« 上一頁繼續 »
advice not asked for, I would say, that, whenever he attempts to extract his sallies of wit from a record the most awful and instructive that the mind of man can contemplate, he will exhibit himself in bad taste before a christian audience. But if satire was intended, and the gentleman meant both to assail me, and, at the same time, to give us a sample of his magnanimity, he was signally successful. Having east his arrow across the hall at me, he most magnanimously demanded the previous question; which would shut my mouth from this explanation, and from a reply. Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, rose, and observed that in all the debate he had heard nothing new on the question; and, as further debate could be of no use, he moved to lay the motion for reconsideration on the table, and demanded the yeas and nays on the question; but withdrew his motion at the request of Mr. McCOY, who promised to renew it when he had made a few remarks in favor of adhering to the reduction of the salt duty. Having done so, he renewed the motion made by Mr. Thompson; and The question being put on laying the motion to reconsider on the table, it was decided in the negative: yeas, 95 —nays, 102. Mr. POLK made some remarks in favor of the reduction, and explanatory of the history of the duty on salt laid from time to time; and believing that enough had been said, pro and con, and as much as the time of the House ...? afford, he concluded by calling for the previous question. Mr. WAYNE moved a call of the House; but the motion was not sustained. The motion for the previous question was seconded by a majority of the House; and The question being taken by yeas and nays on the call of Mr. CAMBRELENG, it was carried—171 to 25. The main question (being on the motion to reconsider the vote on the amendment reducing the duty on salt) was then put, and decided in the affirmative by the follow*. yeas, 102—nays, 97. he question then recurring on the amendment proposing to reduce the duty on salt, Mr. McDUFFIE modified the amendment so as to defer the reduction to fifteen cents to the 1st of September, 1831, and the reduction to ten cents from and after the 31st of December, 1832. The debate was now renewed, and continued with uni. animation and occasional pungency during several Ours, o Messrs. CAMBRELENG, DRAYTON, BARRINGER, ANGEL, SEMMES, CRAIG, of Virginia, JENNINGS, WILDE, and LEA advocated the amendment, and the propriety of reducing the duty; and Messrs. SPENCER, of New York, MALLARY, STORRS, of New York, IRWIN, of Ohio, TEST, DAVIS, of Massachusetts, and REED opposed the amendment for various reasons; some, because they were opposed to the reduction as impolitic, and would not diminish the price to the consumer; others, that it was o connected with this bill; others, that it would put the bill itself in jeopardy, though they were not opposed to the repeal of the duty, if it were an unconnected proposition. For the reason last mentioned, Messrs. RAMSEY and MILLER stated they should vote . against the amendment, although they yesterday voted or it. [The following were the remarks of Messrs. ANGEL and o Mr. ANGEL said, he must crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments, while he would state briefly the reasons which would govern his vote on this occasion. I am [said Mr. A.] the more disposed to do this, because I am constrained to differ from many of my colleagues; those with whom I have generally acted, whom I greatly esteem
and for whose judgments, and opinions I entertain the greatest respect. Under these circumstances, my course may seem singular to some, and I therefore desire to state the reasons which not only induce, but oblige me to take it. My first objection rests upon general principles. The real, absolute needssaries of life ought not to be taxed, unless there be some strong and urgent necessity for it; and then no longer than the necessity for the tax continues. Here the tax on salt is unnecessary; the revenue is abundant without it. Salt is an absolute, natural, and real necessary of lifeother things may, from use, be thought necessary, as tea, coffee, sugar; but salt is, in its nature, a real necessary to life—and one without which life and health eannot be maintained. It is absolutely necessary to animal life and health. Horses, cattle, and sheep must be fed with it; and immense numbers of them die yearly for the want of a sufficient quantity of it. On such an article, is it proper then, to retain a duty of twenty cents on a bushelf More salt should be used: more would be used if it was cheaper, and it should be made as cheap as possible, by freeing it from taxation. - The poor man, for himself, his wife, and his children, must consume of salt, and pay of his tax, as much as the rich man, for himself, his wife, and children—and as the poor man's family is often the most numerous, he must pay the most of the tax. You make him pay the more, exactly in proportion as he is less able than the rich man. This is contrary to all principle. Taxes should be levied on men according to their ability to o Is it too much to relieve the poor man, by reducing this tax at first to fifteen, and afterwards to ten cents on a bushel # I do not say these things to court popularity with the poor. I say them because eternal justice proclaims them to be right, whether they be popular or unpopular. - A few days since, we passed a bill reducing the duties on tea and coffee, because these are supposed to have become necessaries, and are used by the poor as well as by the rich. There were only six votes against that bill; and will any gentleman tell me that salt is less a necessary than tea, coffee, or cocoa, or less consumed by the poor On principle, therefore, salt, as a natural necessary of life, ought not to have been taxed twenty cents a bushel, or two or three times as much as its foreign cost; and the reduction of the tax to ten cents a bushel is but slow and partial justice to the public, as the tax will still be equal to the expense of making a bushel of salt at the Salina, or any good salt works. 3. is said that the reduction of this salt tax will be a serious injury to the State from which I come. If I believed this, I would be the last man to vote for it. I can have no inducement to wrong that State—my home is there—my friends are there—all my interest and all my attachments are there—and I can only wish her prosperity. I hope to show, as I am satisfied is the fact, that the State cannot lose by the reduction of this tax, which will profit every citizen of that State. At present, New York herself levies an excise duty of twelve and a half cents on every bushel of salt manufactured at the salt works in that State. My colleagues allege that, in this manner, the State, by a tax upon her citizens, raises a revenue of about one hundred and fifty-seven thousand dollars towards her canal fund: that, if the United States reduce their duty on imported salt to ten cents a bushel, the State, in order to save the manufacturer, will be obliged to reduce her duty on domestic salt, and, instead of this revenue, impose a direct tax to pay her canal debt. Every part of this deserves examination. If the United States reduce the duty on this article, it will save exactly so much to every citizen who uses foreign salt; and the State will undoubtedly amend her laws and constitution so as to reduce her tax on salt, which will be a saving to that amount to every citizen who uses domestic salt.
If by these means the caual fund loses one hundred and fifty-seven thousand dollars, do not the citizens of the State gain it by their exemption from the payment of the tax? Because, after all, very little of this salt tax is collected from the citizens of other States. Is it not nearly all paid by the citizens of New York? Do they not conSume more than nine-tenths of all the salt manufactured in the State? What can a State gain by taking from the citizen his earnings and property by taxation? When gentleman talk of enriching the State by taxing the peo#. do they think that taxes do not make the people poor. f the salt tax costs the people who pay it nothing, by increasing it four or five fold, you might, according to their o make the State very .# and pay off the canal debt in a few years without injury to any body. Let us look at the other side of the picture-take away the tax, the doing of which, gentlemen say, will impover. ish the State, and then see what will be the condition of the citizens. . If the State loses one hundred and fifty-se: yen thousand dollars by the abolition of the tax, it as cer. tainly follows that the citizens gain the same amount. The State is the corporation—the citizens are its members; and when the members are required to pay a sum for the common. benefit, the share required of each should be in proportion to his amount of stock in the company. This is plain; it is every day's practice in the pecuniary regula. tions of corporate bodies; and what Government would eyer charter a company with authority to compel the holder of one share to pay as high a tax as he who holds twenty shares? This is the operation of the present salt tax. The poor man not worth a dollar, pays as much towards its aggregate amount as the wealthiest man amongst us. If, as is conceded on all hands, the State must and will reduce her salt tax, if the United States reduce theirs, how can the manufacturer be injured by it? . Foreign salt will cost abroad some six or ten cents; to this there must be added freight, insurance, and importers' profit, and the United States duty will still remain ten cents. The price of domestic salt, free from the State tax would be only ten cents or less at the salt works. It is therefore utterly impossible that the foreign salt should ever compete with the domestie salt, unless the State should obstinately refuse to relieve its citizens from this burden—and there is not the least foundation for supposing that the State would dela to perform a duty so agreeable and profitable to her citi. zens. If the State tax on salt was reduced, (as it would immediately be in effect, and shortly in form) the salt manufacturers could sell at the works for ten cents a bushel, instead of the present price of twenty-two and a half cents, including the State tax. More of it would be carried east, nnd sold in Vermont, and in the Hudson river and Mohawk counties—more would go west on the canal, and find a market, in west Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Canada —more would go north, on the canal to Oswego, and find a market in our northern counties and in Canada. In this manner, the salt market for our manufacturer would be enlarged, and his profits increased ; while the price to consumers would be reduced, and the increase of transportation of the salt, and of the pay for it on the canals, would by the increase of tolls go far towards remunerating the canal fund for the loss it would sustain by a reduction of the salt duty. At the time the constitution of our State was amended, and this salt tax was pledged to the canal fund, the canals were unfinished; and I do not war with the convention for their endeavors to secure the credit of the State. Still the people, many of them, objected to the constitution— they demurred to the salt tax. At that time I was with them ; and can speak of the opinions of many in the western part of the State, from personal observation. The constitution was presented as a whole, and the people were obliged to adopt it as a whole, or reject it altogether. It
contained many provisions which they desired to secure; they wished to abolish the old council of appointment, to reform the judiciary, and to extend the right of suffrage. They were told, and regarded it as a pledge, or promise, that the canals would go on successfully, soon be completed, and the tolls would be more than sufficient to extinguish the debt; and that, as soon as a little experience could be had on the subject, this salt tax should be reduced or repealed. They believed this, and adopted the constitution; but if they had been told that this tax must be perpetual, they would have ... the tax and constitution together. If this tax of twelve and a hulf cents on a bushel of salt, in favor of the canal fund, had been the only amendment proposed to the constitution, would not the people, I ask my colleague, have rejected it by an almost unanimous vote? The State salt tax, like the United States salt tax, is very unequal and unjust—a repeal or reduction of both is called for by the interest of the people. The New York canal debt is the debt of the whole State. The salt tax there is thrown into the canal fund to pay that debt. But the State salt tax is not paid by all the people of the State, but only by about two-thirds of them. Of these, many are obliged to pay who use the canals but little, and who are rather injured than benefited by them. The other third of the population of the State consumes imported salt; pays nothing into the canal fund; but }. twenty cents a §. on salt to the United States. Thus the people of that State are taxed, (two-thirds of them,) say one hundred and fifty thousand dollars towards the canal fund: and to enable the State to tax these two-thirds to that amount, my colleague would compel the other third to o twenty cents on every bushel of salt they consume, into the treasury, to be laid out in internal improvements in other States. Here is a double taxation; and one part of the State is to be employed as the instrument to fix this tax on the other, j'. joining, as I think they should, to reduce both taxes. If the tax were reduced, all would get their salt cheaper than they now do. If the United States tax on salt be reduced ten cents, that of the State will follow, and every consumer will obtain his salt ten cents cheaper than he would if the tax were continued. And yet I am told that the people of New York will be injured by reducing their taxes! I have yet to learn that men grow rich by being taxed, or that they become wealthy by having their money taken from them. I have heard much said upon this floor in favor of heavy taxation—I have heard gentlemen say that it would replenish the stores and increase the wealth of the country; that the individuals composing the nation would be enriched and rendered happy by it. It would seem from their doctrine that an extravagant system of taxation was a kind of curmucopia provided by the magic of Government, to supply the wants and gratify the avarice of every class of citizens. Sir, I cannot understand this kind of logic; but when I am brought to believe as those gentlemen do, then I will vote with them, and not before. I have spent my days with the people of New York, and will never injure them. I know they do not deserve it. They have borne burdens without murmur. Can any man complain that I injure him, when I wish to reduce his taxes Sir, I represent a farming district. My colleague [Mr. Stoaks] seemed to think that the gentleman from New York [Mr. ...l. knew nothing about the interests of the agriculturist, because he comes from a city. I am, in part, a farmer myself—I was brought up at the plough—I know the worth of a dollar, for I have labored with my hands to earn it. Through life my associations have been with those who procured their livelihood by honest labor—my life has been spent with a people who earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, and I know and understand their feelings and their interests. M constituents are industrious farmers—they pursue the pat
of honesty, and avoid all juggling speculations. They pay their debts and their taxes too; and they well know what labor it costs to meet all the exactions upon them. Such are the men for whom I go, and such are the men whose interests should be protected—and I know of no better way to protect them, than to relieve them, if I can, from this taxation. This State salt tax is peculiarly oppressive upon my district. That district can use the canals but very little, and they are believed rather to have injured than benefited it. Be this as it may, such is the opinion of many good judges of the value of property; and it is certain that many business men have been drawn from that county to the canals, with considerable capital; and that the prices of real estate, and other articles in the market, have greatly depreciated. Meanwhile, that district, which is a single county, consumes more than thirty-five thousand bushels of domestic salt, and thus pays into the canal fund a tax of from four thousand dollars to six thousand dollars a year; and at the same time every citizen of the county who transports any one article on the canal, must pay as great tolls as those who, residing elsewhere, either enjoy greater benefits from the canal, or pay nothing of this salt tax. My constituents are willing to pay any rate of tolls necessary to the canal fund, so far as they use the canal—they are willing to pay for whatever they use; but it is unjust to tax them with burdens which, though beneficial to others, are only injurious to themselves. And I wish to reduce the United States tax on salt, as the only and best means of procuring that reduction of the State duty on salt, which our agricultural and laboring population every where desire and deserve. But, sir, my colleague, [Mr. StoRRs] to deter the New York delegation from voting for the reduction of this salt tax, declares that that reduction will drive the State of New York to a land tax, to supply the place of this salt tax to the canal fund. What an odious argument ' What is this but to say to the citizens of the State of New York, if you rid yourselves of the salt tax, the yoke of a land tax shall be fixed on your necks? Shall I use such an insulting argument to the citizens of my districts Shall any man say to them, you shall bear either a salt tax or a land tax? Sir, they ought to bear neither. Ånd, sir, is it true—is there a shadow of truth in it, that the loss of this salt tax will ruin the great State of New York, and drive her to a land tax to support the Erie and Champlain canals: These are the best canals in America; are located on the easiest and cheapest routes—connect the most extensive natural navigations on this whole vast continent, traverse the most fertile districts, and bear on their bosoms the industry and products of every clime, and of millions of people. After boasting, as he did, a few days since, of the utility and profits of these the most use. ful works of the age, shall he tell us, and ask us to believe him, that these canals, such as I have described them, caunot support and pay for themselves; that they are so lame, impotent, and feeble, that the loss of this excise of twelve and a half cents on a bushel of salt, extorted alike from the rich and the poor, will force New York to burden, her citizens with a land tax to support them What, sir, a direct tax to support the best canals in the world! Is this true? How does it tally with that gentleman's arguments in favor of internal improvements? Did he not, a few days since, entertain us with a discourse to prove how very profitable these works are, and how soon they would pay for themselves? And now, forsooth, the State of New York is to be ruined by the reduction of the tax on foreign salt to ten cents, which still leaves the enormous duty of one hundred per cent on that necessary article of life. Butlet me quiet the gentleman's unhappy alarms. He has himself hinted at the manner in which, if the State lose the salt tax, it can easily, and without injustice, supply the deficiency of the canal fund. That gentleman has told us
that, if the account should now be taken between the New York canals and western Vermont, western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, they would be found indebted to New York for the reduction which her canals have effected in their transportation, “thousands, and hundreds of thousands.” Yes, sir, I appeal to every honest man, let him reside where he may, ought not they who enjoy the benefits of these canals to pay for their construction and repair! Would any man o: of the banquet, and meanly skulk off and leave others to pay the bill? If Vermont, Pennsyl. vania, Ohio, and Michigan have had, and will forever have, profits, “thousands, and hundreds of thousands,” as my colleague [Mr. Stokes] says, in their cheaper transportation, would they—could they decline such a moderate increase of the canal tolls as would supply this deficiency, in the event of their being any? I think they could not—my constituents will freely pay the increased tolls—it would be a pitiful increase. The tolls are now more than eight hundred thousand dollars, and an increase of one dollar and fifty cents on each hundred dollars of the present tolls would replenish the fund. For these reasons, and others which I cannot now detail, I am of opinion that the salt tax of the United States ought to be reduced, as an act of justice and sound policy to all the citizens of the United States. I believe, too, it will lead to a reduction of the New York State excise on salt, beneficial to all the consumers of domestic salt manufaetured in that State, and ultimately extending the market for that article, and, therefore, beneficial to the manufacturers of it. Some believe that to tax is the best mode to improve
the wealth and riches of men; but I believe taxes to be the
worst enemies to industry. A tax which indiscriminately presses upon the weak and the strong; which adds to the miseries of poverty; which takes from the food of the hungry, and diminishes the scanty stores of the needy; which lays the widow and the orphan under contribution, and §. upon the substance of the halt, the maimed, and the lind, is unworthy of the countenance of a free and liberal Government. o, small sum of twenty cents, exacted by the Government of the citizen, as the price of his license to use a bushel of salt, may appear trifling and of little consequence to gentlemen enjoying high salaries, or drawing ample wages in the service of the Government; but to the poor laborer, whose wages are less than fifty cents per day, this tax is onerous, and he feels and groans under the weight of it. I am not the friend of useless taxation, and, so long as I enjoy a seat upon this floor, it shall not receive my support. These are my sentiments, and I should be a hypocrite if I concealed them. Popular or unpopular, they have their source in an honest conviction of their rectitude. Let them put me up, or put me down, I will abide by them. Mr. LEA said he did not rise to make a speech, but to ask for the reading of two letters, which he had in his hand, contained in a document reported to this House by the Secretary of the Treasury during the present session of Congress. These letters are from gentlemen of first respectabili3. one of them interested in the salt works referred to, and the other intimately acquainted with those concerns. They speak of the salt works on Holston river, in Virginia, and give us some facts worthy of our attention, when honorable gentlemen tell us here that the present duty of twenty cents a bushel on foreign salt is necessary to protect our domestie manufactures, and even argue gravely that salt is cheaper on account of the duty. We are told that some salt works will be destroyed if the duty should be repealed. And what of that If they cannot make as cheap as others, let them go. Must the whole community bear a grievous tax, in order to keep up a few dull and unprofitable salt works, when there are others in the country, that could make more
* Francis Smith, Esq. Charles C, Johnston, Esq.
than enough at half the amount of the present duty : What do these letters tell us? One of them says salt is made at about twenty-five cents a bushel, and might be made at twelve and a half; the other says it is made at sixteen or seventeen cents, and might be made for six and a fourth, and the quantity might be extended to meet any demand of the whole Union. One of the letters says the price, at the works, has been for several years, one dollar for fifty pounds ! I live in a country su #. from this source, and know the cost of this same salt as it progresses down the rivers Holston and Tennessee, increasing from one dollar to one and a half and two dollars a bushel of fifty pounds, until competition of foreign and other domestic salt, below the Muscle shoals, reduces the price to sixty-two and a half cents, little more than half the price where it started? Is this no monopoly? Do these works need a protecting duty Must they have a bounty of twenty cents duty imposed on foreign salt, to keep it from interfering with the market, in order that these manufacturers may be able to sell at a living price But the friends of the protecting system seem alarmed lest the reduction of this duty should endanger other parts of the tariff Aye, indeed, is it all of a piece And are these its principles and this a specimen of the whole I am if. hear gentlemen tell us that this odious salt tax is a true test of the “American system,” and let them refuse to repeal this duty, and abide that test. I ask that the letters be read. The question at length being put on the amendment, it wns negatived by the following vote: yeas, 98—nays, 102. So the amendment was rejected. The question then recurring on the substitute to the original bill agreed to in Committee of the Whole, Mr. POLK called for a division of the question, so as to leave for separate decision the section containing the amendment respecting the duty on iron, offered in Committee of the Whole by Messrs. Scott and HowARD; and, after some explanatory remarks by Mr. P. and some passages between him and Mr. STERIGERE on a point of order, The question was put on all the sections of the substitute, excepting that above mentioned, and agreed to by yeas and nays: yeas, 185—nays, 11. The question then came up on the amendment of Mr. Scort, as amended by the proviso of Mr. Howard. Mr. SCOTT defended his amendment against some objections of Mr. Polk. Mr. WICKLIFFE suggested, that, instead of calling the yeas and nays on both branches of the amendment, it would save time if Mr. Scort would move to strike out Mr. HowARD's proviso. Mr. BUCHANAN advised his colleague, to adopt this course, for the reason, also, that, by giving up a part, he would be more likely to obtain the other portion of the amendment. Mr. SCOTT yielded to the suggestion, and moved to strike from the amendment the proviso adopted in committee, on the motion of Mr. Howard. Mr. BROWN opposed making the distinction; and Mr. WAYNE advocated Mr. Howard's proviso, and opposed the motion to strike it out. he question being put on striking out the proviso, it was negatived by yeas and nays: yeas, 46—nays, 140. Mr. CHILTON moved to include in the amendment imported iron “used for axes, hoes, or ploughs, or for any other purpose of agriculture," and, in support of his motion, said as follows: Mr. C. remarked that the principles of justice must, as he conceived, belong to one of two classes, either such as were natural and inflexible, being founded in the nature of things, or such as rest upon a civil compact. Now, sir, [said Mr. C.4 I affirm that the principles in this "bill involve specifically the distinction I have just alluded to. In order to test them, I propose these two questions Vol. VI.-128.
to the House: Is it in the power of the Congress of the United States to impose burdens upon their fellow-citizens, and thereby abridge all their pleasures and curtail the fruits of their industry, on mere principles of natural justice? Or have they this power from the construction of an instrument agreed to by the States of this Union, and conferring such a power None will contend, I presume, that the authority is derived from a natural right. Sir, the very beasts have a right to rove over the plain, to seek for pasture wherever they can find it, and drink of every brook they meet in their way; and are not men by nature as free as they Surely, sir. And has, then, a collection of men, unauthorized by me, a right to put their hands in my pocket, and take my money, to sustain another who has no just claim to the fruit of my toil They have not. It is apparent, then, that as this is not a natural . if it exists at all, it must be acquired. In order to judge whether it has been conferred upon Congress or not, our only resort must be to the charter agreed on by the States, and there we shall see how far this power of taxation is carried. The question is, wbat power has Congress on this subject by the Constitution of the United States? It is far from my intention to oppose any constitutional power, and I do believe that the power to levy taxes with a view to revenue is a constitutional power. Even the much-abused States of North and South Carolina, and Georgia, will not hesitate to make the same admission. They all admit your wer to lay taxes with a view to replenish the treasury. ut what is the fact now I say you have usurped a power never conferred upon you, and which you cannot claim as a natural right—the power of grinding the face of the poor for the benefit of the rich. Regardless of the cries of the unprotected and helpless, you hold over them, without mercy, the iron rod of the oppressor. This, in my opinion, involves the whole principle of your constitutional right, and touches especially a question in relation to the West, which must utterly forbid me to vote for it. I here publicly avow that I believe this House has no power under the constitution to prosecute what is called the protecting system; in other words, that it has no power, to thrust its hands into a thousand pockets for the purpose of keeping up the fullness and splendor of one. Sir, permit me to ask what was originally the object of the confederation of these States. Was it that the isolated interest of one single State should predominate over that of all the rest? Surely not. The interests of these States are exceedingly diversified. Their inhabitants are in very different situations, engaged in different pursuits, inhabiting a diversity of climate and of soil. Some parts of our country abound in hemp, others in iron, others in cotton, others in sugar cane, and you never can fix on a system of taxation in which all will agree, unless it is done under the immediate pressure of an existing war, when sectional interests are forgotten, and all burn with a noble zeal to defend the stars and stripes of the national banner, The great object of the confederation was to provide for the general defence and common welfare. It never was intended that the majority should oppress and despoil the minority. We have in Kentucky a constitution which guaranties to every individual certain rights as being unalienable, and I, as an American citizen, have a claim to these rights, and may insist upon them in my own case, though all the rest of my fellow-citizens should have given them up. For what were constitutions made or why do we contend with so much earnestness on this floor, as to their true intent and meaning? Surely the object of them is to protect all. The intention was, that all should equally contribute to the common defence. Was it the object of our Government that the poor shall fight, and the rich roll in luxury? Sir, the poor man cannot get a substitute; he must turn out in his own person; and I know some poor men who in the last war left behind them their wives, children, friends, home, and all they held
dear, for sixty dollars. What, sir, in a time of profound ce, shall we be enacting a general tariff of duties? hat I always advocated the doctrine of putting an end to taxes and burdens the moment they ceased to be of absolute necessity, will be recollected by all who have done me the honor to listen whenever I have raised my voice on this floor. I have repeatedly argued in favor of reducing the tax upon salt; and I am now equally opposed to any increase of the tax upon iron. It .. readily be discovered that iron presents as good a subject for monopoly as salt. Every farmer must have it. It enters into the composi. tion of his knife and fork, of his axe, his plough, his hoe, his harrow, his sickle, his scythe, his ox-chain; in a word, of all the tools and implements by which he is able to turn the stubborn glebe, to reap down his fields, and to subdue the soil. He must have it, or starve. Now, sir, why shall we ive relief on this subject to the wealthy gentlemen who orm a railroad company, and deny it to the humble corn and tobacco ...? ir, I cannot fail to notice an argu: ment on which great stress is laid, that this billis intended solely and exclusively to enforce the collection of the revenue as it was laid by the tariff bill of 1828, and not to lay any additional duty. No alteration was to be made. The duties were to be neither increased nor diminished. The humble individual who had had the price upon his salt increased from twenty-five cents to one dollar and fifty cents, was to be joy disregarded. Now, sir, in my district, which consists of twelve counties, there is not one establishment for the manufacture of salt, while there are several manufactories of iron. When, then, I see a bill before me, which grants no relief on a prime necessary of life, but diminishes the duty on an article which all admit to be profitable, can any man expect me to vote for it? Besides, sir, the people of the United States, when this administration came into power, looked with fond anticipation to this epoch as one in which all unnecessary offices were to be dispensed with, and no new offices were to be created. Yet, what is provided by this bill? A large number of new offices are created, with heavy salaries, for the purpose of guarding against frauds ! What does this prove to It is admitted that, before 1828, the revenue derived from duties exceeded the amount of what it is at resent. In the name of common sense, then, will any man say that to collect less revenue more officers are needed ! I insist that the general principle of the system is wrong. Taxes ought never to be laid except for the general defence. This thing of taxing some for the protection of oth. ers, I am utterly against. It is calculated to rob one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine persons, in order to sustain the splendor and gratify the cupidity of one monopolist or manufacturer. Contrast the number of manufacturers with the amount of the population of the United States, and you will find the disproportion as striking as any contrast that can exist upon earth. And shall we tax all these for the purpose of building ap one or two If we may tax the people for the protection of manufactures, why may we not for the protectiou of agriculture ? The two interests are #o ; and, on the same principle, we may give encouragement to both. But we ought not to encourage either at the expense of its neighbor. Suppose me settled on a farm which I manage badly; my next neighbor is prudent and industrious, and he raises one thousand bushels of Indian corn, while I make three hundred bushels of wheat. Shall I go to the county court or legislature, and say, I pray you to lay a duty of twenty or thirty cents per bushel on my neighbor's corn, to enable me to monopolize the market; Sir, iron, salt, wheat, and corn are in one respect all alike, they are all necessaries of life; and is there a man in these United States whose sense does not revolt at such an idea # Shall we tax the poor man because he happens to be in the neighborhood of a nabobo. The article of salt is a proof of this. Before 1828, salt in my district was sold at twenty-five cents
per bushel. It increased little by little, till it is now from one dollar and twenty-five cents to one dollar and fifty cents. Why? Not from any scarcity of the article, but from the effect of an awful monopoly, which is grinding the poor literally to death. . I hope the House will look into that subject. The question on this bill is finally to settle the hopes of the South and the West. I wish it understood by my constituents. I know that these considerations some. times have little weight here, but it may open the eyes of some who have been deceived. I acknowledge the power of this Government to levy duties for all just purposes of revenue, and, in time of war, to lay direct taxes; but I eat. sider a direct tax as more just than this. One individua may abound in cash, and yet bear searce any burden: while another has a wife and a numerous family of children all, of course, consumers of salt. Sir, look at the effect to this system. What is it ! Your peace aud happiness was lately disturbed by the rude footsteps of hostile invaders and the calamities of war. This very spot where we now sit calmly consulting for the public good, was then polluted by the foot of the enemy. The effect was that the South and the West advanced like brothers at your call : they marched from their homes to your defence, and fough their way, not literally but figuratively, through seas of blood. #. the time of danger, we fought, and bled, and fell side by side. This shows the deep cause of complain which alone could rouse the South to resistance. This bil might with propriety be entitled a bill for the oppressio of the South. On this ground I oppose it. But if it can be so shaped as to do no more than enforce the reven laws, I will vote in its favor. [M. C. added a few words more, which were lost by th reporter.] He concluded }. asking for the yeas and nays on ho amendment, but they were not granted, and the amend ment was negatived—yeas, 57. Mr. DRAYTON then moved to add to the amendmen. an admendment, providing for a repeal, after Decembe next, of the duty laid on imported slates by the tariff of 1828, and he exhibited a number of reasons and several facts in support of his amendment. Mr. BUCHANAN made a statement of facts relative to the abundant supply of slates which Pennsylvania fit nished, to show the inexpediency of the amendment. Mr. GARSON j to Mr. B., and controverted the propriety of allowing a profit of three hundred per cent to the workers of slate in the United States, and Mr HUNT and Mr. IHRIE sustained the statement of Mr. B. to show the capacity of the country to supply plenty of slate, but the business could not be prosecuted without the protecting duty. Mr. DRAYTON replied to all the objections, to show that the duty was onerous and improper. The question being then put, the amendment was re jected—yeas, 55. Mr. TUCKER rose to move an amendment, in which he said he was in earnest; it was, that, after June next the duty on molasses be reduced to five cents a gallon He confessed that he had, when the noxious tariff law of 1825 was before the House, voted for the high duty on molasses, in hopes of killing the bill; he thought be could make good come out of evil, but he was deceived. He did not think the friends of that bill would swallow the molasses, but he was disappointed. As he, however, had aided to put on the duty, he now, wished to try to take it ofs, and É. asked for the yeas and mays on the question but they were refused by the House; and The amendment was negatived, without a division Mr. DRAYTON then moved that, after the 30th of June next, the same duty now imposed on a ton of slates be im’ posed on one thousand slates, for réasons which he explain
ed; but the motion was negatived. The question was then put on thefamendment of Mr