a greater part the absurdity of laying taxes upon taxes, he had made up of the import trade which it now possesses. In that loss his mind to vote in favor of the amendment. its wealth must decline; its capacity to purchase produce Mr. SMITH said, any declaration of the views and mofor exportation must decline; and as the western produce tives under which any individual Senator might now vote must go there at all events, every western farmer will could have no influence in 1842; they would be forgotten suffer a decline in the value of his own productions in long before that time had arrived. The law must rest proportion to the decline of the ability of New Orleans to upon the interpretation of its words alone. purchase it. It was as a western citizen that he pleaded the cause of New Orleans, and objected to this measure of home valuation, which was to have the most baleful effects upon her prosperity. Mr. CALHOUN said he could not help that; he should endeavor to do his duty. Mr. CLAYTON said there was certainly no ambiguity whatever in the phraseology of the amendment. In advocating it, he had desired to deceive no man; he sincerely hoped no one would suffer himself to be deceived by it. The amendment of Mr. CLAY, fixing the principle of home valuation as a part of the bill, was then adopted by the following vote: Mr. B. further objected to the home valuation on account of the great additional expense it would create; the amount of patronage it would confer; the rivalry it would beget between importing cities; and the injury it would occasion to merchants from the detention and handling of their goods; and concluded with saying, that the home valuation was the most obnoxious feature ever in- YEAS. Messrs. Bell, Black, Bibb, Calhoun, Chamtroduced into the tariff acts; that it was itself equivalent bers, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hill, to a separate tariff of ten per cent.; that it had always Holmes, Johnston, King, Knight, Miller, Moore, Naudain, been resisted, and successfully resisted, by the anti-tariff Poindexter, Prentiss, Rives, Robbins, Sprague, Tomlininterest in the highest and most palmy days of the Ame- son, Tyler, Wilkins.-26. rican system, and ought not now to be introduced when NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Dallas, Dickerson, that system is admitted to be nodding to its fall; when its Dudley, Forsyth, Grundy, Kane, Robinson, Seymour, death is actually fixed for the 30th day of June, 1842, and Silsbee, Smith, Waggaman, Webster, White, Wright.when the restoration of harmonious feelings is proclaimed to be the whole object of this bill. 16. Mr. TYLER expressed a strong desire that some genMr. ROBBINS then offered an amendment, which, in tlemen would move to expunge that part of the bill which substance, provided, that unless this regulation (i. e. a proposed to increase the duties upon plains, kerseys, and home valuation) shall not be established by Congress, on Kendal cottons from five per cent. to fifty per cent. He or before the year 1842, the bill should cease to have ef- was not inclined to make the motion without learning the fect, and be superseded by the tariff of 1832. sentiments of other gentlemen upon it; but it was a subThis amendment was also rejected without a division.ject in which the planters of Virginia had a deep interest. The question being then about to be taken on Mr. CLAY'S amendment, Mr. CALHOUN remarked, that the question being Mr. SMITH moved an amendment, to effect the wishes of the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. TYLER.] Mr. CLAY remarked, that if Mr. SMITH's amendment FEB. 23, 1833.] The Tariff. [SENATE. was adopted, the duty would not be twenty-five per cent., conciliation to the South, the whole duty was taken from as in 1832, but five per cent., as it was established at the the wool, which entered into that description of manulast session of Congress. He had received a letter to- facture, by way of counterpoise. To raise this duty to day, relative to a large establishment, stating that its ope- fifty per cent., without reinstating the corresponding duty rations had been suspended in consequence of this re- on the raw material, he regarded as altogether impolitic. duction. The reduction was made at the last session, to Mr. FOOT said, this was an important feature of the reconcile the South to the tariff; Southern members then bill, in which his constituents had a great interest. Genappeared to think it of little consequence to the South. tlemen from the South had agreed to it; and they were He hoped gentlemen would not persist in urging it now. abundantly capable of guarding their own interests. [Mr. SMITH denounced Mr. CLAY's statement of the Mr. CLAY said the whole bill was based upon the reduction, and Mr. C. then read a portion of the act.] principle of compromise. The provision proposed to be Mr. FORSYTH would vote for Mr. SMITH'S amend-struck out was an essential part of this compromise, ment. The bill had been made by the advocates of which, if struck out, would destroy the effect of the protection, as the best, in their view, which could be whole. Mr. C. went into the importance of this manumade, for the purpose of reconciliation; but it was doubt- facture, and read a letter from Boston on the subject. ful whether it was the best, and he should not vote for it Mr. FORSYTH was sorry to hear from the Senator till he could see that it was. It had been called a con- from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] that he regarded this incession, to reduce the duty on Kendal cottons to five per crease of the burdens of the South as an essential feature cent.; why is it now to be taken away? [Mr. CLAY said, of this scheme of compromise. The Senate, in adopting for the purpose of giving more.] Mr. F. was opposed to the principle of home valuation, had changed the original the bill in its present form, and should not only vote to plan, in his opinion, much for the worse; he now hoped strike out the second section, but he would move to strike they would change this part of the bill for the better. out all the sections which did not correspond with his He regarded it as highly important to the whole South, views. The bill was a bitter pill; but, for the sake of with the exception of a small part of South Carolina. peace, he would take it; but not if he could help it. Mr. CLAYTON had regarded the reduction to five per cent. as a concession, though the Senator from South Carolina had viewed it otherwise. Mr. BUCKNER advocated the interests of the West, which he said had been entirely overlooked in this compromise between the North and South. After explaining those interests at large, Mr. B. declared his intention of supporting the amendment. Mr. FOOT said, he had expected the bill would be accepted as it came from the committee. He had hoped Mr. BELL opposed the amendment. The passage of that a particular section of the country would not be sin- the bill depended upon it. If it was adopted, he should gled out to suffer by the compromise. He had seen a feel compelled to vote against the bill. As to the interests former compromise operate auspiciously; he hoped of the West, he believed that lead and iron were more this would do so. He would be sorry now to alter his highly protected, at least until 1841, than woollens. As position with regard to the bill; but he could not consent to what would take place hereafter, no one could now to sacrifice so greatly the interests of his constituents. foresee. No pledge could now be given to bind the fuHere a message was received from the House of Repre- ture legislation of Congress. It was altogether futile to sentatives, announcing the death of the honorable JAMES consider any measure in that light. We must presume LENT, a member of that House from the State of New that future legislation will be what it ought to be, in view York; and that his funeral would take place at eleven of the great interests of the country. o'clock to-morrow; whereupon, Mr. DUDLEY moved that the bill be laid on the table; which motion having been agreed to, On motion of Mr. DUDLEY, Resolved, unanimously, That the Senate, at eleven o'clock, attend the funeral of the honorable JAMES LENT. On motion of Mr. WRIGHT, The Senate then adjourned, to meet at one o'clock, P. M. to-morrow. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY, 23. THE TARIFF. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to modify the tariff laws; the question being on the motion of Mr. SMITH, to change the second section so as to permit the duties on plains, kerseys, and Kendal cottons, costing under thirty-five cents per square yard, to be imported at five per cent., as fixed by the act of 1832, instead of increasing the duties on those manufactures to fifty per cent., as was proposed by the bill. Mr. HOLMES was also opposed to the amendment. He supported the bill only on the ground of its being satisfactory to the South. If, on its final passage, it should fail to receive the votes of Senators from that quarter, he gave notice that he should move the reconsideration of the vote, and himself vote against it. Mr. WRIGHT had heard nothing in support of this provision of the bill, which proposed to increase the duties from five to fifty per cent., which had convinced him that it was conciliatory to the South, or effectual as a means of reducing the revenue. Upon the principles on which the bill had been placed, it certainly would be improved by striking out this provision. Mr. CLAY replied. He would avow that he had other objects which he regarded as no less important than conciliation and reduction. These were the stability and efA bill had been fectual protection of manufactures. passed by the Senate, and sent to the House, for enforcing the collection of the revenue. The object of that bill met his entire approbation; and had he been present when the final vote was taken on its passage, he would Mr. WRIGHT supported the amendment. The great have voted in its favor. But he was anxious that the bill and leading objects for which this measure had been sup- which had passed the Senate should go forth to the ported was to diminish the burdens of the South, and country accompanied by this measure of specification. reduce the revenue. How either of these was to be The dangerous consequences which had been predicted accomplished by increasing the duty upon an article of would then be obviated. He, therefore, implored gengreat importance to that section, from five to fifty per tlemen, who had avowed their determination to support cent., which would add at least half a million to the reve- this measure, not to throw obstacles in the way of its connue, he had not been able to perceive. On the other summation. hand, it appeared to be precisely contrary to the avowed Mr. CHAMBERS said it was impossible for him to vote object of the friends of the bill, of whom he professed for the bill, as a measure originating in the Senate, while When the duty on these woollens had been it contained this provision for increasing the duties. By reduced, the last session, to five per cent., as an act of the constitution, the Senate could originate no such mea to be one. SENATE.] sure. If this feature were struck out, he should most the House concurred in it, there was an end of the obcheerfully support the bill. jection. The origin of the bill could never be inquired into hereafter. Mr. BENTON requested that Mr. CALHOUN, who had temporarily left his seat, might be sent for. Mr. MOORE inquired if the gentleman wished to impeach Mr. CALHOUN? Mr. BENTON did not. He only wanted the benefit of his testimony. Mr. CALHOUN having taken his seat, Mr. BENTON stated, that some years past he had introduced a bill which provided for a reduction of duties to a large extent, but increased the rate of duty upon some particular articles. It had then been decided by the presiding officer of the Senate, that, being a bill to raise revenue, it could not constitutionally originate in the Senate. He asked for the benefit of the testimony of the gentleman who then presided over the deliberations of the Senate, to bear him out in the correctness of this statement. Mr. CALHOUN said, the constitution unquestionably provided that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. Whether the constitutional question was decided in the case referred to, or the bill went off upon a question of order, he did not distinctly recollect, though other Senators might. His impression was, that no decision was made on the constitutional question. Mr. FOOT recollected the case, and was confident that only a question of order was raised; and the constitutional question was not decided by the Chair. into the Senate. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN regarded the constitutional difficulty as altogether insuperable. Having taken a solemn oath to support the constitution, he could not, however agreeable to his wishes, give his assent to a measure originating in the Senate, in violation of its express provisions. Mr. BIBB considered it clear that a bill to reduce the revenue might originate in the Senate. Such a bill could not be called a bill to raise revenue; and this distinction had already been sanctioned by the Senate. Mr. DICKERSON said a single word would destroy that distinction in the present case. If this bill passed, under what law would revenue be raised after 1842, excepting the present, which provided for duties of twenty per cent. after that period? Mr. WILKINS moved an adjournment, which was lost-Yeas 14, nays 31. Mr. SMITH then modified his proposition to amend, by moving to strike out the whole of the second section of the bill, which reads as follows: SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That so much of the second section of the act of the 14th of July aforesaid, as fixes the rate of duty on all milled and fulled cloth, known by the name of plains, kerseys, or Kendal cottons, of which wool is the only material, the value whereof does not exceed thirty-five cents a square yard, at five per cent. ad valorem, shall be, and the same is, hereby repealed. And the said articles shall be subject to the same duty of fifty per cent., as is provided by the said second section for other manufactures of wool; which duty shall be liable to the same deductions as are prescribed by the first section of this act. Mr. BENTON then explained the provisions of the bill to which he referred, and compared them with the present. He regarded them as standing on the same ground. The question of order, if it was to be so called, was decided against that bill, upon the constitutional objection that it was not competent to introduce such a measure Mr. BENTON was opposed to this section, and, therefore, in favor of striking it out. He said it was contrary Mr. FOOT said the bill referred to proposed the com- to the whole tenor and policy of the bill, and presented mencement of a revenue system, which had not before the strange contradiction of multiplying duties tenfold, existed, and clearly came within the constitutional ob- upon an article of prime necessity, used exclusively by jection. This bill is not intended to raise, but to reduce the laboring part of the community, while reducing duthe revenue. The objection did not apply to this measure. ties, or abolishing them in toto, upon every article used Mr. SMITH said, gentlemen seemed inclined to make by the rich and luxurious. Silks were to be free; camthe constitution support whatever might agree with their fancies. brics and fine linens were to be free; muslins, and casimeres, and broad cloths were to be reduced; but the Mr. DICKERSON said, whether the rate of duty was coarse woollens, worn by the laborers of every color and raised or lowered, the law was equally one for raising every occupation, of every sex and of every age, bond revenue within the constitution. The distinction was an or free--these coarse woollens, necessary to shelter them absurdity. from cold and damp, are to be put up tenfold in point of Mr. CHAMBERS regarded the constitutional objec- tax, and the cost of procuring them doubled to the tion as insurmountable. With great regret he should be wearer. He showed the annual amount of the tax to be compelled to vote against the bill if this provision remain-imposed by this section. It applied to the woollen goods ed in it. The bill should have come from the House of costing less than thirty-five cents the square yard; the Representatives. Mr. FORSYTH had stated this objection to the introduction of the bill; but, having been overruled, and the bill having originated in the Senate notwithstanding the constitution, he could perceive no prohibition against its passage. annual importation of that description of goods was shown in the custom-house returns to be one million and fifty thousand dollars' worth. The tax on that amount would be fifty thousand dollars by the bill of 1832; it will be five hundred thousand dollars if this section is retained; with the chance of coming down, by small periodical reMr. CHAMBERS had supposed the objection against ductions, to two hundred thousand dollars in 1842. Thus, the introduction of the bill to have been waived, for a tax on a necessary of life--on an article exclusively used the purpose of discussing its provisions. He regarded by the poor and the laborer-is to be raised tenfold off the present as the proper time for taking the objec- hand, for the chance of coming down to fourfold in nine years. But it never will come down to fourfold. WheMr. SILSBEE could not vote for the bill in the face ther the act goes into full effect, and works through its of the constitution, which expressly prohibited its origi-destined term of nine years, and attains its promised nating in the Senate. glory in 1842; or whether it is broken up before the period of gestation is half out, the result, in either event, will be the same to these coarse woollens. If the act is broken, the duties, in their descending course, will be stopped at thirty-five or thirty-eight per cent.; if the act Mr. SMITH could not see how the constitutional ques- is carried out, then the home valuation, provided for in tion could be settled. If the Senate passed the bill, and this bill, will attach upon these woollens as the standard tion. Mr. BUCKNER could not agree with the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. FORSYTH,] that the introduction of the bill had done away the objection. For this reason, if no other, he should vote against it. FEB. 23, 1833.] cent. of their value. The American value, and not the foreign pound. It was made free of duty at the last session of cost, will be the basis of computation for the twenty per Congress, as an equivalent to these very manufactories for The difference, when all is fair, is about thirty-five the reduction of the duty on coarse woollens to five per per cent. in the value; so that an importation of coarse cent. The two measures went together, and were, each, woollens, costing one million in Europe, and now to pay a consideration for the other. Before that time, and by five per cent. on that cost, will be valued, if all is fair, the act of 1828, this coarse wool was heavily dutied for at one million three hundred and fifty thousand dollars; the benefit of the home wool growers. It was subjected and the twenty per cent. will be calculated on that sum, to a double duty, one of four cents on the pound, and the and will give two hundred and seventy thousand dollars, other of fifty per cent. on the value. As a measure of instead of two hundred thousand dollars, for the quantum compromise, this double duty was abolished at the last of the tax. It will be near sixfold, instead of fourfold, session. The wool for these factories was admitted duty and that if all is fair; but if there are gross errors or free, and, as an equivalent to the community, the woolgross frauds in the valuation, as every human being lens made out of the corresponding kind of wool were knows there must be, the real tax may be far above six-admitted at a nominal duty. It was a bargain, entered infold. On this very floor, and in this very debate, we hear to in open Congress, and sealed with all the forms of law. it computed, by way of recommending this bill to the manufacturers, that the twenty per cent. on the statute book will exceed thirty in the custom-house. Now, in six months after the bargain was made, it is to be broken. The manufacturers are to have the duty on woollens run up to fifty per cent. for protection, and are still to receive the foreign wool free of duty. In plain English, they are to retain the pay which was given them for reducing the duties on these coarse woollens, and they are to have the duties restored. Mr. B. considered this increase of duties on this parti cular article as the most offensive part of the bill. It not only restored the old duty, but made it higher than it ever was before; higher than it was in the acts of 1824-'28; higher than it ever had been on the American statute book; and this purely and simply for protection, as it is avowed and proclaimed on this floor. Mr. B. took a view of the circumstances which had attended the duties on these coarse woollens since he had been in Congress. Every act had discriminated in favor of these goods, because they were used by the poor and the laborer. The act of 1824 fixed the duties upon them at a rate one-third less than on other woollens; the act of 1828 fixed it at upwards of one-half less; the act of 1832 fixed it nine-tenths less. All these discriminations in favor of coarse woollens were made upon the avowed principle of favoring the laborers, bond and free, the slave which works the field for his master, the mariner, the miner, the steamboat hand, the worker in stone and wood, and every Mr. CLAYTON thought the House would not regard it out-door occupation. It was intended by the framers of in the light referred to. This was not a bill to raise reall these acts, and especially by the supporters of the act venue; that was not the object of the section now proposof 1832, that this class of our population, so meritorious ed to be stricken out; all that was intended by that section from their daily labor, so much overlooked in the opera- was to increase competition among manufacturers by aftions of the Government, because of their little weight in fording them adequate protection. The Senate had rethe political scale, should at least receive one boon from peatedly decided that bills for reducing duties might oriCongress they should receive their working clothes ginate here. At any rate, this question would more profree of tax. This was the intention of successive Con-perly arise upon the third reading of the bill. gresses: it was the performance of this Congress in its Mr. WEBSTER said, the constitutional question must act of the last session; and now, in six short months since be regarded as important; but it was one which could not this boon was granted, before the act has gone into effect, be settled by the Senate. It was purely a question of the very week before the act was to go into effect, the privilege, and the decision of it belonged alone to the boon, so lately granted, is to be snatched away, and the House. The Senate, by the constitution, could not oriday laborer taxed higher than ever; taxed fifty per cent.ginate bills for raising revenue. It was of no consequence upon his working clothes! while gentlemen and ladies are whether the rate of duty were increased or decreased; if to have silks and cambrics, and fine linen, free of any tax it was a money bill, it belonged to the House to originate at all! it. In the House there was a Committee of Ways and Mr. B. animadverted on the reason which was alleged Means organized expressly for such objects. There was no for this extraordinary augmentation of duties in a bill such committee of the Senate. The constitutional provision which was to reduce duties. The reason was candidly was taken from the practice of the British Parliament, expressed on this floor. There were a few small manu- whose usages were well known to the framers of the confactories of these woollens in Connecticut; and unless stitution, with the modification that the Senate might alter these manufactories be protected by an increase of du- and amend money bills, which was denied by the House ties, certain members avow their determination to vote of Commons to that of Lords. This subject belonged exagainst the whole bill! This is the secret-no! not a se- clusively to the House of Representatives. The attempt cret, for it is proclaimed. Two or three little factories to evade the question by contending that the present bill in Connecticut must be protected; and that by imposing was intended for protection and not revenue afforded no an annual tax upon the wearers of these coarse woollens relief, for it was protection by means of revenue. It was of four or five times the value of the fee-simple estate of not the less a money bill from its object being protection. the factories. Better far, as a point of economy and jus- After 1842 this bill would raise the revenue, or it would tice, to purchase them and burn them. The whole Ame-not be raised by existing laws. He was altogether oprican system is to be given up in the year 1842; and why posed to the provisions of this bill; but this objection was impose an annual tax of near five hundred thousand dol- one which it belonged to the House to make. lars, upon the laboring community, to prolong, for a few Mr. CLAY said, the question had been decided again years, a few small branches of that system, when the and again that the Senate might originate a bill of such a whole bill has the axe to the root, and nods to its fall? character. The main object in the bill was not revenue, But, said Mr. B., these manufactories of coarse woollens, but protection. He hoped on this occasion the Senate to be protected by this bill, are not even American ma- would exercise the power it had heretofore done in favor nufactories; they are rather Asiatic establishments in of this bill, which was regarded on all sides as a measure America; for they get their wool from Asia, and not from of conciliation and compromise. He regretted that any America. The importation of this wool is one million objection should have arisen from any quarter to the betwo hundred and fifty thousand pounds weight; it comes nificent action of the Senate upon this distracting subject. chiefly from Smyrna, and costs less than eight cents al He flattered himself that the passage of this bill would VOL. IX-46 SENATE.] The Tariff. [FEB. 23, 1833. again bring the citizens of the various sections of the coun- with that motive. His purpose was protection, and protry together like a band of brothers. Would the Senator tection alone. He deeply regretted the course the Sefrom Massachusetts [Mr. WEBSTER] send his bill forth nator from Massachusetts [Mr. WEBSTER] had chosen to alone without this measure of conciliation? He hoped adopt, who had opposed every thing and proposed nothing. not. He feared such a course would not calm the agita- Mr. WEBSTER would inquire whether it was quite tions which now convulse the nation and threaten the in-true that he had opposed every thing and proposed notegrity of the Union. Mr. CHAMBERS moved an adjournment. Mr. CLAY having ineffectually appealed to the mover to withdraw the motion, called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and, being taken, the motion was negatived by the following vote: thing? As the only mode in which he could place before the Senate his views of the basis upon which measures of conciliation could be safely established, he had, some time past, offered a series of resolutions. The Senator from Kentucky might regard them as nothing; he could only say that they expressed his views on this important YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Chambers, Dallas, subject in his own feeble way. He would have been Dickerson, Dudley, Hendricks, Kane, Knight, Prentiss, most happy to have gone fully into the subject in the disRobinson, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Webster, Wilkins-16. charge of his duty, with as strong a desire for conciliation NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, as any gentleman, had it so pleased the Senate. He Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Forsyth, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, could not give his countenance to the present measure, Holmes, Johnston, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Nau- which he deemed fraught with ruin to some of the most dain, Poindexter, Rives, Robbins, Sprague, Tipton, Tom-important interests in the country. linson, Troup, Tyler, White, Wright--28. The question was then taken on the motion to strike out the second section of the bill, which was negatived by the following vote: YEAS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Dallas, Dudley, Forsyth, Grundy, Kane, King, Robinson, Silsbee, Smith, Webster, White, Wright.--14. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Dickerson, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Rives, Robbins, Seymour, Sprague, Tipton, Tomlinson, Troup, Tyler, Mr. WEBSTER said, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] had spoken of the bill which had been reported from the Judiciary Committee as his bill. It was no more his bill than it was that gentleman's. The Senator from Kentucky had expressed himself to be as much in favor of that bill as he had himself. The only difference between them in this particular was, that he happened to have been a member of the committee from which the bill had been reported. He had no objection to conciliation, which had been so much spoken of. He objected to this measure, not because it was a measure of conciliation, but because Wilkins.--29. it was one the country would never consent to see carried Mr. KANE then moved to amend the bill by adding a out. Upon proper principles, he would go as far in favor ninth section, which provided that nothing contained in of conciliation as any man. The Senator from Kentucky this act should be construed to extend to the present du[Mr. CLAY] says the object of the bill is protection, and ties on lead in pigs, bars, or sheets, leaden shot, red or therefore it is not a bill to raise revenue. Can such con- white lead, dry, or ground in oil, sugar of lead, &c. &c. siderations be gone into in determining the constitutionality of a measure? This is the very doctrine of the South Carolina ordinance. The bill before us illustrates its absurdity. The gentleman from Kentucky supports it from one motive; others from another motive. One, because it secures protection; another, because it destroys protection. One half of its friends vote for it with the sole view to protection; the other half because it only raises revenue. It is impossible to settle grave constitutional questions upon principles which can never be known but to the Searcher of hearts. Mr. CLAY said he had, after much reflection, brought forward this bill as a proposition which would give peace to the country. The Senator from Massachusetts opposed this proposition of peace and harmony, and wished to send forth the measure of force alone. [Mr. WEBSTER said, in an audible tone, the gentleman has no authority for making that assertion.] He Mr. C. said he would not submit to interruption. avowed that his object in framing the bill was to secure that protection to manufacturers which every one foresaw must otherwise be soon swept away. The reduction of protection was so gradual, that before it was essentially impaired, a new arrangement would probably be made. He had been anxious to abolish the duties on raw cotton, upon the ground that a few cargoes from abroad would bring the South here to ask for protection, which would be cheerfully accorded by their consenting to a correspondent protection upon some other article. In proposing and advocating this measure, he stood upon ground from which he defied all assailants. It was the same ground of protection upon which he had heretofore stood. He considered the motives under which a law had passed as a fit subject for consideration. No law could be correctly interpreted without having regard to them. This bill might be constitutionally passed by the Senate, because it was not a bill for revenue; it was not brought forward Mr. SMITH moved to amend the amendment by adding the words "bar iron and castings of iron, gunpowder, cannon, mortars, howitzers, cannon balls, shells for guns and howitzers," &c. Mr. S. said this proposition was to carry out the views of the Secretary of the Treasury, in reference to the protection of munitions of war. After a few words from Mr. CLAY in opposition to the last proposition, and in favor of it from Mr. SMITH and Mr. DICKERSON, the yeas and nays were ordered, and the question being taken, was decided as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Hendricks, Kane, Robinson, Smith, Tipton, Webster, Wilkins, Wright.-14. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Ewing, Foot, Forsyth, Grundy, Holmes, Johnston, King, Knight, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Rives, Robbins, Seymour, Sprague, Tomlinson, Troup, White.-25. So Mr. SMITH's motion was negatived. The question was then taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. KANE, and it was decided as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Dickerson, Dudley, Hendricks, Kane, Robinson, Silsbee, Smith, Tipton; Wilkins, Wright.-12. NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Mr. FORSYTH then moved to strike out the third and sixth sections of the bill, which attempt to bind all future Congresses until the year 1842. The question being taken, was decided as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Forsyth, Kane, Knight, Robinson, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Webster.--13. |