LIBRARY 
 
 REPORT 
 
 A 000810802 9 
 
 A COMMITTEE OF THE CITIZENS 
 
 BOSTON AND VICINITY, 
 
 OPPOSED TO 
 
 A FURTHER INCREASE OF DUTIES 
 
 ON 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 FROM THE PRESS OF NATHAN HALE. 
 
 No. 6, Congress Street. 
 
 1827.
 
 At an adjourned meeting of the Citizens of Boston, assembled 
 to take into consideration the proposed increase of duties, 
 especially upon Woollen Goods, the Committee heretofore 
 appointed, having had the subject under consideration, ask 
 leave to submit the following 
 
 REPORT : 
 
 THAT they have had various meetings upon the subject referred to them, 
 and, as far as their means of information would permit, have collected a 
 variety of facts, and taken such views of the subject, as appeared to them 
 best calculated to illustrate the impolicy and injustice of any further in- 
 crease of the existing burthensome duties on imported articles, and espe* 
 cially the injurious consequences to the community at large, of further du- 
 ties on imported Woollen Goods. These facts, views and illustrations are 
 embodied in the form of a more extended report, which is herewith sub- 
 mitted. Your Committee are aware of the peculiarly difficult position, in 
 which this question is now placed, by the accidental, if not designed con- 
 nexion of this subject, under the specious name of the American System, 
 with certain controverted political questions, between which and that sys- 
 tem, your Committee believe there is no natural or necessary relation. On 
 this ground, and considering how widely many of the citizens of the United 
 States are divided upon those questions, and the injurious influence which 
 party zeal and political prejudice are likely to exert upon a question which 
 ought to be dispassionately considered and decided upon its own merits, 
 your Committee have hesitated in deciding whether it is expedient at the 
 present time to bring the subject before the public. But considering the 
 importance at all times of establishing just and sound principles of general 
 policy, of counteracting those erroneous impressions, which might be made 
 by misrepresentations often repeated and never questioned or corrected, 
 of endeavouring to enlighten the public mind to the true state of the ques- 
 tion, and as far as can be done by collecting and presenting useful informa- 
 tion, to give a right tone to public opinion and a right direction to public 
 measures, without regard to the question, what men shall preside or what 
 party shall predominate in the councils of the nation ; and considering 
 also the importance of shewing that the general voice of New England is 
 not in favour of the restrictive and prohibitory system, your Committee
 
 IV 
 
 have thought it advisible at least, that a full, deliberate and dispassionate 
 exhibition of the views of those opposed to that system, should be brought 
 before the public, at the present time ; and that a temperate Memorial, 
 expressive of these views, should be laid before Congress at the ensuing 
 season. They have therefore prepared the draft of a Memorial for that 
 purpose, which is herewith submitted. In conclusion, they respectfully 
 recommend the adoption of the following Resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, That in the present state of the Agriculture, Manufactures 
 and Commerce of the United States, it would be unjust, impolitic, and in- 
 consistent with the best interests of the community, to impose further and 
 higher duties upon imported articles generally, and more particularly upon 
 imported Woollen Goods. 
 
 Resolved, That a Memorial to Congress, expressive of these views, be 
 submitted to those citizens who concur in them, for their signature ; and 
 that the Committee heretofore appointed, be requested to circulate such 
 Memorial, and, to cause the same, when signed, to be presented. 
 
 Resolved, That the more extended Report herewith presented, be print- 
 ed under the direction of the same Committee, for the use of the members 
 of this meeting, and for the information of the citizens generally, and that 
 the Committee cause the same to be distributed in such manner as they 
 may judge best calculated to promote the views of this meeting. 
 
 Which is respectfully submitted by the Committee. 
 
 NATHANIEL GODDARD, 
 LEMUEL SHAW, 
 ISAAC WINSLOW, 
 WILLIAM GODDARD, 
 ENOCH SILSBY, 
 THOMAS W. WARD, 
 EDWARD CRUFT, 
 
 LOT WHEELWRIGHT, 
 
 I COMMITTEE. 
 
 HENRY LEE, 
 R. D. SHEPHERD, 
 SAMUEL SWETT, 
 WILLIAM FOSTER, 
 DANIEL P. PARKER, 
 JOSEPH BAKER, 
 SAMUEL C. GRAY, 
 This Report was unanimously adopted by the meeting-. 
 
 Voted, That the Committee be requested to carry the above Resolutions into effect, and t 
 correspond with gentlemen in other parts of the country, inviting their co-operation. 
 
 NATHANIEL GODDARD, Chairman. 
 WILLIAM HALES, Secretary. 
 Boston, November 30, 1827.
 
 REPORT. 
 
 Your Committee beg leave to report, that in the duty assigned 
 them they have thought proper to confine their attention, (as the best 
 means of accomplishing the end of their appointment,) to an examina- 
 tion of the claims of the Manufacturers, to the contemplated increase 
 of the duties on woollens, and the effects which may be expected to. 
 follow, on the attainment of that object. We are not unmindful, 
 that what we are about to say, may lay us open to those charges, 
 which are constantly made, either directly or by implication, agailfst 
 all the opponents of the prohibitory system, as enemies to domestic 
 industry,* hostile to the " American System," as influenced by 
 a spirit of faction towards the government and f " united with 
 others in endeavours to defeat the re-election of the present chief 
 Magistrate." We shall not however be deterred on that account, 
 from expressing our views on this subject, in the hope, if we do 
 nothing more, of rescuing ourselves from the imputation of being 
 classed among the supporters of an unwise and unjust policy. We 
 deny however in the most distinct and unreserved manner any such 
 motives, which may be attributed to us. The subject we are about to 
 discuss, has in reality no connection whatever, with the question to 
 which we have alluded, and we regret, that party men for purposes 
 of their own, and in utter disregard to the interests of their immedi- 
 ate constituents, and still more so, to the national peace and welfare, 
 should have mingled them together. The success or failure of the 
 candidate for the Presidency, may be of great moment to the coun- 
 try, and still greater, to those partizans whose political fortunes are 
 depending on that event ; but to the nation at large, the evil or the 
 good, which may arise out of the choice of the one, or the rejection 
 of the other, can only be of a temporary and limited importance com- 
 pared with the wise and just disposition of a question on which. 
 our whole foreign and domestic policy turns, and which may, in 
 its consequences, affect the stability and happiness of the union,, 
 for aa;es to come. W r e know there are many, who, agreeing with us,, 
 in our general views of the subject, will say we over-rate its impor- 
 
 * Boston Circular Committee Woollen Manufacturers. Nov. lltli, 1826. 
 t Clay's Letter to Maysvillc Committee. July 4lh, 1827. 
 1
 
 6 
 
 tance, but they come to this conclusion we think, because they will 
 not examine the nature and present state of the question, and its fu- 
 ture consequences. 
 
 We deny also, any thing like hostility to the manufacturing inter- 
 ests. It would indeed evince a most extraordinary degree of folly, 
 if any one in this quarter, should entertain such a sentiment towards 
 an interest, which in all its branches involves such a vast amount of 
 capital and labour, as to affect the welfare of every man in the com- 
 munity, whatever may be his condition, or circumstances ; and it 
 would be still more absurd to imagine such feelings should exist, in a 
 committee, part of whom are themselves manufacturers, and they 
 again representing an assembly containing some of the most wealthy 
 and intelligent of that class. It is not then so much a question of be- 
 ing friendly or unfriendly to manufactures, as a question of resisting 
 absurd and unjust expedients for promoting them. We not only dis- 
 avow all unfriendly feelings to manufactures, but we profess not to 
 yield to the most zealous of their advocates, in an estimate of the 
 benefits which may be anticipated from their extension and success. 
 ~^3JLe consider them as furnishing one of the great staple employments 
 forme skill, capital and labour of New England, standing at this mo- 
 ment second in importance to agriculture, but prospectively of still 
 greater consequence ; and of all the various branches of them, we 
 deem that of woollens the most advantageous, first, because of its 
 magnitude again, because in comparison with cottons and many 
 others, it depends more on manual labour, of which compared with 
 other sections of the country we have a superfluity. Still more, as it 
 promotes the growth of a staple, peculiarly suited to the soil of New 
 England. It is on that very account, we are desirous of seeing this 
 manufacture placed on a solid and permanent footing to see it ex- 
 tend and flourish, not however by legislative contrivances, but by that 
 increase of skill and capital, which we are fast attaining, and the 
 want of which, as we conceive, now constitutes the only obstacle to 
 its success, under a lower duty than it now enjoys. We repeat, 
 we desire most earnestly, that woollen and all other manufactures 
 may succeed, not by violent unwholesome stimulants, which serve 
 rather to exhaust, than nourish them, not by a system of excessive 
 and unjust taxation, which many of the most intelligent manufacturers 
 themselves neither think just nor necessary, but by such reasonable 
 encouragement as will be cheerfully borne, in those sections of the 
 country not immediately benefitted by them. We are anxious to see 
 manufactures placed on that ground, which will cause them to be 
 held in equal favour, with all the other great branches of industry, 
 and like them to rest on the skill and industry of those who are en- 
 gaged in those pursuits, and not on governmental bounties, which im- 
 pose heavy burdens on one portion of the nation, for the benefit of 
 another, and which will serve to make the very name of domestic 
 manufactures, hateful to those on whom we must chiefly depend for 
 their consumption, and support.
 
 This then is a question of national policy, and stands disconnected 
 in our minds, from all considerations of parties. It has no relation to 
 the great question, which now divides the country, and must be argued 
 and settled on its own merits, without reference to any thing but the 
 general welfare. 
 
 It is, as all must admit, a question of great moment in itself, more 
 especially to the poor and middling ranks, as affecting essentially the 
 cost of one of the first necessaries of life next in value and impor- 
 tance to bread itself; but of far greater consequence, as leading to 
 the adoption and establishment of a system of restrictions, and prohi- 
 bitions, not only at variance with that liberal and sound policy, coeval 
 with our national existence, and under which we flourished in the 
 most unexampled degree, but wholly inconsistent with the principles 
 of our free constitution. 
 
 The avowed object of the woollen manufacturers as evinced in their 
 memorials and other publications, and as still more forcibly manifest- 
 ed in the tariff which passed the House of Representatives, the last 
 Session of Congress, is to protect themselves by a tax of from 38 per 
 cent to 139 per cent, on the nation at large, against all foreign com- 
 petition. The injustice of such pretensions, is so obvious, that it 
 seems needless to comment on them ; and the woollen manufacturers 
 themselves were so much alive to this in other cases, that with an in- 
 consistency frequently exhibited by men, eager in pursuit of their own 
 interests, and regardless of those of all others, that at the very mo- 
 ment, they were calling for this enormous duty in their own favour, 
 they resisted a small addition on hemp and iron, articles more nec- 
 essary to the national security, than their own, and which, with the 
 required increase, would then have stood at less rates of duties, than 
 woollens now enjoy. This fact is on record, and has been remark- 
 ed upon, at various meetings, held for the promotion of manufactures, 
 since the adjournment of congress, and by men, who were themselves 
 friendly to further protecting duties. 
 
 We believe the wool-growers themselves, whose interests the man- 
 ufacturers affect so much anxiety to promote, have no better reason 
 to be satisfied with) their treatment ; at least, that portion of them, 
 who are acquainted with the views and proceedings, of their repre- 
 sentatives in Congress. 
 
 That the interests of the sheep farmer were abandoned, has been as- 
 serted by Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Stevenson, and other members of Con- 
 gress, some of whom were friendly to further protecting duties, and 
 this has been confirmed by the public declarations of some of the 
 most intelligent men extensively engaged in that branch of agri- 
 culture, and indeed, must be apparent to every one who examines the 
 provisions of the Woollen Bill. 
 
 It must not however be understood, that we advocate more duties 
 on Wool or any other articles ; our object is to show the exclusive 
 spirit which governs the movements of the woollen manufacturers.
 
 The language they hold while seeking to obtain the aid of other man- 
 ufacturers, is, " prohibit all articles which can be procured at home ;" 
 but the application of this principle, they would confine to their own 
 benefit. 
 
 We are aware, that the woollen manufacturers have had the ad- 
 dress to identify in appearance, their interests with those of the man- 
 ufacturing classes generally ; but those who have attended to their 
 proceedings as well as professions, must, we think, be convinced, 
 that it is as much for the advantage of all other manufacturers, to re- 
 sist the pretensions of this favoured body, as it is for the farmer, mer- 
 chant, mechanic, labourer and citizens generally, whose interests will 
 all be deeply injured, by yielding to their demands. 
 
 The supporters and partizans of the prohibitory policy have, as it 
 is well known, endeavoured to prepossess the public mind in their fa- 
 vour, by circulating a great number of publications, and filling, for 
 twelve months past, nearly all the newspapers of New England, with 
 the most exaggerated statements, and plausible arguments, read and 
 repeated, in town and county meetings, in conventions, in congress 
 and elsewhere, and urged, we must say with a zeal and violence, 
 uncommon in men conscious of a just cause, while on the other 
 hand, very little has been done in this quarter, to place the merits of 
 the case fairly before the public, disembarrassed of those fallacies 
 and misrepresentations, with which its artful advocates have sur- 
 rounded it. 
 
 Your Committee have read with much attention, those memorials, 
 speeches, essays and other publications on the subject which appeared 
 most worthy of notice, and submit their remarks on such statements 
 and arguments, as have the strongest bearing on the question, and 
 on which the Woollen Manufacturers themselves, appear chiefly to 
 rely, for the support of their extravagant, and as appears to us, unjust 
 demands. 
 
 SECTION 1. The American woollen manufacturers contend, that 
 the British manufacturers, with the advantage of larger capitals, more 
 perfect machinery, lower price of labour and materials, and a great- 
 er experience and skill, are enabled to undersell them, notwithstand- 
 ing the protecting charges of 57 per cent which they now enjoy 
 against foreign importations ; and they in consequence, ask for a 
 further increase of duty, which would carry the rate to an average 
 perhaps of 80 per cent, and make the whole protecting charges 99 
 per cent. If what is here alleged be true, to the extent they would 
 ' have us infer, there cannot be imagined any stronger arguments, 
 against engaging in a competition so entirely hopeless ; and the man- 
 ufacturers who must generally have been as well acquainted with all 
 these circumstances ten years ago, as they now are, have shewn an 
 unwarrantable degree of imprudence, in extending their business 
 from ten millions to forty millions of dollars, as they assert they have 
 done, since 1816.
 
 9 
 
 While however the Committee are ready to admit, that Britfsh 
 manufacturers have advantages over ours, they deny that the intro- 
 duction of this branch of business was effected principally by high 
 duties, or if we may judge from experience, that the present rate of 
 38 per cent is necessary to their existence and success. 
 
 Without going back to the early history of our country, the Com- 
 mittefi find on reference to official reports that the average export of 
 woollens from England to the United States from 1790 to 1794, was 
 1377,951 2 5, or 6,124,228 dollars, which with the then moderate 
 duty of five per cent, and the other charges, would perhaps make 
 the cost to the consumers 7,500,000 dollars. Our population within 
 those periods, averaged 4,500,000, and allowing the consumption at 
 six dollars a head, the whole amount consumed, would be 27,000,000 
 dollars, of which only 7,500,000 were foreign cloths. There may 
 have been a small importation from the rest of Europe, but certainly 
 less than the amount of British woollens re-exported. Thus it ap- 
 pears, that under the tariff of 1790, imposing a duty of five percent,, 
 subsequently increased, but for revenue only, to seven and a half, 
 twelve and a half and fifteen per cent, we manufactured with cer- 
 tainly much less skill, and not one fifth of our present wealth, three 
 quarters of all the woollens we consumed. This was not done by 
 incorporated companies, with capitals of a quarter or half a million 
 of dollars, but by small manufacturers, and industrious farmers, who 
 made no complaints of the want of protecting duties, in those hours 
 of leisure, which could be spared from the more active labours of 
 the field. 
 
 We have then very satisfactory evidence, that this important man- 
 ufacture is in no danger of going to decay, even should we return to 
 the former system of moderate duties. 
 
 That the woollen manufacturers in common, with many others, are 
 now in a less prosperous condition than heretofore, must be a matter 
 of regret to all of us, but this neither furnishes a claim to a further 
 protecting duty, nor proves the necessity of it. If they have lost by 
 their business within the last year or two, is their situation in this 
 respect at all peculiar ? Have not the agricultural, the mercantile and 
 shipping interests been distressed also? Their losses have not proba- 
 bly exceeded those of other classes, and they have arisen generally 
 from the same causes imprudence, and want of skill ; and in part 
 perhaps from those revulsions in trade, which no sagacity can fore- 
 see, and no prudence entirely guard against. 
 
 If the woollen manufacturers have had more than a common share 
 of the evils incident to all enterprises, may they not more justly be 
 attributed to that sudden and enormous extension of their business, 
 occasioned partly perhaps by former gains, but principally by the in- 
 judicious augmentation of duty in 1824, than by any want of sufficient 
 protecting duty ? 
 
 The remedy is, a return to a more prudent and skilful manage-
 
 10 
 
 ment, such as others are compelled to adopt, and not the increase ol 
 a bounty, which already imposes too heavy a burden on the nation. 
 We have no apprehension that this great and interesting branch of 
 manufactures, which existed and increased under a duty less than 
 one sixth of what it now enjoys, and under much less favourable cir- 
 cumstances in other respects, furnished three quarters of all the 
 woollens we consumed, is exposed to any of the dangers, its over- 
 zealous advocates imagine. 
 
 SECTION 2. The woollen manufacturers assert, that by the altera- 
 tion in the tariff of 1824, which was intended to afford them addi- 
 tional protection, they lost more by the increased duty on wool, than 
 they gained by the increased duty on woollens, and thus the object of 
 the law as regarded them was defeated. They also give us to infer 
 from many of their memorials and other publications, that the high 
 duty on wool counter-balances in a great degree the duties on wool- 
 lens. This they appear to put forth as one of their strong points, and 
 as in some measure affording them a claim on the justice of the gov- 
 ernment for more duties, and from their representation of it, have 
 gained many supporters among the most intelligent and disinterested 
 portion of the community. An examination into facts, will prove its 
 incorrectness. 
 
 The Committee find on reference to the Treasury Report, ending 
 the 30th September 1825, that the import of woollens for 1825, 
 amounted to 10,876,873 dollars ; paying duties to the amount 
 of 3,660,755 dollars. By the same document, it appears that the 
 cost of wool imported was 569,476 dollars, and the duty on it 
 179,091 dollars; of this amount, 85,127 1-2 dollars, is the increased 
 duty under the tariff of 1824. There is no means of ascertaining 
 exactly the portion of duties on woollens occasioned by the new 
 tariff, but as there was an addition of from 8 1-3 per cent to 25 per 
 cent on more than two-thirds of our importation, it will be within 
 bounds to take it atone fifth of the whole duty, making 732,151 dol- 
 lars. Thus it is clearly proved, that for the increased duty on wool 
 imposed in 1824, and of which they complain so much, there was an 
 increased duty on woollens of more than eight times the extent ; the 
 whole duty on wool which they represent as almost balancing the du- 
 ty on woollens, being only 179,091 1-3 dollars, against 3,660,755 dol- 
 lars, on imported woollens. The real truth is, as will appear more 
 fully hereafter, we require very little wool from abroad, and the 
 amount, small as it was in 1825, is still less in 1826 ; having as has 
 been stated in debates on the subject, fallen to 449,725 dollars. 
 
 Here is a plain statement founded on documents accessible to 
 every one. We beg leave to call on those who feel an interest in 
 the subject, to give it a strict examination, and more especially the 
 too confiding wool-grower, who has been prevailed upon to advocate 
 the prohibitory system under the delusive hope that he is to share 
 equally in its benefits, with the manufacturer. For the small advan-
 
 11 
 
 tage he now gains, the sheep farmer pays under the existing tariff 
 thirty-eight dollars on every one hundred dollars worth of woollens 
 he uses; and uader the contemplated one, it will be more than 
 double. 
 
 SECTION 3. The manufacturers complain of the great disadvan- 
 tage they labour under, in being obliged to use so large a proportion of 
 foreign wool, burdened as it is with a heavy duty. Some of them 
 dealing in general terms, leave it to be inferred, that from one quar- 
 ter to one half the material which is used, is foreign. 
 
 The Providence Memorial, an authority we refer to, because it 
 will be respected by the manufacturers, is more precise, and that we 
 may not be accused of unfairness, we quote their own words. " The 
 price of domestic wool, having been very considerably enhanced by 
 the operation of the increased duty upon imported wool, and the 
 former having proved sufficient to supply only one half the quantity 
 required for the mills now in operation, the manufacturers of the 
 United States have been labouring under great disadvantages, in 
 competition with the manufacturers of foreign countries." What 
 were the motives which could induce men selected we presume for 
 their intelligence and character to publish an assertion so much aj 
 variance with facts, is not our business to decide ; we hope however 
 it was from ignorance of the subject on which they undertook to en- 
 lighten our Government. Whatever may have been their reasons, 
 the effect of this statement, supported as it is, by many other publi- 
 cations, has been to mislead the public mind, and to draw to the sup- 
 port of the manufacturers' pretensions, many who would otherwise 
 have joined in resisting them. 
 
 The Committee find on referring to the before named document, 
 that the amount of wool imported in 1825 was 569,476 dollars, of 
 which 53,550 dollars having paid the 15 per cent duty, must have 
 cost 10 cents a pound or under, and the balance must have been in 
 wool costing above that price. 
 
 The low duty wool comes chiefly from Turkey, the North of 
 Europe, and South America. The finer qualities from Spain, Por- 
 tugal, England and Germany. 
 Assuming the cost of the low wool at S cents, ) fifiQ _. ,, 
 
 |53,550 would purchase, paying 15 per ct. duty, J 
 Assuming the finer sorts at 60 cents per pound, } 
 
 $515,926 would purchase, paying 30 per cent > 859,877 Ibs. 
 
 duty, ) 
 
 Total number of pounds as estimated, 1,529,252 Ibs 
 
 As there is no return of weight, it is impossible to ascertain in any 
 other way than the one we have adopted, the quantity. The low 
 wool cannot vary ten per cent from our estimate, one way er the 
 other, and if we have over or under-valued that and the fine sorts,
 
 12 
 
 the quantity may vary 1'rorn 300,000 to 400,000 pounds ; but this can 
 be of little importance in the whole quantity in question ; we shall say 
 then that from the Custom House returns, the import of foreign 
 wool could not not have been less than a million and a quarter of 
 pounds-, nor more than 2,000,000 pounds for 1825. And if we 
 judge by the cost, must have been something less in 1826. This 
 however would depend on what proportion of it cost 10 cents per 
 pound and under. 
 
 To estimate the quantity of domestic wool, is more a matter of 
 conjecture, yet there are data, and we will take them chiefly from 
 such authorities as will be most likely to command the confidence of 
 the manufacturers. 
 
 The number of sheep in the United States in 1826, is estimated by 
 Mr. Niles at 15,000,000, and in this Mr. Davis, member of con- 
 gress, and others versed in the subject, agree. Pitkin reckoned the 
 number in 1816 at from 12 to 15,000,000; now if we estimate the 
 average produce of each sheep 2 1-2 pounds, they give 37,500,000 
 pounds ; to which add the imported, and we have 39 to 40,000,000 
 pounds for our annual consumption. As a corroboration of this es- 
 timate, we find Mr. Mallary, Chairman of the Committee on Manu- 
 factures, and some other members of congress, stated the consump- 
 tion of wool to be 40,000,000 pounds, and valued it at about 
 11,000,000 dollars. The consumption in Great Britain has been 
 stated by Mr. Huskisson at 160,000,000 pounds. The Committee 
 believe 40,000,000 too low an estimate, but they are willing to admit 
 it, to avoid all appearance of exaggeration. If then, we are correct 
 in our statements, and the most important items are susceptible of 
 arithmetical demonstrations, there result the following important in- 
 ferences. 
 
 1. That the manufacturers are supplied almost to the full extent 
 of their demands by domestic wool ; and that the imported sorts, are 
 all or nearly all, either inferior or superior to the home raised quali- 
 ties, and consequently do not come much in competition with them ; 
 and cannot therefore as has been asserted, have much effect in regu- 
 lating the prices of the domestic wool. 
 
 2. That the proportion of foreign wool as compared with the do- 
 mestic used by the manufacturers, is only about 4 or 5 per cent, in- 
 stead of 25 to 50 per cent as they have represented, and that conse- 
 quently, the dearness of foreign wool does not bear heavy on them, 
 and cannot be justly considered as among the principal causes of their 
 failure. 
 
 3. That the wool growers having already possession of the home 
 market, to nearly the full extent of what is consumed, they cannot be 
 benefitted materially by any further duties on wool. While on the 
 other hand, they now pay a heavy tax of 38 per cent on all the 
 cloths they consume, and in the contemplated tariff, it is to be raised 
 38 per cent on fine, and 139 per cent on the inferior qualities; thus
 
 IS 
 
 imposing a tax increasing not in proportion to the wealth, but to the 
 poverty of the consumer. 
 
 4. That admitting the whole quantity of wool consumed to be im- 
 ported, the protecting duties which the manufacturer would then pay 
 on wool, as compared with the protecting duties they now receive on 
 woollens, would stand thus : 
 
 The duties are nominally 15 and 30 per cent ; in fact, 17 and 34 
 per cent, the average 25 1-2 per cent ; but as the principal amount of 
 what is consumed pays the high duty, it may perhaps be correct, to 
 call the average duty 28 per cent. The cost of foreign wool, such as 
 we use, is estimated by Mr. Davis, Mr. Everett and others, in their 
 elaborate arguments in favour of the prohibitory duties on woollens, 
 at 20 cents a pound. The quantity consumed being as supposed 
 40,000,000 pounds; the duty at 28 per cent on wool costing 20 
 cents a pound, would be 2,240,000 dollars. 
 
 The consumption of woollens, has been estimated by Mr. Barney 
 and other manufacturing authorities, at from 80 to 100,000,000 dol-V 
 lars per annum. In England it has been estimated by Low at about 
 10 dollars a head for the whole population. 
 
 Our population is estimated by the manufacturers at 12,500,000. 
 We reduce it to 12,000,000, and call the consumption 6 dollars a 
 head, which is 72,000,000 dollars. The duty nominally 33 1-3, in 
 fact 38 per cent, on the amount thus consumed, is 27,360,000 dollars. 
 
 There can be no fallacy in this calculation, or in the principles on 
 which it is founded, and we would again call the attention of the 
 wool-growers, whose capital engaged in the raising of sheep, is allow- 
 ed by Mr. Mallary, Mr. Davis and others, to be equal to the manu- 
 facturing capital, to an examination of the subject, that they may 
 have still further proof how much they have deceived themselves, in 
 supposing they shared equally the benefit of the heavy tax now im- 
 posed on the nation for the advantage of the woollen manufacturer. 
 
 Yet they demand that this tax be doubled, and offer a small addi- 
 tion to the duty on wool, to take effect at such distant periods, as 
 would enable the manufacturer to supply himself for years, with the 
 comparatively small quantity he may require. 
 
 SECTION 4. Another ground assumed by the manufacturers for a 
 new tariff and increased duties, was, frauds that were practised on 
 the revenue. In various publications, coming from the leading ad- 
 vocates of this interest, the importers were charged with fraud, and 
 the revenue officers with unfaithfulness and incornpetency.* Mr. 
 Dwight, member of congress from Berkshire, asserted in a speech as 
 reported in the National Intelligencer, that " the object of the bill 
 and the minimums contained in it, he would again repeat, was to in- 
 
 * " The public appraisers, though sworn tft perform their duty, and having power to 
 add to (he invoice prices, v. henever in their opinion, the goods are invoiced lower than 
 the actual cost, arc believed to be in some of our sea-ports, unfaithful or uncompetent.'* 
 Boston circular of the woollens committee, November 11. 1826, 
 
 3
 
 14 
 
 sure a faithful collection of the rates of duty, which were imposed by 
 the law of 1824 : The manufacturers asked no more." Mr. Davis, 
 member of congress from Worcester County, in a speech reported 
 also in the National Intelligencer, makes the following assertion. 
 "The law of J824, gave a duty of 33 1-3 per cent on imported fab- 
 rics, and it was doubtless the design of government, it should operate 
 as a clear protective duty, but half or nearly that amount, has been 
 taken away by the modification of the British tariff, and the other 
 half is evaded." 
 
 We select the speeches of these gentlemen, because they are 
 among the most able advocates of the prohibitory system, and resid- 
 ing as they do in the midst of the manufacturers, they may be sup- 
 posed to know their views, and will therefore be held by them as 
 good authorities. 
 
 These are serious chatges to bring against a numerous and res- 
 pectable class of men. They were doubted at the time, and when 
 some of those who had been the most active in circulating them were 
 challenged for their proofs, it was answered, " the manufacturers in- 
 vent no accusations ; they adopt common rumour." That these accu- 
 sations were founded on common rumour, or something worse, was 
 indeed the prevailing belief; but slight as was the foundation on 
 which they rested, they found a credulous supporter in the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, who with very honest intentions, as we believe, has 
 been an instrument in the hands of other men less disinterested than 
 himself, in building up a system, favourable to the interests of a few, 
 but hostile to the general welfare. An investigation was made by 
 his order, as indeed was proper, believing as he did, that there must 
 be some foundation for the charges, and it resulted as is well known, 
 in a refutation of the rumoured accusations. That there may be 
 fraudulent importations of woollens the committee do not pretend to 
 disbelieve, but not to an extent which has any bearing on this ques- 
 tion, nor in any greater degree, than of cottons, silks, and other goods 
 of which no complaints were made, or if made, were not listened to. 
 
 If however the manufacturers were sincere, 'it was reasonable to 
 suppose, they would have introduced into their bill, which passed the 
 House of Representatives last winter, some provisions to guard 
 against the frauds of which they complained. So far from this how- 
 ever, the amendments, offered in order to effect that object by vari- 
 rious members, and among others Mr. Cambreleng, the active, intel- 
 ligent and persevering opponent of the prohibitory system, were all 
 rejected by the friends of the bill. To avoid the appearance of 
 such gross inconsistency, the advocates of the bill, contended that 
 this purpose would be obtained and frauds prevented by the singular 
 and novel method of a specific duty on the arbitrary valuation of the 
 square yard, instead of the simple and established one of ad valorem 
 duties on the real cost. An examination of the bill as it actually pas- 
 sed, will show at once how much the temptation to evasion and 
 smuggling has been lessened or guarded against.
 
 15 
 
 The second minimum provides, that all goods costing more than 
 40 cents, and not exceeding 1 50 cents per square yard shall be con- 
 sidered as costing 150 cents, and pay duty on that sum. In this 
 class, is included the principal part of the low priced cloths, used 
 chiefly by the poor and middling classes. Under this deceptive 
 section a cloth costing 40 cents the yard, would pay as at present 38 
 per cent, but if costing 41 cents, would be valued at 150 cents, and 
 pay 57 cents a yard, or 139 per cent. Thus an importer by dimin- 
 ishing the cost of his goods 1 cent in a yard, would save 101 per 
 cent in the duties. To raise the duties from 38 to 139 per cent, 
 averaging perhaps on whole importations 80 per cent, and to con- 
 struct the law so ingeniously as to offer a temptation of 101 per cent 
 by only altering the cost of an article one cent a yard, and this 
 to a class of men, charged by the supporters of the bill with the most 
 extensive frauds, is the method which the woollen manufacturers 
 adopted to guard the revenue against frauds and smuggling! ! 
 
 We appeal to all candid men, whether in this instance the conduct 
 of the manufacturers is not directly at issue with their professions, 
 and their complaints against merchants and Custom-House officers, a 
 mere pretence, to cover their real design, of imposing an enormous 
 tax on the nation to promote their individual interests ? 
 
 SECTION 5. Another favourite doctrine of the woollen manufac- 
 turers is, that they employ domestic labour and capital, and afford an 
 increased demand for agricultural products; as if the same could not 
 be said of all the other great branches of business, which the prohib- 
 itory system is calculated so deeply to injure. Do not the cultiva- 
 tors of wheat, cotton and tobacco, the manufacturers of ships, houses, 
 and all others engaged in the mechanic arts, employ domestic labour^ 
 and capital ? Is commerce and navigation, and the other arts and 
 professions, carried on, without the employment of labour and capi- 
 tal ? Why then make a merit of this, as something peculiar to the 
 manufacturers of woollens, or any other manufacturers? Nay 
 further : Do not the spinners and weavers in England, when they 
 furnish us with cloths; employ American industry and capital ? How 
 do we get these goods ? Do they come to us without payment ? 
 Even the most extravagant of the manufacturers, when enumerating 
 their complaints against their competitors, say that the importers of 
 foreign goods get at least half price for them. If then we pay for our 
 imported goods, it must be with the produce of domestic industry or 
 something which is exchanged for it. But say our opponents the 
 British will not take American produce, at least not that of New 
 England. There is a reason for this, which we should think would 
 occur to any man familiar with our trade, which is, that we have 
 nothing to sell Europeans, which they cannot get cheaper elsewhere. 
 New England has for a long time been a manufacturing people, and 
 that too till within a few years, without the aid of a protecting sys- 
 tem. But is the trade of the nation to be estimated by what is pas-
 
 16 
 
 sing in one small section of it, even if this includes some of the mid- 
 dle states . ? The question is, what are the exports from the United 
 States? On turning to the official list for 1825, we find the export 
 of domestic produce to he 66,944,745 dollars, of which 40,372,987 
 v. dollars went to Great Britain and her colonies, principally the for- 
 mer ; and 32,590,643 dollars in foreign articles ; every dollar of 
 which was purchased with domestic produce ; making in all, 
 99,535,388. The amount would have been much larger, had we 
 adhered to the system of moderate duties, under which we flourish- 
 ed so much, from the adoption of the constitution till the protecting 
 policy was established. 
 
 When pressed with those facts, so contrary to their representa- 
 tions, they endeavour to evade the force of them, by anticipating the 
 period when Europeans will cease to be our customers ; but as this 
 event must in the nature of things be very remote, it is hardly worth 
 reasoning about ; when however it does come, we shall cease to 
 have the means of importing woollens, and the manufacturers being 
 relieved from that competition they now so much deplore, will then 
 effect in a natural way what they now seek to accomplish by an arti- 
 ficial and unjust system of legislation. 
 
 We had supposed, if there was any one maxim in political econ- 
 omy, and legislation, on which all sensible men agreed, it was the 
 folly and injustice of governments attempting to control or influence 
 the occupations of men by bounties and special privileges granted to 
 those engaged in particular pursuits, or as Mr. Webster has expres- 
 sed it, " for his own part he had supposed, the restrictions on trade 
 and commerce, in order to benefit particular classes of manufactur- 
 ers, were now very generally understood to be mischievous and in- 
 consistent with just notions of political economy." This principle is 
 so self-evident, that no man of sense and reflection, would venture to 
 call it in question, or recommend a departure from it, unless blinded 
 by that zeal and selfishness, which even honest and intelligent men 
 often evince, when earnestly desirous of promoting their own in- 
 terests. 
 
 Let us, however, now examine this claim upon the footing on 
 which the manufacturers would place it. 
 
 1st. As to the labour and capital employed. 
 
 2d. As to the increased consumption of agricultural produce. 
 
 We do not profess to have the means of forming any thing like a 
 correct judgment of the number of persons, or the amount of capi- 
 tal, engaged in this branch of business, but we are willing on this and 
 other occasions, to take the facts from such persons, as the manufac- 
 turers themselves deem most favourable to their views. 
 
 Mr. Davis, member of congress, says, " it is computed from the 
 
 best information that can be obtained, that a capital equal to 40 or 
 
 " 50,000,000 of dollars, is invested in the manufacture of woollens, 
 
 and that a population of 60 to 70,000 persons, is employed directly
 
 in the business, and 20 to 30,000 more indirectly ; and Mr. Malla- 
 ry, chairman of the committee of manufactures, remarks, " the result 
 was that the agricultural interests had at least 40,000,000 of dollars 
 involved in this question, and the manufacturers 40,000,000 of dollars 
 more ;" and we observe these statements are confirmed by other in- 
 telligent men on the same side. With regard to the number of per- 
 sons engaged, we apprehend they have understated their own case; 
 we should venture to double them at least. We have before proved 
 that three quarters of all the woollens we consumed were made at 
 home by small manufacturers, in a household way, when the duties 
 were only five per cent, and when we possessed much less skill and 
 capital than we now have; and by men who by strict economy, and a 
 proper knowledge of their business, found it sufficiently profitable 
 without calling for heavy taxes for their support. The protecting 
 system of high duties, cannot then add more than one fourth to the 
 number of persons who would be otherwise employed, even if we 
 made all our woollens at home ; we should then according to their 
 estimate have 25,000 persons and 20,000,000 of dollars capital to 
 provide for if we were to return to the former rates of 5 per cent 
 duty. 
 
 The employment then of 25,000 persons, and 20,000,000 of dol- 
 lars, is the immense benefit which is held up to the nation, as a com- 
 pensation for a tax more than equal to the whole national expenditure, 
 and which we are called upon to double, and the establishment of 
 which will lead to an entire system of prohibitions affecting most in- 
 juriously the welfare of the country. 
 
 It seems incredible that men of any reflection should put forth an 
 argument which, if it could be sustained on correct principles, leads 
 to such an unimportant result, as the question of employing, in a na- 
 tion of 12,000,000 people, 25,000 persons, and 20,000,000 dollars 
 of capital. Will any man of common intelligence, pretend there can 
 be any want of demand for labour and capital, in a country like this? 
 There certainly is not in this community. The woollen manufactu- 
 rers themselves, have complained, that the scarcity of capital, and 
 high price of labour were among the principal causes of their failure. 
 If there was any want of employment, we should see its effects in the 
 fall of wages ; but so far from wages having declined, taking into con- 
 sideration the fall of provisions, and all other means of living, labour 
 was never, at any period, better paid than it now is ; and there would 
 be no diminution in the price of it, if every one of the 25,000 persons, 
 added to the manufacturing population, by the protecting system, was 
 thrown out of employment. To them it might, for a short time, be 
 an inconvenience, but they would soon find some other pursuit equal- 
 ly advantageous. It is not the labourer who is to profit by this system 
 of monopoly. It can make no difference to him whether he pursues 
 a business, which requires a tax of eighty per cent, on the consumer 
 to support, or in any of the common occupations of the country of a
 
 18 
 
 less favoured character. The pay of the workmen will be regulated 
 by wages of labour generally, and the only persons who can gain by 
 the high duties are the proprietors of the manufacturing establish- 
 ments. 
 
 As to the employment of capital, if there is no want of demand for 
 it here, still less is there, in other sections of the Union, where it is 
 less abundant. In fact it is too notorious not to be within the obser- 
 vation of every one, that the public projects of great utility, now in 
 progress, or in contemplation, require more capital than can be pro- 
 cured in this, or any other quarter of the United States. 
 
 In a country where land can be had from 1 to 20 dollars an acre 
 under a stable government, and with an enterprising, and intelligent 
 population like ours, labour and capital will never lie unemployed, 
 nor go without their proper reward. It may be a question in what 
 particular way they shall be employed, but they will not in any event 
 require legislative controul or direction. 
 
 If manufacturers do not want labourers, there is a never failing re- 
 source in agriculture, and without undervaluing the advantages of 
 manufactures, it will never be believed, however often insisted upon, 
 that farmers are not as happy, and as useful as manufacturers, espe- 
 cially as they call for no national bounties for their encouragement and 
 support. 
 
 As to the increased consumption, we have all seen the most impo- 
 sing statements of imports into New-England of various products. 
 
 It would be wholly impracticable to go into that detail necessary to 
 ^'answer all that has been said on this subject ; we will however take 
 the most important article, flour ; of which our opponents say, 629,000 
 barrels were imported into New England in 1825. One might 
 imagine, from their representations, that the whole was for the con- 
 sumption of the woollen manufacturers, for although they use general 
 terms, their reasonings are commonly bottomed on their own interests. 
 But New England contains above 1,500,000 inhabitants, besides 
 which a considerable portion of the 629,000 barrels of flour is re-ex- 
 ported. Now we have shown that three quarters of the woollen 
 manufacturers have succeeded under a duty of five per cent, and of 
 course are not dependent on the protecting system, which reduces the 
 number of flour consumers, occasioned by the prohibitory duties, to 
 25,000. Why then talk of the consumption of 629,000 barrels of flour 
 in New England, in connection with this branch of manufactures, when 
 the whole number of woollen manufacturers are but 100,000, and on- 
 ly one fourth of them added to the former number by the increase of 
 duties, and these too, residing in various sections of the Union, and 
 consequently not half of them New-England consumers of flour. 
 
 The utter insignificance of this argument which has been so often 
 addressed to the agriculturists of the middle states, will be more stri- 
 king, when it is considered that the consumption of wheat-flour for the 
 whole Union, if we take the rate allowed for Great Britain, cannot be
 
 19 
 
 less than 11,000,000 barrels. Now according to that estimate the 
 whole number of woollen manufacturers, reckoned by Mr. Davis and 
 others,at 100,000, would consume 91,666 barrels, of which one fourth, 
 or 22,916 barrels, depend on the protecting system. 
 
 The wheat-growers then have gained an increased demand of 
 22,916 barrels, while (he whole consumption is 11,000,000 and the 
 export demand about l,000,000,in ordinary years, and more occasion- ^ 
 ally, according to the state of the crops in foreign countries. But is 
 there no advantage in this . ? Yes, we do not deny that even so small 
 an increased demand is of some value to the farmers, but how is it 
 obtained ? By an annual tax of 38 per cent on 72,000,000 of dol- 
 lars worth of woollens, amounting to 27,360,000, of which, as we shall 
 hereafter see, nearly the whole goes into the pockets of the manufac- 
 turers ; and of this immense tax, probably at least one fifth part is 
 paid by the growers of wheat, and we are called upon to double it. 
 
 This is placing the subject in a strong light, but we are reasoning 
 from their own data, and if they are correct, the conclusion we come 
 to is inevitable. 
 
 We have, it will be perceived, been examining the claims of the 
 manufacturers to an increase of duties, on the ground of their em- 
 ploying domestic labour and capital, and increasing the consumption 
 of agricultural produce, according to their own representations of the 
 case. It is our purpose now, to show that effects, the very reverse of 
 these, will be the result of the prohibitory system. 
 
 What is it the woollen manufacturers affirm ? Why that woollen 
 goods can be made so much cheaper in England, that after the pay- 
 ment of thirty-eight per cent duty, and all the other charges, making 
 together fifty-seven per cent, as to undersell their manufactures. 
 
 The whole charges on the importation of woollens are fifty-seven 
 per cent, which on -72,000,000 dollars amounts to 41,040,000 dol- 
 lars; this sum must be incurred on foreign goods, before they can be 
 brought into competition with the home-made. The duty, at 38 per 
 cent comes to 27,360,000, of this the duties on our two last years' 
 average importation about 9,000,000 dollars, amounting to 3,420,000 
 less the expenses of collecting, goes into the public chess for revenue; 
 the balance 23,940,000 is so much bounty paid to the woollen man- 
 ufacturers, and the effect of which is to keep out of our markets for- 
 eign woollens. The manufacturers not only say, this tax is insuffi- 
 cient for their protection, but that it must be doubled, and would rec- 
 oncile the nation to its endurance, by holding up the idea that among 
 other advantages of their business, they afford increased employment 
 to domestic labour and capital. If any sensible men, whose inter- 
 ests are not promoted by this doctrine, have been induced to give it 
 their sanction, it is from want of due attention to the subject. The 
 fallacy lies in supposing this capital and labour would not be employ- 
 ed but for the woollen .manufacturers, but this we deny, as they them- 
 selves do in fact by declaring in their petitions, speeches, &e. that
 
 among the most important causes of their want of success, are to be 
 numbered the scarcity of one and the dearness of the other. 
 
 The incorrect notions which prevail respecting the injurious effects 
 of importing foreign goods, arise chiefly from neglecting to keep in 
 mind this established principle, that if we buy we must also sell, to 
 provide for the payment of what we buy. If we import foreign goods, 
 we must export domestic ones to pay for them ; it is therefore cer- 
 tain, that by every importation of foreign goods, we create just so 
 much demand for domestic goods, which must be sent abroad in pay- 
 ment for them. These are plain and self-evident truths, which no 
 man, familiar with commerce, and who has reflected on the subject, 
 will deny. 
 
 We will state a case, which may explain and enforce our meaning. 
 We consume perhaps 2,000,000 gallons of wine, purchased abroad 
 in exchange say for provisions and lumber, which we will suppose 
 requires the labour of 10,000 men, and a capital of 10,000,000 dol- 
 lars to produce ; and that this foreign wine can be afforded to the 
 consumer, allowing the usual rate of profit to the importer, and after 
 the payment of 30 cents a gallon to government, at 100 cents per gal- 
 lon. We will then imagine, that in conformity with the new system 
 of excluding all articles which can be produced at home, as it is pro- 
 posed to do with woollens, that foreign wines should be prohibited ; 
 and that the 10,000 persons, and 10,000,000 dollars formerly em- 
 ployed in producing the provisions and lumber, are transferred to the 
 making of wine, which cannot be afforded, after an allowance of the 
 same wages of labour and profits which they earned in their former 
 employments, under 2 dollars per gallon. What then would be the 
 effect of this operation ? The exclusion of foreign wines would cer- 
 tainly create new employment for 10,000 persons, and 10,000,000 
 capital, but the same capital and labour would be taken from other 
 occupations ; at the same time government would lose their 600,000 
 dollars revenue, and the consumers pay 2,000,000 dollars, more than 
 they formerly did for their wine ; while on the other hand, the wine- 
 growers, and their capital would not earn more than they did in the 
 occupations from which they had been withdrawn. As a nation, we 
 should be 2,600,000 dollars poorer at the end of every year, than if 
 we had continued to import wine. In other words, had the 
 10,000,000 capital and 10,000 labourers, continued to be engaged in 
 raising provisions, and lumber, the result would have been produce 
 enough to purchase the 2,000,000 gallons of wine, and a surplus, 
 which would have sold for 2,600,000 dollars. 
 
 This is a practical illustration of the effects of the high duty, or 
 prohibitory system. It does not give an increased employment to do- 
 mestic labour and capital ; it merely turns them from a direction 
 ivhere they were profitable, to one where they are less so. 
 
 This is what is often called, though falsely so, " the American Sys- 
 tem."
 
 21 
 
 The capital employed in raising wine at an expense of 2,600,000 
 dollars more than it can be imported for, is termed by them, the true 
 system of promoting national welfare, and productive labour, while the 
 same capital and labour employed in raising provisions and labour to 
 exchange for foreign wines, is stigmatized, as unproductive foreign 
 trade, which every patriot should labour to destroy, and by legisla- 
 tive regulations, if it cannot be done by any other means. 
 
 It is precisely the same with regard to woollens. If we imported 
 more than we now do, there would be less labour and capital employ- 
 ed at home in that branch of industry, but they would still be employ- 
 ed in some other business, more suited to our condition, and we should 
 thus have so much larger amounts of produce to export, to pay for 
 the imported woollens ; and if we imported the whole we consumed, 
 the annual saving (provided they can be imported 38 per cent cheap- 
 er than they can be made) would be 23,940,000 dollars, which is the 
 tax we now pay yearly, to keep down foreign competition. 
 
 Now if this annual tax, paid for the benefit of the manufacturers, 
 was so much clear gain to them, it would only be a transfer of 
 23,940,000 from the 11,900,000 consumers, who do not participate 
 in its benefits, to the 90 or 100,000 persons which Mr. Davis says 
 are engaged in the manufacturing of woollens. In that case, as a na- 
 tion we should not be the poorer ; but if with this tax, the manufac- 
 turers only make the ordinary profits of business, or as much as the 
 same capital and labour engaged in other branches of industry would 
 earn, (and they declare they make less) then we say, the 23,900,000 
 is the annual loss the nation sustains by the woollen business ; or in 
 other words, the accumulation of national capital is 23,940,000 dol- 
 lars a year less than it would be, if the woollen capital was employed 
 in agriculture, Commerce, the mechanic arts, or in any other way af- 
 fording the average profits of business, and we imported our woollens 
 instead of making them. 
 
 " Here then," to use the words of one of the advocates of the sys- 
 tem we are opposing, " is a strong case fairly made out, and no more 
 connected with the principles of political economy, than with meta- 
 physics ! ! It is then mathematically true, that if we can import 
 woollens 38 per cent cheaper than we can make them, (and the man- 
 ufacturers say we can 80 per cent) the consumers pay an annual 
 tax of 23,940,000 dollars to the woollen manufacturers; and it is 
 equally true, that if with all this bounty, the manufacture of woollens 
 does not yield any thing more than the ordinary returns of capital and 
 labour (and the manufacturers say it does much less) then we not on- 
 ly pay this immense tax to the woollen manufacturers, but there is so 
 much annual loss to the national income. 
 
 We contend therefore, that the principles on which the woollen 
 manufacturers rest their claim for more duties, are altogether fallacious, 
 and that a resistance of it will not be followed by a diminution of de- 
 mand for labour or capital, nor lessen the consumption of agricultural 
 
 4
 
 .produce. On the other hand, the committee maintain, that the effect 
 of even a continuance of the present duty of 38 per cent on woollens, 
 (if they can be imported so much cheaper from abroad) is to dimin- 
 ish the accumulation of national wealth, to the annual amount of 
 23,940,000 dollars ; and thus by decreasing the fund on which la- 
 bour must depend, lessen the demand for American labour, and con- 
 sequently the consumption of agricultural products. 
 
 SECTION 6. Let us now proceed to the examination of another 
 assertion on which the woollen manufacturers appear to rest with the 
 utmost confidence ; that is, that the effect of excessive duties, is, to 
 make goods come cheaper to the consumer, or as Mr. Niles express- 
 V^es it, " all articles protected are cheaper, because of that protection." 
 To enforce the belief of this maxim, they instance the decline in the 
 prices of cotton manufactures, since the high duties imposed on them 
 by the tariff of IS 16. This is one of those fallacies which has been 
 so boldly, and so often repeated, as to impose, not only on great num- 
 bers really desirous of coming at the truth, but even on many of those 
 who invented it. To say that the effect of a duty, averaging perhaps 
 when imposed 50 or 60 per cent on coarse goods, established for 
 the avowed purpose, and as necessary to keep down foreign competi- 
 tion, raised subsequently, because of the insufficiency of the tariff of 
 1816; and maintained to this day, because in spite of this excessive 
 duty, foreign importations still continue. To say that the effect of 
 such a measure has been to lower the price of domestic goods, car- 
 ries on the face of it, such a manifest contradiction and absurdity, that 
 it requires great confidence in our reflecting readers, to believe such 
 a declaration was ever made. We will therefore give a statement 
 from the address of the Pennsylvania Society, issued to promote the 
 Harrisburg Convention, and at whose summons it tvas convened, for 
 the purpose of forming a new tariff, for the adoption of the next Con- 
 gress. " It is assumed that protecting duties on the importation of 
 foreign manufactures, greatly enhance the prices, and of course im- 
 pose an oppressive tax on the consumer. Nothing can be more for- 
 eign from the fact. Hamilton exposed the fallacy of this notion, 
 above 30 years ago." With regard to the authority of this great man 
 which has been so much abused by the advocates o'f the prohibitory 
 system, we shall not now interrupt this discussion any further than to 
 say, that the protecting duty established, under the first tariff on cot- 
 ton and woollen goods, was five per cent, and the addition ivhich 
 Hamilton recommended in his celebrated report, was 21-2 per cent 
 on cottons, making 7 1-2, and nothing on woollens, except 2 1-2 per 
 cent on carpeting, and on that article because it was considered a lux- 
 ury. The cotton manufacturers now have 29 to 90 per cent, and 
 even 100 per cent. And the manufacturers of woollens having now 
 38 per cent, demand an increase of 39 to 139 per cent ; averaging 80 
 per cent. So much does this enlightened statesman, whom they af- 
 . >' feet to consider on their side, differ from the men we are opposing, in 
 their notions of protection.
 
 23 
 
 " The case of coarse cottons with us, (continue the addressers,) on 
 which the duties are prohibitory, may here also be referred to, as a 
 striking corroboration of this theory. They are now sold at half the 
 price they bore when imported, and are of double value, in point of 
 durability, making a difference of 75 percent in favour of the Amer- 
 ican consumer. Had no other instance ever occurred here, this alone 
 would be sufficient to settle the question without appeal." This 
 statement involves two propositions : 1st, That domestic cotton goods 
 have fallen 75 per cent since 1816 ; or in other words, that cloths " 
 then selling at 25 cents, can now be had at six and one quarter cents 
 per yard ; 2d, That this reduction has been caused by the high du- 
 ties imposed by the tariff of 1816. 
 
 That the first is incorrect in point of fact, no one will, we presume, 
 deny ; but is of no importance as respects the argument, and we 
 merely notice it to shew with what caution we should receive state- 
 ments from men, who make such assertions with the most fearless in- 
 difference on their part as to the effect they must have on their char- 
 acters, and as appears to us, with the utmost contempt for the knowl- 
 edge and understandings of those, to whom they are addressed. 
 
 With regard to the second we grant that coarse goods are 40 to 
 50 per cent cheaper than when the tariff of 1816 was imposed, but 
 it cannot fail to strike every one as a most illogical inference, that they 
 are, necessarily so, because of that tariff. Where are the reasons to 
 shew that the tariff was the cause of decline in price ? JVbne have 
 ever been offered. The real question at issue is, not whether coarse 
 cotton goods are cheaper than in 1816, but whether they are lower 
 than they would have been, had the duty continued at 15 per cent, 
 the rate which they paid before the protecting system was establish- 
 ed, instead of 60 to 100 per cent, which coarse goods now pay. 
 
 To prove the affirmative of this proposition, that is, that cotton 
 goods are cheaper because of the tariff of 1816, which is, what they 
 are bound to do, they should at least shew that such descriptions of 
 goods are no longer imported, in any considerable quantities, nor that 
 they would be imported, if the duties were reduced to 15 per cent, 
 otherwise, their position must be abandoned. What then is the fact ? 
 Have coarse cotton goods ceased to be imported ? Fortunately we 
 here have proofs to rest upon, which no one can dispute. On refer- 
 ence to the official list of imports, going back as far as the statistical 
 tables, we find the importations of cotton goods, excluding nankins 
 and all others, except plain white, and printed and coloured, were as 
 follows : 
 
 1821 - 6,877,812 
 
 1822 - - 8,808,390 
 
 1823 7,536,315 
 
 1824 - 8,130,750 
 
 1825 11,036,038 
 
 Now taking the duty on fine and coarse goods to average 45 per 
 cent, and calling the other charges 20 per cent, making 65 per cent,
 
 24 
 
 the last year's importations, without allowing any profit, must have sold 
 for $18,209,463. We have then incontrovertible evidence, that the 
 amount of imported cotton goods is very large, and has been, on the in- 
 crease down to the year 1825, and that too in a greater ratio, than 
 this statement shows, because the fall in the price necessarily increa- 
 ses the quantity. It should also be noticed that in 1816, the duty on 
 coarse cottons was 6 1-4 cents the yard, and as goods, then costing 20 
 cents, can now be had at 12 to 14 cents, and pay 7 1-2 cents, therate 
 of duty is nearly doubled on very low goods, and very much increasr 
 ed on all sorts falling under the minimum valuation. 
 
 We are aware, that, enormous as the duty now is on Cotton 
 goods, the importation is rapidly diminishing, and will probably cease 
 altogether, within a few years, except of some fancy articles, which 
 our manufacturers have not yet commenced manufacturing ; but this 
 only proves that British manufactures may be excluded by duties of 
 60 to 100 per cent, and not that the domestic goods would under- 
 sell them, if the duty was carried back to 15 per cent. Notwith- 
 standing the excessive rates now imposed, we do continue import- 
 ing, and we have now before us statements from some of the most 
 intelligent importers, supported by the testimony of others, and con- 
 firmed by the personal observation of the committee, proving the 
 rates on plain, printed and coloured goods, imported this season, and 
 affording a fair profit, to be 70 to 90 per cent. ; on other descriptions 
 of Cotton goods, to be of 40 to 60 per cent. If then, in 1825, we 
 imported Cotton goods, which without any allowance for profit, must 
 have sold for upwards of 18,000,000 dollars, of which several mil- 
 lions charged at S to 15 cents a yard, paying 7 1-2 cents the yard, 
 or 50 to 90 per cent, duty, and a larger amount costing 15 to 20 
 cents, on which the duty was 38 to 50 per cent, does it not follow, 
 that under a moderate duty of 15 per cent, or even 25 to 30 per 
 cent, we should have imported a much larger quantity ? and is not 
 the conclusion irresistible, that if coarse goods have fallen since 
 1816, they would have fallen still lower, had the duties not have 
 been raised, and the market been left more open to a competition, 
 with the cheaper fabrics of Great Britain ? What then are the causes 
 of the great decline in the price of domestic cotton fabrics ? For 
 several years the demand for cotton goods exceeded the supply ; 
 consequently prices were high and profits great, which in time pro- 
 duced an excess, and lowered the prices, not only to the lowest rate 
 of living profit, but for a time much lower, to the ruin of vast num- 
 bers engaged in this branch of business, both in this country and in 
 England. This state of things, however, could only be temporary; 
 but the permanent causes of the fall in cotton goods, are improve- 
 ments in machinery, increased skill of the manufacturers, reduction 
 in wages, and above all, as applied to the coarse goods, the decline 
 in the raw material, (which constitutes 1-3 of their cost) from 28 
 and 30 cents, to 10 or 12 cents per pound.
 
 25 
 
 The same causes have operated in England, and produced similar 
 effects ; cotton goods have fallen as much there, as here. 
 
 The only evidence our opponents have ever furnished, in order to 
 sustain the position, we are refuting, is, the assertion that we under- 
 sell British cotton goods in foreign markets. The committee quote 
 from Mr. Tibbits' address, (an authority which appears to be much 
 relied upon by the manufacturers) the following statement relating to j 
 this subject. " The country is not only supplied, but overflowing \ 
 the demand at home ; it has at this time become a great, if not the 
 surest article for exportation, which we have. The coarse cotton 
 cloths of this country now have the preference in the South American 
 markets over the cloths of England, made for like purposes; and 
 they bid fair to supplant them in all foreign markets, where cloths of 
 both countries Jind admittance and a market." Mr. Niles, in one of 
 his Registers says, " But what are the effects of the Tariff? Virginia 
 obtains cotton goods cheaper than ever she did, and the nabobs of 
 Waltham are rivalled in many places, so that the whole manufacture 
 is reduced to the lowest point of profit, that it will bear so low, that 
 we undersell the British in every foreign market, at which our goods ' 
 are. received on the same terms as their own. These unquestionable 
 facts are worth a whole library of speculations, apply them as you 
 will." The same assertion has been made by other writers, and 
 pretty generally believed. The reader would naturally suppose from 
 what is here advanced, that we exported domestic cloths, to an im- 
 mense amount, and more particularly to the South American mar- 
 kets. There has never been any separate account kept of the ex- 
 port of cottons at the Custom House, till 1826, and on referring to 
 the Treasury report that year, which we have received since com- 
 mencing this report, we find our whole exports amount to 77,595,322 
 dollars, of which domestic cotton goods amounted to 1,138,125 dol- 
 lars; of this amount 711,959 dollars went to Mexico and other parts 
 of South America, in which we include the whole continent. By 
 an official list of exports from England for 1825, the committee find 
 the amount of cotton goods exported was in that year 30,795,000 
 sterling, at the present rate of exchange, equal to 150,895,000 dol- > " 
 lars. What proportion of these goods went to Mexico and South 
 America, we had no means of ascertaining precisely ; but as the 
 whole export of British manufactures from England to these coun- 
 tries, was upwards of 40,000,000 dollars, and as considerable quan- 
 tities went indirectly from the British West Indies, and other Colo- 
 nies, there cannot be a doubt, that an amount of at least 25,000,000 
 dollars in British cotton manufactures, reached Mexico and South 
 America. Our export of domestic cottons is generally understood 
 to have been greater in 1826, than in any former year, yet on com- 
 paring it with the British, it is about two thirds of a per cent, of the 
 amount they exported. This then is the progress we have made 
 since 1816, "in supplanting the British in all foreign markets."
 
 26 
 
 We do however it seems, export cotton goods, but it supposes a 
 greater degree of ignorance, than can well be imagined, in men who 
 have undertaken to enlighten the nation, with a new system of com- 
 mercial policy, to conclude, that so small an operation, proves that 
 we can undersell the British in foreign markets. It is well known 
 that in such a various and extensive trade as we carry on, there are 
 many markets where assorted cargoes are required, and they must 
 be made up of both foreign and domestic goods, even though they 
 may cost more than in the countries where those, or similar articles 
 are produced. As evidence of this, we re-exported in 1825, of Eu- 
 ropean linens, imported at a cost of 15 to 20 percent, to the amount 
 of 2,433,625 dollars ; yet no one acquainted with trade, would infer 
 from that, our ability to undersell the same articles going direct from 
 the places where they are made, to the markets to which we ex- 
 ported linens. This is now the case and always has been, with many 
 of the articles which we import from all quarters of the world. But 
 our re-exportation of cotton goods will be more to the point. From 
 the Custom House returns, the committee find, that the export of 
 foreign cotton goods, principally, or all British, for 1825, amounted 
 to 1,810,591 dollars, of which 1,106,214 dollars went to Mexico 
 and other ports in South America ; and that in 1826, the export was 
 1,714,783 dollars, of which 901,849 dollars went to the same places, 
 besides further shipments which went direct from Europe to those 
 countries. We think this is a just view of the case, and such as will 
 convince every reasonable man, that no satisfactory evidence has 
 been furnished to shew that we can undersell the British in any mar- 
 kets ; indeed nothing can be more absurd, than to pretend we can, 
 while we levy a duty of 50 to 90 per cent, on those very kind of 
 goods, in which we most excel, in order to keep British goods out of 
 our markets, and which are still to be increased, if the woollen manu- 
 facturers prevail. While then to make up assorted cargoes, we ex- 
 port nearly 2,000,000 dollars of British goods, brought here at an 
 expense of 20 per cent, it may well be expected that we should ex- 
 port a few of our own goods, even though at higher prices than they 
 would have cost in England. The South American markets are 
 proverbial for their great and sudden fluctuations, which may cause 
 these shipments sometimes to be profitable, but it is within the know- 
 ledge of this committee that they are often times unprofitable. 
 
 This however is no disparagement to our characters, as manufactu- 
 rers. The British have the low quality material, as cheap as we have, 
 and can work it, as we have been informed, to much more advan- 
 tage ; while for the better qualities, they do not give more than 7 1-2 
 per cent, over what the New England manufacturers pay, which real- 
 ly has no bearing in the cost of goods, while this article is so low. If 
 a British manufacturer paid 15 per cent more for his material, than 
 our manufacturers, the difference even in the heaviest cloths of 3 
 yards to a pound, and taking the cotton at 12 cents a pound, would
 
 27 
 
 only be 3-5ths of a cent a yard, against the English manufacturer ; 
 while on the middling goods of 5 yards to a pound, it would diminish 
 to 3-Sths of a cent, and in the finest goods, it would only be from 
 l-6th to l-4th of a cent a yard. It is often held up as a reason why 
 we should excel our competitors eventually, if not now, in this man- 
 ufacture, that we raise the raw material within our own country, but 
 it does in fact cost at least half as much to transport it from the cot- 
 ton states, to New England, as it does to Great Britain ; but if it cost 
 even 50 per cent more in England, we have shewn that it would not 
 materially affect the cost of the manufactured article. The princi- 
 pal elements in the value of cotton goods at the present cost of the 
 material, are capital and labour, in which our competitors very much 
 excel us. It has been stated by Mr. Huskisson in parliament, (and 
 we cannot have a better authority,) that of 32,000,000 pounds ster- 
 ling of cotton goods, which he estimated the consumption of Great 
 Britain in 1824 ; he ascertained on inquiry, that 26,000,000 pounds 
 sterling, or about four-fifths were profits and labour. 
 
 Now as any addition they pay over our manufacturers for the ma- 
 terial, is of such little importance, capital so abundant as to be at half 
 the rate it is worth here ; and wages are reduced to the lowest mini- 
 mum of existence, to bread and water merely, is it surprising that 
 they should afford cotton and all other manufactures so much lower 
 than they can be made with us ? Ought it to be considered by us as a 
 subject of regret, that we cannot rival England in her manufactures ? 
 Manufactures are forced upon England by her circumstances. She has 
 a' limited territory and a population so dense, that they must be em- 
 ployed in that way or perish. Do we envy her condition in that res- 
 pect ? If you can contract the population of this country within the 
 same space they occupy in Great Britain, and prevent their emigra- 
 tion, we shall then have land at 500 dollars an acre as it is there, 
 low wages, a spirit of competition, which nothing can bring 
 forth but necessity ; and all the other attendant circumstances, which 
 enable the British manufacturers to excel ours. Situated as the two 
 nations now are, they might as well contend with us, in the cultivation 
 of tobacco on lands which would rent in England for four or five 
 times as much as they could be purchased for in Virginia or Ken- 
 tucky. The climate and soil are as well suited to its culture as they 
 are in France, where acting upon the " American system," they raise 
 it at about three or four times the expense we could furnish it of a 
 much belter quality. It is true that in the coarse fabrics, where the 
 material makes up more of the value, and the labour less, we come 
 nearer to the British, but in those we are behind them, and shall 
 always be until we make some near approach to Great Britain in 
 density of population, accumulation of wealth and low wages. 
 
 Why then, we repeat, should we feel regret and mortification at 
 not equalling Great Britain, in a business, in which her advantages 
 over us, grow out of circumstances we should not desire to be placed
 
 28 
 
 in? Our population and capital are not idle, and never will be. It 
 is true, that our opponents tell us that foreign nations will not take our 
 produce. We answer that not a dollar's worth of produce ever per- 
 ished for want of either a foreign or a home market ; one or the 
 other we have always had, and that is all which the public welfare 
 requires. 
 
 If the woollen manufacturers believed in their own maxim " that 
 high duties make goods come cheaper," why is it they have been 
 complaining for years past, against the duty on wool, when we 
 have proved from their own admissions, and Custom House docu- 
 ments, that the whole quantity of foreign wool used is only 4 or 5 
 per cent of the consumption ; and the whole amount of duties on 
 wool, under the increased rates of 1824, was only 179,091 1-3 dol- 
 lars, while the duties on woollens were 3,660,755 dollars? 
 
 If the cotton manufacturers believed that the effect of high duties, 
 imposed by the Tariff of 1816, had been to make goods come 
 cheaper to the consumers, it is admitting that the duties down to 15 
 per cent, are inoperative, and therefore unnecessary ; yet in 1824, 
 the most prosperous period of manufacturing, as indicated by their 
 dividends of 10 to 20 per cent, and sales of stock, at 20 to 50 per 
 cent advance, they came forward, with petitions complaining of the 
 interference of foreign goods, and insufficient profits ; and obtained 
 an increased duty of 1 1-4 cents the yard, on that particular de- 
 scription of goods, which we can manufacture to the most advantage, 
 thus making an addition to the former rate of from 5 to 15 per cent. 
 The committee would add further, that so far are the cotton manu- 
 facturers from being contented with the present duties on cottons, 
 enormous as they are, that some of those most largely interested in 
 this branch of business, and who in 1820 signed a report denouncing 
 any addition to rates, both on cottons and woollens, much lower than 
 they now are as unnecessary and inexpedient, and " tending to favour 
 great capitalists, rather than personal industry, or the owners of small 
 capitals," " to encourage the practice of smuggling," and to have a 
 "tendency to diminish the industry, impede the prosperity, and cor- 
 rupt the morals of the people," are at this time, giving the woollen 
 manufacturers a most cordial support, with a view, as is reasonably 
 inferred, and as we have been informed, to obtain their aid in sus- 
 taining a call for more duties on coarse cotton goods. 
 
 The committee have gone into a detail, which they fear will be 
 considered unnecessary by some, and tedious to all, because they 
 believe the notion they are combatting has misled and corrupted the 
 public mind, more than any of the numerous fallacies and misrepre- 
 sentations in circulation. 
 
 We ask all candid and impartial inquirers, to examine the facts 
 we have adduced, and our reasonings. They cannot we think fail 
 to acknowledge, that we have shewn, in the first place, that cotton 
 goods, have fallen since 1816 not in consequence of the Tariff,
 
 29 
 
 but in spite of it ; and secondly, that we are supported in this con- 
 clusion by the conduct of the cotton manufacturers themselves, in > 
 calling for more duties in 1824, and from the efforts making to 
 obtain, at the ensuing session of Congress, still higher rates. 
 
 Before we terminate this part of our labours, the committee wish 
 it to be understood, that in speaking of woollen and cotton manufac- 
 tures, they do not mean all of them : we .know there are some of the 
 former who admit they are doing well under the existing Tariff; and 
 others, who, if they do not succeed, attribute their failure to a defi- 
 ciency of skill and experience, a difficulty which is every day dimin- 
 ishing. They believe fully that they shall eventually succeed, and 
 at any rate have the honesty to avow, that a business which requires 
 more than the 57 per cent protection, (which is what the woollen 
 manufacturer now enjoys,) is not suited to the interests of the nation. 
 As to the cotton manufacturers, it is well known, that a large number, 
 embracing the most respectable and intelligent portion in this quarter, 
 have disapproved, and many of them, resisted the additions made to 
 the rates imposed by the Tariff of 1816; and some have always "' 
 contended, that those were too high. They predicted, that the con- 
 sequences of such alterations would be, to disaffect, and disgust the 
 whole country, such rates of duty being higher than were either just 
 or necessary ; and at the same time injure the regular established 
 manufacturer, who engaging in the business, as a permanent profes- 
 sion, and not upon speculation, was satisfied with the Tariff of 1S1G ; 
 and ruin others, who might be induced, under the additional stimulus 
 afforded by the Tariff of 1824, to rush into a business they did not 
 understand, and had not the means of pursuing, had they understood 
 it. The events of the last two or three years, have fulfilled their 
 predictions. The woollen manufacturers have also suffered by an 
 imprudent enlargement of their concerns. According to their own 
 statements they extended them in the course of 9 years from 
 10,000,000 dollars to 40,000,000 of dollars ; stimulated no doubt, in a 
 great degree, by the augmentation of duty in 1824 ; and such, many 
 apprehend, will be the effect of the proposed increase from 38 to 80 
 per cent. Some few extensive manufacturers, who may have adven- 
 tured very largely, will perhaps be gainers by the increased value, 
 which such a bounty will give to that kind of property, and availing 
 themselves of the speculations which will follow, to dispose of their 
 stock, they will be enriched ; while on the other hand, the majority 
 of the manufacturers, will be injuriously affected, as were the cotton 
 manufacturers by the alteration of the Tariff in 1824; and as they 
 may be again by the increase of duty, which is contemplated at the 
 ensuing session of Congress. 
 
 This honourable conduct on the part of the gentlemen to whom we 
 
 refer, which evinced a knowledge of their own true interests, and at 
 
 the same time a just regard for the national welfare, instead of being 
 
 viewed in its proper light by the advocates of the prohibitory system, 
 
 5
 
 30 
 
 was spoken of by Mr. Niles in the following terms, " I well remember 
 it was haughtily and harshly said that the Tariff would render the 
 great state of Virginia, tributary to Rhode Island; and at the very 
 moment when the capitalists of Waltham in Massachusetts, &tc. &.C., 
 were opposing the Tariff, that monopoly might rest with them ;" and 
 again by Mr. Tibbits, to whom we have before referred, as one of 
 the most distinguished writers in favour of the " American System," 
 and a member of the Harrisburg Convention ; " It is maintained by 
 some of the oldest and most forward manufacturers, that manufac- 
 tures do not require further protection. It is with difficulty, this 
 opinion can be reconciled, with pure intentions. In the absence of 
 all necessary proof, we are led to attribute it to the over-bearing 
 influence of self-interested motives." 
 
 Mr. Carey in some of his numerous essays, has expressed himself 
 much to the same effect. These gentlemen have written and pub- 
 lished more upon the prohibitory, or as they term it, " the American 
 System," than all its other advocates united ; and we observe their 
 statements and opinions are always referred to, with the utmost res- 
 pect and deference, by all those who are disposed to carry matters to 
 extremes. We have quoted these remarks, not with a wish to disturb 
 the harmony which prevails between those gentlemen and the manu- 
 facturers generally, but to show how much at variance they are in 
 their notions of protection, with some of the manufacturers among us, 
 who from their great success, may be supposed to understand their 
 own interests, at least as well as these theorists, who have undertaken 
 to direct them. However well intended may be the speculations of 
 these writers, it is evident that the most intelligent, practical manu- 
 facturers, in this quarter, do not agree with them, and disclaim their 
 opinions and views, as tending, if carried into effect, to do them a se- 
 rious injury. They no doubt unite with all reasonable men in think- 
 ing that the greatest dangers, and the only ones the manufacturers 
 now have to encounter, arise from the interference of mistaken and 
 over-zealous advocates, who seem neither to understand what pro- 
 tection manufactures require, nor indeed even what they now enjoy. 
 
 SECTION 7. Another prevailing argument in favour of restriction 
 and non-importation is, that Europeans do not take our produce free- 
 ly, and at any rate that domestic exports being chiefly from the 
 Southern sections, are of very little benefit to the Northern States. 
 Some apply this on the one hand to the trade between Great Britain and 
 the Northern States, others, more generally, to the whole foreign trade 
 of the United States. When the desired effect is to bring odium on a ri- 
 val manufacturing nation, England is alluded to ; but when the object 
 is to excite Northern prejudices against Southern interests and Southern 
 rights, the smallness of our exports from the Eastern and middle States 
 to Europe generally, and more especially to England, is dwelt upon. 
 
 We will now select as we have before done, quotations from such 
 authorities as are held in the greatest respect by the advocates of the 
 exclusive policy.
 
 31 
 
 From Mr. H. G. Otis' speech at the Boston Woollens Convention, 
 in June, we take the following. " The British system in particular, 
 is equivalent to a total prohibition upon the produce of this part of the 
 country. The revised tariff will show, that they admit only what it 
 is impossible lor us to introduce in competition with their own pro- 
 duce and fabrics. 
 
 While they take nothing from us, they seem to have enjoyed the 
 prescriptive usage (which many of our citizens are willing to counte- 
 nance,) of supplying us with all we want, from hats to shoes, and of 
 manufacturing for us all things down to a hob-nail." Again ; " with- 
 out manufactures we must come to want every thing, and can pay for 
 nothing. Thus commerce and agriculture must sink together, like 
 two fond sisters in a gradual decline, and be buried in the same 
 grave." 
 
 " Europe will take almost nothing which your soil produces." 
 
 Mr. Tibbits hi his address says ; " It is found that foreign coun- 
 tries subsist very well without any, or hut a small proportion of our 
 agricultural productions, and the most of them are absolutely refused 
 admittance under severe penalties." 
 
 Mr. Stewart, member of congress from Pennsylvania, observes ; 
 " We are told, we must buy from Great Britain, that she may buy from 
 us. How is this matter ? Great Britain buy of us ! ! What does she 
 buy from the Northern and Middle States? Sir, nothing. Great Brit- 
 ain from whom we bought in 1825, upwards of 42,000,000 dollars of 
 merchandize, 10,632,000 dollars of wool and woollens, took in ex- 
 change of the agricultural produce of all the States north of the Po- 
 tomac and Ohio, an amount less than 500 dollars ! /" From the 
 Pennsylvania address, we extract the following : " The domestic ex- 
 ports of the United States, in 1796, were about 33,000,000, exclu- 
 sive of cotton and tobacco. In 1825, excluding those articles, they 
 were only 23,982,473 dollars ; our population in 1796, was about 
 4,750,000. It is now about 12,500,000. Thus while it has nearly 
 trebled, the exports of all the articles produced by about 10,000,000 
 of our population, have diminished one third ; although the export of 
 manufactures has increased four-fold." We have, we believe, em- 
 braced in these extracts the substance of what they found their ar- 
 guments upon, and we understand from what is here advanced, and 
 the general tenor of their publications, that they mean to sustain the 
 following points : 
 
 1st. That foreign countries generally, take but a small proport'ion 
 of our agricultural products. 
 
 2nd. That according to Mr. Otis, and others, the British system is 
 equivalent to a total prohibition of the produce of this part of the 
 country ; and that she, (Great Britain,) continues to supply us with 
 all we want, from the most important, to the most inconsiderable 
 article. 
 
 3d. That in 1825, we purchased of Great Britain 42,000,000 dol-
 
 32 
 
 lars in merchandize, while she took in exchange, less than 500 dol- 
 lars in agricultural produce of all the States north of the Potomac. 
 
 4th. That the domestic exports from the United States, in 179G, 
 excluding tobacco and cotton, were about 33,000,000 of dollars. In 
 1S25, excluding those articles, only 23,982,473 dollars. 
 
 5th. That however large the exportation of domestic produce to 
 England and elsewhere, it is, comparatively speaking, of very little 
 advantage to the northern section of the Union, as the various pro- 
 ductions of which it is composed, are chiefly of the growth of the 
 Southern States, and that this should reconcile the latter to the pro- 
 hibitory system, even though it should be burdensome. 
 
 In answer to the 1st, there is no doubt that the quantity of agricul- 
 tural produce exported is small compared with what is consumed at 
 home, and this must be the case in all countries ; but it is in refer- 
 ence to our export trade generally for past years, that this assertion 
 is made. It is then so far from being true, that the official returns 
 for J825 give the largest export for many years, viz: 66,944,745 
 dollars, in domestic productions, of which, only 5,729,797 dollars 
 were in manufactures, and those were chiefly such as receive the least 
 protection from the tariff of 1816. To this amount must be added 
 32,590,643 dollars, export of foreign goods, which having been pro- 
 v,cured in exchange for domestic produce^ not only gives the same em- 
 ployment to American labour and capital, that a like amount of wool- 
 len manufactures does, but a still further one to mechanics, mer- 
 chants, labourers and navigators, engaged in the transportation of it, 
 and that too, instead of imposing an enormous taxation on the con- 
 sumers, as the restrictive system does, affording a great revenue to 
 the nation. 
 
 The benefits also of this foreign trade, instead of being confined to 
 100,000 proprietors of factories, is distributed to millions, throughout 
 all the various sections of the Union. The exports of 1826, have 
 fallen off to 53,055,710 dollars of domestic, and 24,539,612 dollars 
 of foreign articles, making a deficiency, compared with the former 
 year, of 21,940,066 dollars ; this has arisen in part from the great 
 decline in price of some of our staples, but still more from the opera- 
 tion of the non-importation system, which by excluding such articles 
 as foreigners have to give us in exchange for our produce, narrows 
 down their means of purchasing it. We are told by Mr. Tibbits, 
 " if a nation cannot pay, or in other words cannot export, it cannot 
 import; if it can export but little, it can import but little ; in the long 
 run its exports must be equal to its imports, and its imports must be 
 equal to its exports." And by Mr. Otis in his convention speech, 
 " imports in the long run, cannot exceed exports," and of course ex- 
 ports cannot in the long run, exceed imports ; and thus as Mr. Otis 
 continues, " the farmer being deprived of the foreign market, will 
 raise no more than what is required for his own subsistence." 
 Nothing can be more true. If we prohibit importation of foreign
 
 33 
 
 goods, we necessarily in effect, prohibit the exportation of our domes- 
 tic produce, because we deprive foreign nations on whom we depend 
 for its consumption, of the means of paying for it; and yet the men 
 who are the most active in establishing this system, complain that our 
 export trade diminishes ! ! 
 
 In regard to the first declaration in the second point, so far is it 
 from being true, that we find on reference to the Custom-House re- 
 port for 1825, the exports offish, flour, candles, lumber, ashes, flax- 
 seed, hides, tallow and other Northern articles direct to Great Brit- 
 ain, amounted to about 1,200,000 dollars, and to the British Colonies, 
 4,213,478 dollars; in all 5,413,478 dollars; 5,000,000 of dollars of 
 which was no doubt produced " north of the Potomac," which seems 
 to be the utmost limit of that export trade, which the supporters of 
 the " American System" regard with any favour. The exports of 
 similar articles to the same places in 1826, somewhat exceed this 
 amount. 
 
 It is true that the principal portion of this trade, which produc- 
 ed in the aggregate, an export for 1826, to the British Colonies 
 alone, from the whole o the United States, an amount of 4,798,765 
 dollars, of which less than 2 per cent was carried in British ships ; 
 and employed 102,000 tons shipping in transporting these produc- 
 tions, we are now deprived of; and it is so we think in retaliation of 
 our anti-commercial and prohibitory system, imposing on the average, 
 three times at least as much duty on such manufactures as Great Brit- 
 ain must rely upon to barter for our produce, as she does on such pro- 
 ductions as are best suited to the circumstances and interests of this na- 
 tion to raise and export. It is for the interest of Great Britain, and con- 
 formable to her new commercial policy, to have the trade between this 
 country and her colonies, an open one. She tendered this trade to us on 
 such terms as met her own views, and although for a time declined by 
 us, we afterwards acceded to. Why then does she recede from her own 
 offers ? The British Minister in his correspondence with Mr. Gal- 
 latin, has assigned no reasons for his refusal ; he could not urge the 
 one which we think prevailed on his-tnind, because it did not belong 
 to the discussion in which he was engaged ; as we have an unques- 
 tionable right to regulate or destroy our commerce by legislation, 
 or in any other way most suitable to the wisdom of our Government. 
 It is however incumbent on the men now in power in England, to 
 regulate their commercial system in regard to the United States, in 
 conformity to such laws as we may enact in regard to our intercourse 
 with them. Mr. Huskisson on removing many of the various restric- 
 tions on trade and navigation, has always held out as a compensation 
 to those who imagined their interests suffered by his reforms, that he 
 would either keep open foreign markets for the shipping and manu- 
 factures of Great Britain, or retaliate by closing the trade with Eng- 
 land and her possessions, against those nations who would not recip- 
 rocate the liberal principles he acted upon.
 
 34 
 
 This is the spirit of his system, and he must, in case we exclude 
 the manufactures of England, exclude our produce and shipping, or 
 forfeit his pledge to the nation. 
 
 This result may perhaps of all others, be the most desirable, not 
 to the manufacturers generally, but to that portion of them who are 
 so selfish as to wish, or so short sighted as to expect, to sustain their 
 interests, while they stand in opposition to those of the whole nation ; 
 and still more to a class of politicians, who having no concern in 
 manufactures themselves, and evincing an entire disregard to the bad 
 consequences they may ultimately bring on those interests, which 
 they affect to promote, are converting a question of national policy to 
 party purposes ; and dazzled by those visions of political greatness, 
 which play before their minds, are ready to undermine any estab- 
 lished institutions, however useful, and subvert any of those great and 
 sacred principles, on which our national peace and welfare depend, 
 so that they may gratify their ungovernable and mischievous ambition. 
 
 Those politicians (of whose sincerity in the part they are now 
 acting, the manufacturers themselves have reason to doubt, since the 
 most active and ambitious of them, only 3 or 4 years ago, when the 
 duties were on woollens and cottons much lower than they now are, 
 were equally zealous on the other side,) omit no possible opportunity, 
 of instilling, through reviews, newspapers, addresses, and every other 
 avenue of communication with the nation, the worst prejudices against 
 foreign trade, those engaged in it, and the nations with whom we 
 have the largest transactions, and that too in a community where 
 two thirds of the people are dependent on it for their daily bread. 
 
 In answer to Mr Otis' second assertion, " that Great Britain con- 
 tinues to supply us with all we want from the most important to the 
 most inconsiderable article," we do not mean to take his words in a 
 strict literal sense, but if the terms he uses mean any thing, it is that 
 we still rely almost entirely on Great Britain for the various manufac- 
 tures we consume, from the least to the greatest articles. Now what 
 is the fact ? The committee find on examination, that the average 
 of our importations of all sorts of goods from Great Britain in 1825 
 and 1826 was 31,422,617 dollars, from which an amount exceeding 
 2,000,000 dollars was .re-exported, leaving an amount of manufac- 
 tured and unmanufactured articles for consumption of about 
 29,500,000 dollars. Now the whole amount of manufactures consum- 
 ed in the United States, taken at a low estimate of 30 dollars a head 
 would be 360,000,000 dollars.* Thus the proportion expended in 
 Great Britain for manufactures, and all other articles, as compared 
 with our expenditures at home would be something less than a 
 twelfth part. These perhaps to the advocates of the new system, 
 may appear as slight mistakes, as indeed they are, compared with 
 some we have already exposed, and others we have yet to correct. 
 
 * Produce of the domestic manufactures has been estimated by Niles at 300,000,000 
 dollars.
 
 35 
 
 We point them out however, not as of any importance in our view 
 of the subject, for we are not among; those who deem it a misfortune 
 to the country, to buy goods abroad at one half what they would cost 
 to make at home. And we apprehend such are the opinions of most 
 men who do not share in the profits of manufacturing, and even of 
 the most intelligent portion of those who do. Our main object then, 
 in examining many of the statements we have answered, is to show 
 how little reliance can be placed on the arguments of our opponents, 
 even if founded on sound principles, since the statements on which 
 they rest, are so entirely at issue with probabilities and facts. 
 
 We have not quoted thus freely, from Mr. Otis' speech, without 
 having read it, with that attention, we are disposed to give to every 
 thing coming from so eminent a man, and even imagining, that we 
 might find arguments in it strong enough for our own conversion. 
 We however see nothing in it to change our opinions. That foreign 
 trade is derogatory to the character and injurious to the interests 
 of a great nation that dear goods made at home, are better than 
 cheap ones from abroad that capital and labour cannot be employed 
 in this country without prohibitory duties. That it is patriotic to tax 
 the many for the benefit of the few. That it is just to aid by legis- 
 lation, manufactures which do not succeed without it. That we ought 
 to sell to other nations, but never to buy from them ; and finally, 
 that it is wise to have good theories but still wiser to act on bad 
 ones are we have long since known, fundamental principles, among 
 the advocates of the " American System." 
 
 It is however somewhat new, and still more extraordinary, that 
 these ancient and venerable maxims, sprung from the darkest ages 
 of ignorance and despotism, and whose best apology Mr. Webster has 
 said, (in one of his admirable speeches against the system,) " will be 
 found in that sluggish and unenlightened state of society, in which 
 they were established," should, after having been driven from every \ 
 enlightened corner of the world, take their last refuge here, and find 
 what they have not done before for 50 years, a statesman of great 
 experience and knowledge, willing to risk his reputation in their 
 defence. 
 
 It is however most consolatory to us, and as we think, a very sat- 
 isfactory evidence of the weakness of their cause and the strength of 
 our own to see that even one of the most ingenious defenders of 
 the system, has not been able to find any sounder arguments for its 
 support, than the dullest mind engaged in it. 
 
 In answer to the 3d point we say, that if it was meant, to discuss 
 the trade between Great Britain and the States, " south of the Po- 
 tomac," they should have balanced the exports of that section 
 against the imports to that section ; instead of which, the effect of 
 their way of stating it, is to induce the belief, that while the South- 
 ern States had almost the entire advantage of the export trade with 
 England, the manufacturing States were consumers of all the British
 
 imports, which to the party their arguments are addressed, is consid- 
 ered a great evil. 
 
 We have already shewn from Custom House documents, that in 
 
 1825, we sent direct to Great Britain about 1,200,000 dollars in 
 northern productions, and 4,213,478 dollars to her Colonies, which 
 no one can deny is equally beneficial. The amount exported in 
 
 1826, rather exceeded those sums. It is impossible from the returns, 
 to ascertain exactly the origin of each article, as these geographical 
 distinctions, which formerly were of no importance, have not been 
 attended to at the Treasury, in making up the reports ; but any 
 practical man, will see on reference to the list, that at least 5,000,000 
 dollars must have been produced north of the Potomac. How does 
 this coincide with Mr. Stewart's assertion, which has gone through 
 some hundreds of editions, that only jive hundred dollars, northern 
 produce, was exported in 1825 ? 
 
 We leave our readers to make their own reflections on such gross 
 misrepresentations. It will be said perhaps, that in stating our ex- 
 port at 500 dollars only, Great Britain was intended, in which case, 
 there would only have been an error of 1,199,500 dollars ; but Eng- 
 land and her Colonies, are evidently referred to, because the 
 42,000,000 dollars, stated as imports from Great Britain, include 
 the imports from England and all her Colonies. 
 
 The fourth proposition taken from the Pennsylvania address is so 
 ingeniously expressed, as either to conceal their own meaning, or 
 mislead the public mind. If the intention was to show the compara- 
 tive exports of 1796 and 1825, why leave out the two principal arti- 
 cles, Cotton and Tobacco ? What would be said of the fairness of a 
 writer, who in undertaking to give an account of the export trade of 
 Cuba, should leave out Coffee and Sugars ? The reader is left to 
 infer, that our domestic exports were above 40 per cent, more in 
 1796 than in 1825, and thus an appeal is made (by exhibiting this 
 great falling off in our export trade) to those prejudices against our 
 foreign commerce, which forms an important part of the plan of our 
 opponents. Let us now give an actual statement of the exports of 
 these two years. 
 
 In 1796, our domestic exports they say, were $33,000,000 
 
 Add tobacco, 67,018 hhds. and 29,181 Ibs. 
 worth about $5,000,000 
 
 Add 6,106,729 Ibs. cotton, worth 
 
 about $2,000,000 $7,000,000 
 
 $40,000,000 
 Exports of domestic produce in 
 
 1825, $23,982,473 
 
 Add excluded articles, 
 
 Tobacco, $6,115,623 
 Do. Cotton, 36,846,649 42,962,272 $66,944,745
 
 37 
 
 It appears then, that balancing the omissions of 1796 against the 
 omissions of 1825, they have left out of the latter year the amount of 
 $33,962,272. Here then is a statement coming from a society of 
 men, who are among the principal founders and promoters of the 
 new system, issuing their circulars, assembling conventions to make 
 tariffs for the government, and undertaking to direct the public 
 mind, and the national legislature upon the most important subject 
 which can come before them ; who, in giving an account of the most 
 valuable branch of our commerce, leave out 33,962,272 dollars, or 
 more than half the amount. 
 
 We are aware it may be said by some of their apologists, that if 
 they omitted cotton and tobacco in 1796, they did the same in 1825, 
 but this does not equalize their statement, because at the former pe- 
 riod the culture of cotton had but just commenced, while at the lat- 
 ter it was our principal staple. 
 
 We admit, however, that considering the increase of wealth and 
 population since 1796, our exports are much less than might be ex- 
 pected, and this is owing principally to the effects of our system of high 
 duties. " Exports (as we are told by Mr. Tibbits) must be equal to 
 imports." If we diminish the consumption of manufactures and pro- 
 duce of foreign nations by excessive and prohibitory duties, we di- 
 minish their means of purchasing and consuming the produce of our 
 country. 
 
 There is indeed another way of accounting for this blind and de- 
 ceptive statement we have been examining, and it is what we have 
 before adverted to ; the determination of the party we are opposing, 
 to throw out of the case all the exports of the southern or " planta- 
 tion states" (as they are termed) either as comparatively speaking un- 
 important to our national welfare, or at any rate as not contributing 
 to the prosperity of the northern and middle states j and this indeed 
 embraces the fifth and last point we are attempting to refute. 
 
 To make out their case, the most laboured and plausible estimates 
 have been circulated, contrasting the small amount of exports from 
 the manufacturing, compared with the more agricultural states. The 
 gross inaccuracy of some of those, coming too from their most res- 
 pectable advocates, has already been exposed. But if they had been 
 correct in their statements and proved that not a dollar's worth of pro- 
 duce had been shipped for 20 or a hundred years, north of the Poto- 
 mac, it would not by any means follow that it would he just or expe- 
 dient to tax and destroy the trade of those sections, whose situation 
 and circumstances enabled them to export ; nor would it prove, what 
 our opponents have taken infinite pains to have believed, that we do 
 not participate, and that too, in a very high degree, in the advantages 
 of this so much envied export trade. 
 
 Will our opponents pretend to say, that a foreign trade is not ben- 
 eficial to any of the states, but such as can furnish from their own 
 .soil the productions which sustain it? If such was in fact the case, 
 
 6
 
 38 
 
 one quarter of the Union would be excluded from its advantages. 
 There are at least some five or six states, whose principal staples 
 never reached the shores of Europe, and never will perhaps, till the 
 tides of the Atlantic flow to the foot of the Alleganies. What is it, 
 we would inquire, which prevents our enjoying in common with the 
 southern states the advantage of their great agricultural staples ? Is 
 it distance or difficulty of communication ? This certainly cannot 
 be the case, for New-York is much nearer to Virginia, than we are 
 to some of the manufacturing states, and New England generally, can 
 communicate with the Carolines, much sooner and at less expense 
 than with Ohio, or many parts of Pennsylvania and New-York ; yet 
 no one will deny the advantages we derive from their agricultural 
 productions. Why then draw a line at the Potomac, as if the coun- 
 try beyond that had a distinct interest from the northern sections ? 
 Why array the northern and middle against the southern and south- 
 western sections, as if we were not the same nation, and the advan- 
 tages peculiar to each were not shared in common ? " Are not the 
 lines already drawn (says one of their advocates) and is it not wheth- 
 er freemen or slaves, whether white men or black men, shall rule the 
 destinies of this country ?" Such are the distinctions, and such the 
 language made use of by many of the party we are resisting, towards 
 the people of those sections of the country, who in common with a 
 large majority here, reprobate the prohibitory system. 
 
 We have before observed that New England, and such of the mid- 
 dle states as are likely for the next 50 years to share with her in 
 the business of manufacturing for other states, are already compara- 
 tively populous, employed extensively in commerce and manufactures, 
 and of course consumers of their own productions to an extent, which 
 under any circumstances, not only affords us little for export, but obli- 
 ges us to be large importers for our own consumption ; and this has been 
 our situation for along period of time. Our capital and labour how- 
 ever have not been, and are not now idle, and if we may judge from 
 the superior degree of comfort, and wealth enjoyed here, over the 
 " plantation states," they are employed in a more profitable way. 
 We are then, compared with the southern and western sections, a 
 commercial, navigating, manufacturing people, and consuming more 
 than we raise, we must depend for our agricultural exports on those 
 sections, which are less populous, and entirely dependant on agricul- 
 ture ; while they leave to us the benefit of transporting their produce, 
 and take from us largely the various products of our industry. 
 
 We have no means of ascertaining precisely, as we have before 
 observed, the origin of all our exports, but it is conceded that a very 
 large proportion of our domestic articles, varying from year to year 
 from three fifths to three quarters of the whole amount, are the pro- 
 duce of the southern states; but whether more or less, is of no im- 
 portance in our view of the case to the subject we are discussing, 
 since we share with them in the advantages of this trade.
 
 39 
 
 We certainly will not undertake, nor would it be possible, to point 
 out, the exact measure of benefit enjoyed by us, in the results of 
 southern labour. We will however select the principal commodity, 
 and by tracing in a general way the course which it takes, endeavour 
 to illustrate our meaning. The last crop of cotton, or all which was 
 brought to the various sea-ports for exportation, is ascertained to be 
 about 970,000 bales. The whole of this, whether sent to Europe 
 or consumed at home, must be transported by sea. About 375,000 
 bales have been, or will be sent to the northern ports, commencing 
 from 30th of September, 1826, and ending 30th of September, 1827; 
 of which about 250,000 bales, will be re-exported to Europe. From 
 New-York alone 205,975 bales had been re-shipped between the 
 1st of October, and the 1st of August. The residue goes direct to 
 Europe, from the cotton ports, on which a freight is paid of from 
 three farthings to one penny sterling, occasionally higher or lower. 
 
 That which is re-shipped from the northern ports, pays a half pen- 
 ny per pound, occasionally a little lower; but as this also pays a freight 
 from the south, it will be within bounds to say, that the whole crop 
 of cotton pays a freight on the average of three farthings or 1 1-2 
 cents the pound. All that is sent coastwise, goes in American vessels. 
 Of the portion shipped to Europe, perhaps a tenth goes in foreign ves- 
 sels, such being about the proportion of foreign to American vessels, 
 engaged in our commerce for the years 1825 and 1826, Now ta- 
 king the crop at 970,000 bales, and allowing 340lbs. to a bale, gives 
 329,800,000 pounds, and the freight at 1 1-2 cents amounts to 
 4,947,000 dollars. The other charges on cotton are commissions, 
 shipping charges on what is brought to the north, interest on north- 
 ern capital for 6 to 10 months, employed in transporting it, and premi- 
 um of insurance, which may amount in all, to five per cent on the 
 whole crop, valued at 9 cents per pound is 29, 682, 000 dollars. These 
 charges amount to 1,484,100 dollars, and added to the freight is 
 6,431,100 dollars, nine tenths of the amount of which is distributed 
 among American ship owners, merchants, labourers, capitalists, me- 
 chanics and citizens generally, and not as in the woollen business, to 
 90 or 100,000 persons, but to several millions. Of the shipping em- 
 ployed, if we take the table of tonnage for 1826, nearly one half would 
 belong to New-York and Massachusetts, one eighth to Maine, and 
 about seven eighths of the whole to states north of the Potomac, or 
 the manufacturing states, according to the distinctions now made. 
 We here have a statement, and certainly not an over-charged one, of 
 the direct benefit the northern states receive, and for the transport 
 chiefly, of a staple of which the gross value on the plantations is only 
 29,682,000 dollars, and a deduction of 1 1-2 cents a pound for bag- 
 ging, factors, commissions, and transport to the shipping ports, would 
 reduce the amount to 24,735,000 dollars. 
 
 If then we allow one tenth of these charges to foreigners, and one 
 eighth of what remains to shipping owned south of the Potomac, there
 
 40 
 
 would remain about 5,000,000 of dollars (on a staple worth only 
 24,735,000 dollars) which goes to the direct support of the northern 
 states. 
 
 Let us now see what becomes of the proceeds of this cotton. 
 
 The 374,000 bales sent to the Northern ports are principally, if not 
 entirely paid for, by the produce and manufactures of the Northern 
 States, or with foreign goods purchased in exchange for Northern 
 productions. This fact may not come within the observation or 
 knowledge of all our readers, but we appeal with the greatest confi- 
 dence to the merchants generally, more especially those of New 
 York, through whose hands most of this trade passes, to confirm the 
 correctness of our assertion. 
 
 We inquire still further, what becomes of the proceeds of that 
 part of the crop which goes direct from the South to Europe ? 
 
 We shall find that a very large amount returns to Northern hands, 
 in payment for Southern debts incurred by the purchase of Northern 
 produce and manufactures. 
 
 If what we have stated is true, and no one can deny that it is so, 
 will it still be said or believed, even by those who persist in saying it, 
 that the cotton planters of the South do not promote the employment 
 of Northern capital and labour, and that we do not participate with 
 them in the benefits of their exports ? 
 
 If such was not the case, what has become of the 400,000,000 
 dollars or more, proceeds of cotton, for the last 30 years ? Have the 
 planters invested it in bank stock or national securities ? It is well 
 known that they hold very little of either. Much of these earnings 
 have no doubt been expended in the improvement and extension of 
 their estates, but a far greater amount has been distributed in the 
 Northern sections, and could we trace it through all its channels, no 
 small portion of it would be found in the purses of those wealthy man- 
 ufacturers, some of whom are forcing upon the nation a system which 
 will injure and disaffect their best customers. What we have said of 
 cotton applies equally to tobacco, rice, naval stores, and all the South- 
 ern and Western staples. There cannot be a day's useful labour 
 performed in those sections, in which we do not share with them in 
 its benefits. To think otherwise implies total ignorance of the na- 
 ture of trade, and of our connexion with the Southern States. We 
 are told, however, with a great deal of emphasis, that the consump- 
 tion of cotton is immensely promoted by the new system. How so ? 
 Would not the material manufactured here be used for similar pur- 
 poses, by those foreign manufacturers who would furnish us with 
 goods ? No one can deny this, and we say to a greater extent, if 
 foreign goods come cheaper, and for a most obvious reason, that the 
 lower the article the greater the consumption. So far then are the 
 cotton planters from being benefited by the tarirTof 1816, that besides 
 paying a great increase of price on articles of the first necessity, the 
 effect of it has been to lessen the consumption of their staple, on
 
 41 
 
 which 2,000,000 of people mainly depend for subsistence, instead of 
 the 300,000 persons which Mr. Davis, and other authorities affirm, 
 comprehend the whole number engaged, both in manufactures of cot- 
 ton and wool. 
 
 Burdensome, however, as has been that measure, the cotton plant- 
 ers have borne it. They have not, we believe, ever sent in a peti- 
 tion against it, nor even against the additions since made after the law 
 was altered. It is against still further encroachments, they are now 
 contending. 
 
 Again, it is asserted by Mr. Everett in his Convention speech, 
 " that as far as our domestic cottons take the place of India goods, 
 their manufacture is a clear addition to the demand for American 
 cotton ;" leaving it to be inferred by this sentence, and what preced- 
 ed, that the high duties imposed in 1816 had forced India cotton 
 goods out of use. In the first place, if this was true, the quantity of 
 the raw material in question, is of no moment whatever. Our ave- 
 rage consumption of India cotton goods, for 10 years before the pro- 
 tecting tariff of 1816 passed, did not exceed 8400 bales a year. 
 The quantity of cotton they required could not have exceeded 12 or 
 14,000 bales, which in a crop of 970,000, or even 500,000 bales, 
 has no influence whatever. 
 
 Jn the next place, the expulsion of India cotton goods has no more 
 to do with the tariff of 1816, than the question of the North-West 
 passage or perpetual motion. Cotton manufactures of all sorts have 
 been so much lower in England than in India for 10 years past, as to 
 form one of the principal exports from that country to all parts of 
 Asin, to a much greater amount than we now consume of those 
 fabrics. 
 
 No cottons made in India could have been imported here without 
 loss, hac\ that tariff never been passed, nor at this lime with a bounty 
 o/20 per cent, it is therefore the great decline of goods in Eng- 
 land which has forced them out of use, and not the " American 
 System." 
 
 Our opponents again contend, that Southern interests have an 
 equivalent in the prohibitory duties in favour of their staples ; snvff, 
 tobacco and cotton. On the latter 3 cents a pound, which Mr. Carey 
 says, " is 35 to 50 per cent, and actually prohibitory ;" and adds, " he x 
 trusts no man of honour will deny it." What men of honour will de- 
 ny or affirm, is not the business of this committee to say. It is the 
 argument founded on this statement which we are to consider, and 
 we beg leave to call the attention of our readers to it, as coming from 
 a man whom the advocates of non-importation and non-exportation 
 profess to look up to as one of the principal founders of the "Amer- 
 ican System," and in whose and Mr. Niles' publications, we have 
 seen most of those statements and reasonings, which have been so 
 often brought forward, and repeated in conventions, in congress, and 
 elsewhere. The duty on tobacco, was always inoperative, as it has
 
 42 
 
 been on cotton for 25 years, and when first imposed in 1790, it was 
 not a protecting duty, for the cultivation had hardly commenced. It 
 was a duty for revenue, and a very moderate one, since as the price 
 it then bore, 30 to 33 cents a pound, it amounted to only 10 pel- 
 cent. The making of snuff, we apprehend, is more beneficial to the 
 Northern manufacturer than to the Southern planter, and if not, it is 
 too insignificant to be of any importance in such a question as this. 
 We will, however, venture to say, that the Virginians will not only 
 surrender all the profit, but pay for all the snuff used in this country 
 since the date of their charter, for a few years of their portion of the 
 woollen tax. 
 
 To talk of protecting the interests of the south, by duties on arti- 
 cles which are notoriously cheaper there than in any section of the 
 globe, must appear to every one as it does to this committee, to be 
 trifling with the subject. What would the inhabitants of New En- 
 gland think, if in reply to complaints against a heavy tax imposed on 
 the nation to promote the culture of tobacco and cotton at the south, 
 they should be told by the people of those states, that " congress had 
 for their benefit, imposed a high duty on the importation of codfish 
 and lumber from France, and England ?" It strikes the committee 
 that such an answer would appear something like a sarcasm, and we 
 should conceive that a statesman who treated the business in this 
 manner, evinced either a gross ignorance of his subject or a most 
 insulting levity. 
 
 Yet this is the language, and such the arguments used by the 
 statesmen and economists whom we are opposing, to reconcile 
 southern people to an unequal, unjust and burdensome taxation, and 
 when they are restive under it, they complain of their irritability. 
 
 To those who have read with attention the numerous publications 
 of the advocates of the ' ; protecting system," nothing can be more 
 striking and offensive, than the utter disregard displayed in many of 
 them, to southern interests, southern feelings, and southern rights. 
 This must be a cause of regret to all reflecting men ; for whatever 
 zeal may be felt on the one handler indifference on the other, among 
 our own citizens, it should be considered that this is not a mere 
 abstract question, unimportant in its effects, and when once determined 
 may be expected to subside into that state of quietness and oblivion 
 which many others do. 
 
 It is a question involving in its consequences our whole foreign 
 and domestic policy, and whether settled in favour of one party or 
 the other, there will be sufficient causes of animosity, without those 
 constant appeals to sectional prejudices, from which the worst effects 
 cannot fail to flow. 
 
 The southern production, however, on which most stress has been 
 laid, is the article of brown sugar, on which Mr Carey says, there has 
 been imposed " the exorbitant duty of 3 cents a pound, equal to 75 
 per cent to 100 per cent, for the protection of the wealthy planter of 
 Louisiana."
 
 43 
 
 In the first place, even at the present low price of sugar, the duty 
 is very considerably less than is represented ; it would not average 
 over 60 per cent. In the next place, so far from being levied " for the 
 benefit of the rich planter of Louisiana," it was established at 2 1-2 
 cents a pound, before ive acquired possession of that country. The 
 duty was not imposed for protection, but for revenue, and did not 
 amount, at the price sugar then bore, to more than 25 per cent. In 
 18 12 when the war duties were laid, it was, with other rates, doubled, 
 making 5 cents a pound. In 1816, when our system was changed 
 from moderate duties for revenue, to what is called the " protecting 
 system," what did congress do in reference to this article? They 
 lowered the rate to 3 cents a pound, leaving only an addition of 1-2 
 a cent a pound ; while they raised the duties on cotton goods on an 
 average, to 50 or 60 per cent, and gave to the woollen manufac- 
 tures a duty of nominally 25, really 29 per cent, instead of the 
 former rate, previous to war duties being established, of 15 per cent, 
 and subsequently raised it to 38 per cent, which the manufacturers 
 contend must still further be advanced from 38 to 139 per cent, 
 averaging perhaps 80 per cent. It should be borne in mind, that 
 in April 1816, when the Tariff passed, the prices of brown mus- 
 covado sugars, exclusive of duty, averaged 10 to 12 cents, making 
 the duty 25 to 33 1-3 per cent, according to the qualities of the 
 article. 
 
 Thus it appears that since Louisiana was admitted into the Union, 
 government has added 1-2 a cent a pound to duty of 2 1-2 cents, 
 " to protect the rich planter," while woollens have since that lime 
 been raised from 12 1-2 to 38 per cent, and cottons to 4 or 5 times 
 the rate they then paid. We will now estimate the whole protecting 
 duty paid on sugars, compared with what is paid on woollens. 
 We admit that the duty operates in the case of sugars as in woollens, 
 to increase the cost to the consumers, by the amount of duties paid. 
 The consumption of brown sugar similar to the Louisiana, may be 
 about 45,000,000 pounds, of which 25,000,000 pounds are raised 
 in Louisiana ; the whole duty is 1,350,000 dollars ; of this sum 
 750,000 dollars, being 3 cents a pound on all which is raised at home, 
 goes to the Louisiana planters, and 600,000 dollars being the duty on 
 what is actually imported, goes into the public chest for revenue, of 
 which we all share the benefit. 
 
 The amount of woollens consumed in the United States is 72,000,000 \- 
 dollars, on which the duty at 38 per cent amounts to 27',360,000 
 dollars. The average importation for 1825 and 1826 is 9,000,000 
 dollars, the duty on which is 3,420,000 dollars ; of the protecting 
 duties on woollens 3,420,000 dollars, go into the treasury of the 
 United States as revenue, and the balance, 23,940,000 dollars, is the 
 tax paid by the nation at large, for the benefit of the woollen manu- 
 facturers ; yet all their memorials go upon the assumption, that very 
 little has been done in favour of the woollen manufactures.
 
 44 
 
 It would appear then, that on comparing the bounty received by 
 " the wealthy planters of Louisiana," with the bounty paid to the 
 woollen manufacturers, that the former receive 750,000 dollars, and 
 the latter 23,910,000 dollars. The number of manufacturers, we 
 are informed by Mr. Davis, and other good authorities, are from 90 to 
 100,000, directly and indirectly employed ; but as we have before 
 shewn, that three quarters of all the woollens consumed in the United 
 States were made at home, when the duty was but five per cent, and 
 that no complaints were made of want of protection, it will be 
 admitted by candid men, that this tax is levied that we may support 
 25,000 additional manufacturers. Of the number of persons de- 
 pendant on the cultivation of sugar, we have no very accurate means 
 of judging, but we should imagine the number could not be fewer 
 than 25 or 80,000 persons. 
 
 As some of our opponents may be inclined from the magnitude of 
 the woollen tax, to dispute the principle on which it is estimated, we 
 will give them some of their most valued authorities to shew that 
 they have sanctioned its correctness. In a speech of Mr. Davis, on 
 the woollens bill, in referring to the burden imposed in the manufac- 
 tures by the high duty on wool, he observes " It is no answer to 
 this view of the subject, to say that a large portion of the wool used 
 here is purchased of our farmers ; for as long as wool is imported, 
 the foreign article will regulate the price, and when American wool 
 of equal quality falls below it, importations will cease," and Mr. Carey 
 in one of his essays, discussing the same subject, affirms, "this 
 operates most oppressively on the manufacturers, as the quantity of 
 wool produced in this country, notwithstanding a great increase of 
 late, is inadequate to the demand, and they are obliged to depend 
 much on foreign supplies ; and it has been justly observed, " that the 
 price of the domestic article is regulated by that of the foreign." 
 
 The principle has also been fully recognized by Mr. Everett in his 
 convention speech, and by many others who have been equally 
 zealous in advocating the non-importation system. We will cite still 
 another authority, for the satisfaction of the doubtful. It is from the 
 report of Alexander Hamilton, whom our opponents have affected to 
 rank among the supporters of their policy, though as we shall here- 
 after show, without the least reason. In a discussion upon the nature 
 and effects of protecting duties he says, " They evidently amount to 
 a virtual bounty on domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the charges 
 on foreign articles, they enable the national manufacturers to under- 
 sell all their foreign competitors." And such is the operation of the 
 duty on woollens, and all other duties imposed on importations. When 
 the duties are sufficiently moderate to permit the importation of 
 foreign goods, such duties go into the public purse, for the benefit of 
 all, they then operate like any other taxes, and though the manu- 
 facturers benefit by them, no one can complain ; since if revenue 
 was not collected in that way, it must be in some other ; but when
 
 45 
 
 duties are so high as to prevent importations, the tax is still paid 
 by the nation, but instead of going into the general fund, it goes into 
 the pockets of the manufacturers ; and this is one of the necessary 
 consequences, though by no means the most injurious, of the "Ame- 
 rican System." 
 
 We beg it may not be understood from any thing we have said, 
 that we are arguing in favor or in defence of the sugar duty. We 
 readily admit it is too high, and that if this staple continues at its 
 present low price, the rate should be lowered, and we have no doubt 
 the Louisiana planters will agree to this, when the Tariff shall un- 
 dergo that revision, which the national welfare so much requires. 
 
 These geographical distinctions, these comparisons of southern 
 and nothern trade, this balancing the pretensions of woollen manu- 
 facturers against the rights and interests of all other classes, is a most 
 unpleasant task to the committee; but it is none of their seeking. 
 If a few hundred men, powerful we admit for their wealth and talents, 
 having a deep interest at stake, and influencing some thousands of 
 others, who are interested in a less degree, aided and stimulated by 
 other able and ambitious men, acting from considerations equally 
 selfish and personal, choose to identify their private and particular 
 interests with those of the public, (against whose welfare their system 
 must operate,) and to assume the name and authority of the 5 or 
 6,000,000 people of the eastern and middle states, and to represent 
 them as favourable to what we consider their impolitic and unjust 
 schemes, we are bound in duty to ourselves, to deny all participation 
 in their opinions and views. 
 
 It certainly cannot be denied, that at this moment there is an 
 appearance of indifference and acquiescence on the part of the public, 
 to the designs of this party, but we err very much in our estimate 
 of the good sense and good principles of this part of the nation, 
 if when half the pains have been taken to expose the effects of this 
 policy which have been displayed in its establishment and promotion. 
 We say, we are very much mistaken, if when that lime arrives, 
 there is not, we will not say as great a proportion, but as large a 
 number opposed to it on this side of the Potomac, as on the other. 
 
 We conclude this division of our report, .with expressing our belief 
 that all impartial men who may examine our statements and our 
 arguments, will agree that we have in the first place, proved the 
 incorrectness of the facts on which our opponents rely for the estab- 
 lishment of their positions, and in the next, if we admit them to be 
 true, no such consequences would flow from them as they would 
 have us believe. 
 
 SECTION 8. Another reason alleged by the woollen-manufac- 
 turers for an increase of duty is, that a reduction of certain duties on 
 wool and other articles used in the manufacture of cloths, amounting 
 to 1G2-3 per cent, was made by the British government subsequent- 
 ly, and in consequence of the alteration of our tariff of 1824, by
 
 46 
 
 which the intention of that law was defeated, and that Congress is 
 bound in justice to give at least such an addition to the present rate, 
 as will equal these taxes, from which the British manufacturers have 
 been relieved. 
 
 That we may do no injustice to the party we are opposing, we pur- 
 sue the plan we at first adopted, of selecting the statements and argu- 
 ments we are attempting to refute, from the most respectable and 
 best known supporters of the prohibitory system. Mr. Lawrence, 
 one of the most intelligent woollen manufacturers, and a member of 
 the Harrisburg Convention, in a speech at the Boston Woollens Con- 
 vention, held in June, in speaking of the tariff of 1824, states, "the 
 British duty on wool was at that time six pence the pound, but no 
 sooner did the British government hear of this act of the Congress of 
 the United Stales, than they reduced the duty on wool to one penny 
 the pound, and subsequently the coarser kinds to an half-penny a 
 pound." From a speech of Mr. Davis, in Congress, made during 
 last winter, we extract the following : " At the time when the tariff of 
 1824 went into operation, all the wool imported into England was 
 subject to, and paid a duty of six pence a pound ; by a subsequent 
 modification of her tariff, this was reduced to 1 penny a pound on all 
 wool costing over one shilling a pound. Mr. Everett, in his speech 
 at the Boston Woollens Convention in June, inquires, " why should 
 we allow the British Parliament to repeal the law which we have pas- 
 sed for the protection of our farmers?" 
 
 "In 1824," continues Mr. Everett, "the American Congress saw 
 fit to give the farmer the benefit of a progressively increasing duty, 
 rising to 30 per cent on imported wool. The British Government 
 immediately thinks fit to lower the duty on wool 44 per cent 5" and 
 again, " taking 20 cents per pound to be the average price of the 
 kind in question, the duty upon it after these two reductions is but 4 
 per cent ; before the reduction it was 48 per cent. The manufac- 
 turer in England has consequently received an advantage of 44 per 
 cent on his wool. But the wool is estimated to be about a third part 
 of the cloth, consequently the manufacturer has gained 14 2-3 per 
 cent in the fabric of his article, by the reduction of the duty on wool." 
 There were also other alterations of duties on rape seed, olive oil, 
 logwood and indigo. " The amount," says Mr. Everett, " of all 
 these, and some other reductions, was stated by Mr. Huskisson, at 
 from 1 to 2 per cent on, the manufacture. I believe it is nearer 
 twice that amount. Taking it however at 2 per cent, in addition to 
 the 14 2-3 per cent already mentioned, it reduces the effective duty 
 in this country on foreign woollens to 16 2-3 per cent, that is, just 
 one half." 
 
 The argument founded on this statement, has been urged with 
 much ingenuity and force, not only at the late woollens meeting in 
 this city, but for twelve months before, in various other meetings, 
 and in memorials, speeches, essays, &c. and with an earnestness
 
 47 
 
 which evinced the strong reliance the manufacturers placed upon it. 
 They have not indeed been mistaken in their estimate of its effect, 
 for nothing we believe has made so deep an impression in their fa- 
 vour. If our readers, however, will give us their attention, we 
 hope to convince them that this is a delusion, which like many 
 others on this subject, owes its success entirely to the indolence, or 
 indifference of those who having the means of detecting its unsound- 
 ness, allow it to pass without examination ; or perhaps still more to 
 the confidence the public are disposed to place in the authority and 
 understandings of those who have chosen to give it currency. A 
 reference to the extracts, and a consideration of the speeches from 
 which we have taken them, will show that they mean to assert the 
 following propositions : 
 
 1st. That the British Government reduced the duties on wool, and 
 certain other articles, in consequence of, and subsequent to, the pas- 
 sing of the tariff law of 1824, and with a view of defeating the pro- 
 visions of that law. 
 
 2dly. That our Government is pledged in good faith, to give the 
 woollen manufacturers such an addition to the present rate of duty, 
 as will equal the taxes of which the British manufacturers have been 
 relieved by their Government. 
 
 3dly. That these reductions referred to, diminish the cost of 
 woollen manufactures in England 162-3 per cent. 
 
 In regard to the first, it appears manifest from what is here ad- 
 vanced, and the general scope of the speeches to which we refer, 
 that our opponents would have us believe, that the British Govern- 
 ment on hearing of the passage of the tariff of 1824, had from a spirit 
 of hostility towards our manufactures, made sudden alterations in 
 their system of duties, to enable their manufacturers still to undersell 
 ours, and thus to countervail the benefit of the increased duty grant- 
 ed by our Government in 1824 ; or to use the words of Mr. Everett,* 
 " had repealed the law passed by the American Congress for the pro- 
 tection of American industry." The effect of these representations, 
 is, in the first place, to establish a claim on the justice of our Gov- 
 ernment, to make good to the manufacturers what was intended to 
 be given them by the tariff of 1824 ; and in the second, to excite a 
 spirit of hostility towards a rival manufacturing nation, standing 
 in the way of the woollen manufacturers. Our objections to these 
 statements are, in thefirst place, thatthey evince a very bad temperf 
 
 * " Unless the American people think it just and fair, that the laws passed by the 
 American Congress for the protection of American industry, stiould be repealed by the Brit- 
 isli Parliament, and that for the purpose of securing the supply of our market, to the 
 British manufacturer to the end of time, it was the duty of Congress to counteract this 
 movement." .Everett's Speech. 
 
 t " Believing, of course, Uiat there is no wish to single it out, (the manufacture of 
 ,, ,., .11,,,,. \ f or unfriendly legislation at home, I cannot sit still, and see the gigantic arm of 
 Government stretched out across the Atlantic, avoioedly to crush it." Everet 's 
 
 Speech.
 
 48 
 
 towards a nation, with whom our commercial transactions are of 
 greater magnitude, and greater value to us, not only than those with 
 any other nation, but than with all Europe besides ; and in the next, 
 that they are founded on an entire misrepresentation of facts. The 
 real truth with respect to the duty of six pence a pound on British 
 wool, as stated by Mr. Robinson, (Chancellor of the Exchequer,) is, 
 " that it did not exist till 1819, for up to that time it had only been 
 one penny the pound, and it was imposed not as a duty of protection, 
 but of revenue." 
 
 "These duties were not the established practice, but an innovation 
 on the established practice of our ancestors." Petitions for its repeal 
 were sent in as early as 1820, and attempts then made, and renewed 
 from year to year, to reduce it to its former rate, but were resisted 
 till 1824, when the necessities of the nation, no longer rendering it 
 indispensable, it was, with the duties on some other articles, reduced. 
 The alteration of the duty on wool was then, only returning to their 
 former system. It was no doubt a relief to the manufacturers and 
 still more to the consumers, but it was done without any particular 
 reference to our tariff, and the measure would unquestionably have 
 been adopted, had no change taken place in our duties. In the va- 
 rious debates from time to time on the subject of this tax, and that of 
 the manufacture of woollens, the importance of supplying the United 
 States with coarse woollens is dwelt upon by one speaker, but it was 
 the competition with the continental manufacturers, which all the *ad- 
 vocatesfor reduction had chiefly in view, and not those of the United 
 States. Indeed when it is considered that the annual product of this 
 branch of manufactures has been estimated by good authorities at 
 45,000,000, or at the present exchange 220,500,000 dollars, 
 and that our imports for the last year, of all sorts of British woollens, is 
 only 7,014,984 dollars, of which a considerable amount was re-ex- 
 ported, the loss of this market cannot be deemed of such vital im- 
 portance, as many persons imagine. Great Britain no doubt places 
 a due value upon our purchases of her manufactures, but we must 
 not overrate their importance. 
 
 Under the present enormous duties imposed on her staples, amount- 
 ing to 3 or 4 times as much as she levies on ours, we shall soon re- 
 duce our imports, so as to render what little amount we may require 
 of no importance whatever. This indeed is the natural effect of the 
 " American System," and such is the result to which we are fast ap- 
 proaching. 
 
 Having shown that the repeal of the wool duty -was petitioned for, 
 four years before the passing of the tariff of 1824, let us now com- 
 pare the date of that law with the passage of the British act redu- 
 
 * " But it was not in America only, we should find ourselves pressed by the continental 
 manufactures; that opposition would meet us in every quarter of the world!!" Lord 
 Milton's Speech on wool duty.
 
 49 
 
 cing the duty on wool. On referring to the laws of the U. States, we 
 find the tariff act dated 22d of May, 1824, while the act reducinsjthe 
 duty on wool passed 1 80 to 20 in the house of commons 2 1 st of May, 
 1824. How then can it be said that a law petitioned for in 1820, 
 which passed 21st May, 1824, (30 or 40 days before the passage of 
 our law was known in England) could have been enacted subsequent- 
 ly to, in consequence of, and with a view of defeating the provisions 
 of a law passed in this country on the 19th, and signed 22d of May 
 of the same year ? We repeat again, the repeal of the wool duty in 
 England, had no reference, and could have had none, to the passage 
 of the tariff of 1824. There is too the most ample evidence in the 
 Parliamentary debates from 1819 to 1824, (to which we refer our 
 readers) that this measure had not the smallest connexion in the 
 minds of the British ministers, with any of the proceedings of our gov- 
 ernment in regard to our own woollen manufactures, oor in the minds 
 of the manufacturers who petitioned for it. 
 
 Here then are the facts utterly disproving the assertions on which 
 the strongest argument in favour of the pretensions of the woollen 
 manufacturers is founded. But it will perhaps be said that the Brit- 
 ish act, if not passed subsequently to the alteration of our tariff, was 
 enacted with the knowledge or belief that such a measure would be 
 adopted. As we have before shewn, the repeal of the duty on wool 
 (which was but a return to its former rate) was petitioned for four 
 years before our tariff passed, and as to the Parliament anticipating 
 that such a law would pass, there is not the slightest ground for that 
 supposition, as the measure was unexpected even here, till it actually 
 became a law. Parties were so nearly balanced as stated by Mr. 
 Stevenson in the debate in Congress, on the tariff last winter, "that 
 the house was equally divided on the woollen question, and it was set- 
 tled by a compromise with the senate," this is also confirmed by a 
 senator of New-York, who voted for the bill. The main question 
 passed the house by 107 to 102, and to a third reading in the senate 
 by 25 to 22. It is also worthy of note, that it was perfectly well un- 
 derstood in Congress, while the tariff of 1824 was under discussion, 
 that an act was before the British Parliament for this reduction of the 
 duty on wool, and that it would probably become a law. 
 
 They were reminded of it both in the senate and the house by sev- 
 eral members, and among others, by Mr. Webster, in the following 
 words, " while I am upon this subject, I would notice the recent 
 proposition of the English Parliament, to establish the tax on import- 
 ed wool." 
 
 On such an occasion it might seem ungrateful in the committee, 
 were they to pass this name, without offering their sincere tribute of 
 thanks, for the manly efforts made by this intelligent statesman, to re- 
 sist a system, founded on principles most justly termed by him, " the 
 result of ignorance, partiality and violence ;" and they most earnestly 
 recommend the various speeches made by him in Congress, and
 
 50 
 
 elsewhere, as containing the soundest and most convincing arguments 
 against its impolicy, absurdity and injustice. 
 
 In answering the assertions on which the arguments of our oppo- 
 nents are chiefly founded, we have dealt with them, as the cause of 
 truth required; we would not, however, have it inferred that we 
 mean to impute to the worthy men who made them any deliberate 
 design of imposing false statements on the public. We presume 
 they took the facts from others. We cannot, however, but express 
 our regret, that gentlemen, who from their talents and stations, are 
 held up as guides to public opinion, and as founders of a new policy, 
 should not look for information to more correct or purer sources. 
 
 In answer to the second head, we reply, that if the supporters of 
 the contemplated Tariff mean to rest their right to an increase of 
 duties on woollens, on the fact of their having been deprived of half 
 the duty given them in 1824, by an act passed in England in con- 
 sequence of, and subsequent to that law, and with a view of defeat- 
 ing its provisions, we say we have furnished indisputable proofs, that 
 such a claim is unfounded and cannot be sustained on that ground. 
 If, on the other hand, they mean to maintain, as Mr. Everett has 
 done, "that the principle on which it (the Tariff of 1824) was 
 formed, was to enable each article as manufactured at home, to sus- 
 tain a competition with the same article imported," we apprehend, 
 that independent of all other considerations, such a principle would 
 subject our legislature to insuperable difficulties. Let us examine 
 some of the consequences to which it must inevitably lead. What 
 is it they contend for in the case of woollens? Why, that taxes to 
 the amount of 16 2-3 per cent, having been removed from the Bri- 
 tish manufacturer, an equal amount must be imposed on the Ameri- 
 can consumer, to enable our manufacturers to hold a competition 
 with the British. If then the taxes removed by the British govern- 
 ment had amounted to 50 or 100 per cent., our manufacturers would 
 have been entitled to 50 or 100 per cent, more duty, and soon to an 
 unlimited extent. 
 
 We will now imagine, what has indeed often occurred in those 
 periods of ignorance and injustice, to which we are frequently refer- 
 red by our opponents for precedents, that the British government, 
 in order to sustain a favourite branch of industry, should grant a 
 bounty of 30 or 40 per cent on all woollpns exported to the United 
 States for 50 years. Such a measure however foolish and inexpe- 
 dient on the part of England, could not fail of being advantageous to 
 us as a nation, though it might be fatal to our woollen manufacturers. 
 But if Mr. Everett's principle is acted upon, a corresponding change 
 must be made in our laws, and our own consumers taxed precisely 
 in the ratio in which foreigners are relieved from taxation. It may 
 be said this is an extravagant case and not likely to happen. We 
 think so too, not till the return of those ages of darkness when such 
 systems originated ; certainly not during the lives of the enlightened
 
 51 
 
 and politic statesmen who now rule in England. It is however pre- 
 cisely the course recommended to, and which has in fact been adopted 
 by our government. In such a case as we have supposed, Great 
 Britain might be obliged to pay perhaps 8 or 10,000,000 of dollars 
 a year on the extended importation we should make under such a 
 bounty. This is a large sum, but what is it to the tax of 27,360,000 
 dollars we now pay, and which, if our opponents succeed, is to be 
 doubled ? We will now suppose that Congress had granted at the 
 last session, the 16 2-3 per cent duty which Mr. Everett affirms the 
 woollen manufacturers have a right to ; and that before the termina- 
 tion of the ensuing session, we should have information that the poor 
 tax of 30,000,000 dollars a year had been assumed by the British 
 government ; our Congress could not in such an event refuse to grant 
 a further duty on woollens, equal to what the British manufacturer 
 had been relieved by that measure. Having satisfied this demand, 
 we should then hear of the contemplated modification of the corn 
 laws having passed, (and that such a measure will pass the next 
 year, there can be no question,) we should then be called upon for a 
 further increase of duties. The alteration alluded to, would it has 
 been estimated, lower the price of all sorts of grain used in Great 
 Britain three shillings a quarter, which on 48,000,000 quarters con- 
 sumed, would amount, at the current exchange to 35,360,000 dollars 
 per annum, and afford a vastly greater relief to woollen manufacturers, 
 than they could have gained by the reduction of the duty on wool, 
 as we shall hereafter show. And thus in case of any improvements 
 in machinery, a decline in the rate of interest or in wages, or any other 
 circumstance lessening the cost of woollens, our manufacturers would 
 have an equal claim to still further duties, since according to Mr. 
 Everett, " the principle of the Tariff was to enable each article 
 manufactured at home, to sustain a competition with the same arti- 
 cles as imported." 
 
 If however the principle is a correct one, it must be extended to 
 cotton goods, glass, hard ware, iron, linens, and every other article 
 which can be imported from England in competition with our domestic 
 manufactures, and not only from England, but from every other 
 quarter of the world. Still further, keeping this principle in view, 
 this government would be bound to make corresponding reductions 
 in our Tariff, in case new taxes should be imposed on any foreign 
 manufactures which when imported into this country could come 
 into competition with our domestic manufactures. Mr. Everett 
 complains of the British government " having laid its hand on our 
 statute book, and taking half the duty imposed by the Tariff law of 
 1824." What then would be our condition, if the principle he advo- 
 cates was once adopted . ? We should have to regulate our move- 
 ments not only by British legislation, but by all the fluctuations which 
 might occur in any quarter affecting the cost of such manufactures 
 as might come in competition with our own. We are not now rea-
 
 52 
 
 soning on extravagant and improbable suppositions, but upon the 
 natural and necessary course of events, some of which we know 
 must happen. 
 
 The principle we are contending against, needs only to be exam- 
 ined and traced to its practical consequences, to shew not only its 
 unsoundness, but its utter impracticability ; to say nothing of the 
 monstrous notion it involves, that every burden removed from the 
 manufacturing population in Europe, should be transferred to us, 
 and for what ? Why, that a certain amount of capital and labour 
 may be devoted to the making of goods, which in the case of wool- 
 lens, the manufacturers admit, (by the duty of 80 per cent they 
 require for their protection,) may be had for little more than half 
 the money elsewhere. In other words, and it cannot be too often 
 repeated, if woollens can be imported 38 per cent cheaper than they 
 can be made at home, (and the manufacturers say they can 80 per 
 cent,) then we pay under the existing duty, an annual tax of 
 27,360,000 dollars to sustain the woollen manufactures ; or to bring 
 it home to our individual interests, every family which expends 100 
 dollars in woollen cloths, pays a tax of 38 dollars to the manufac- 
 turers ; and if the contemplated Tariff passes, they will amount 
 from 38 to 139 per cent, increasing according to the coarseness of 
 the goods, so that the tax on the consumer will rise, not in propor- 
 tion to his wealth, but his poverty. 
 
 While noticing the enormous amount of this tax, which the manu- 
 facturers themselves seem to think so lightly of, when they reproach 
 us with resisting their efforts to double it, we will notice an objection 
 to our estimate, on account of its largeness; as if the magnitude of 
 an evil was any argument against its existence. 
 
 Why is it, they ask, if such a large amount as 27,360,000 dollars 
 is paid to sustain the woollen manufacturers, that there should be so 
 much distress among them ? If such was really the fact, they would 
 certainly grow rich in the business. We might answer this question, 
 by proposing another. Why is it that a vessel discharging ten gal- 
 lons, and receiving but eight in the same time, becomes exhausted f 
 We think it does not require the mind of a magician to comprehend 
 the reason ; to apply this illustration to the case of the manufactur- 
 ers, we say if they do not grow rich under the present duty, it is be- 
 cause they expend more than they receive. The fallacy which con- 
 ceals the deception, lies in supposing that when a duty or a tax is 
 levied for the benefit of manufactures, it not only goes into thepockets 
 of the manufacturers, bnt remains there. 
 
 To illustrate more fully our meaning, we will imagine, that a sup- 
 ply of all the woollens we require, may be imported from Europe at 
 four dollars a head, which for 12,000,000 persons would amount to 
 48,000,000 dollars, and that the same quantity would cost the do- 
 mestic manufacturer 8 dollars a head, or 96,000,000 dollars ; but 
 owing to foreign competition, or other causes, he should only be able
 
 to obtain 6 dollars a head, or 72,000,000 dollars. It is clear in this 
 instance, we should pay 24,000,000 dollars more for our domestic 
 goods than foreign goods would cost, and yet the American manu- 
 facturers lose 24,000,000 dollars. 
 
 Here then is a case in which the consumer pays 50 per cent more 
 for his clothing than it could be imported for, and at the same time 
 the favoured manufacturer loses annually 25 per cent on the whole 
 amount he manufactures. This is one of the evils of the forcing 
 system. 
 
 We may go on, taxing the nation more than our whole annual expen- 
 diture, to promote the success of only one article, and not only fail of that 
 object, but ruin those who receive this immense bounty ; and this, ac- 
 cording to the statements which have been published, is the present 
 alleged condition of the woollen manufacturers, who, though enjoy* 
 ing the benefit of a protecting tax of 27,360,000 dollars, insist upon 
 it they shall be ruined, unless it is doubled. We will here notice 
 also an objection made by the manufacturers, to the term " monopo- 
 list," as applied to them. 
 
 They contend that the public cannot suffer, at least for a long 
 time, from the effects of a monopoly, because competition will soon 
 reduce goods to their proper level. We admit that if woollens or 
 any other goods are in consequence of prohibition, or what is the 
 same thing, prohibitory duties, above their natural price, the stimulus 
 of high profits, will in time bring down the rates, and thus the injury 
 and injustice to the consumers would be but temporary ; but this 
 would not secure them against the effects of monopoly, as regards 
 foreign competition. Let us present a case which will explain our 
 meaning. We will suppose the foreign manufacturer can supply 
 woollens at four dollars per head, or 48,000,000 dollars ; and that 
 the domestic one requires eight dollars per head, or 96,000,000 dol- 
 lars a year, to afford the usual profits of trade ; but that owing to a 
 want of competition, he is enabled to obtain ten dollars per head ; 
 we know that in time, his great gains, by inducing others to engage 
 in the business, would bring back the price to the ordinary profits of 
 manufacturing; but would that compensate for having the foreign ar- 
 ticle excluded, which could be imported for four dollars per head, 
 or 48,000,000 dollars per annum cheaper ? Does not the domes- 
 tic manufacturer then enjoy the monopoly of the home market, 
 against the foreign ? No one we think will deny that he does, nor 
 can any one justly refuse to the woollen manufacturer, who insists 
 upon 80 per cent duty, to secure himself against foreign competition, 
 the appellation of a monopolist. 
 
 Our opponents object also to the term prohibition, but we cannot 
 comprehend with what propriety, since any rates of duty which will 
 not enable the domestic articles to undersell the foreign, will be 
 wholly inconsistent with the spirit of the " American System," as 
 explained by its founders and ablest commentators. A duty which 
 8
 
 54 
 
 conies a particle short of this, can be of no advantage to the mo- 
 nopolists. To our apprehensions it makes no difference to the con- 
 sumers, ivhether the law prohibits woollens, or only imposes such 
 duties as will prevent their importation. 
 
 Let us now proceed to the third allegation, and admitting, for 
 the sake of argument, the truth of the first assumption, that the Brit- 
 ish Government lowered their duties on wool, in consequence of, 
 and subsequently to, the passing of our tariff, and with the intention 
 of defeating its object; and the justice and practicability of the sec- 
 ond, i. e. the right of the woollen manufacturers, for such an ad- 
 dition to the present rate of duty, as would equal the taxes re- 
 moved from the British manufacturers. The question then is, what 
 do those reductions amount to ? They are estimated by Mr. Everett 
 and Mr. Davis, at 16 2-3 percent. Now as the former of these two 
 statesmen appears to us to rest the claim of the manufacturers to 
 any further increase of duties, mainly, if not wholly, on the ground 
 of this countervailing act of the British legislature, and the latter on 
 that ground, and the want of new guards upon the revenue laws, 
 they were bound to give some evidence beyond their mere asser- 
 tions, of the correctness of the data on which their estimate is found- 
 ed. In making this observation, however, the committee do not 
 hesitate to say, that as far as their veracity is concerned, they 
 should not fail to place the most perfect reliance on statements 
 founded on their own researches, and which they should affirm to be 
 true ; but after the gross mistakes we have pointed out, it would, we 
 conceive, be evincing an excessive degree of credulity, if we allowed 
 any thing to pass, without examination. We must suppose, that on 
 this, as on other occasions adverted to, they took their facts from 
 men less disinterested than themselves, and we shall again shew how 
 little reliance can be placed on their correctness. 
 
 To establish the 16 2-3 per cent, the following assumptions are 
 made : 
 
 1st. That the average cost of wool imported into England is 20 
 cents the pound, and consequently a reduction in the duty of 5 1-2 
 pence sterling a pound, would amount to 44 per cent. 
 
 2d. That the cost of wool is about one third of the value of man- 
 ufactured woollens. 
 
 3d. That a reduction of duty on the particular kinds of wool in 
 question, affected the value of all wool used in England, in the fabri- 
 cation of such cloths as are imported from that country, in competi- 
 tion with ours. 
 
 4th. That the reduction of duties on logwood, rape-seed, oil, indi- 
 go, and some other articles, amounted to 2 per cent. 
 
 Our first object then, is to show the cost of the wool imported into 
 England, and we think the best evidence the nature of the case ad- 
 mits, is to be found in the Parliamentary debates from 1819, when 
 the duty on wool was imposed, to 1824, when it was reduced. The
 
 55 
 
 question excited a good deal of attention, and having been discussed 
 by some of the most intelligent members, we may reasonably suppose 
 that all the facts bearing on the case came out in the debates ; and 
 as the duty was a specific one, the cost of the wool Abroad was es- 
 sential, to know the extent of the tax. 
 
 Mr. Robinson, (Lord Goderich) Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 
 a debate on petitions fora repeal of the wool tax in 1820, states, 
 " of the imported wools, two thirds were of fine qualities from Sax- 
 ony and Spain, and it was not supposed the duty in question had any 
 effect on them." There were, however, some sorts (but not of so 
 inferior quality as much of the British wool) on which the duty was 
 considered burdensome. We make the following extract from Mr. 
 Robertson's speech, to show the cost of the inferior wools imported, 
 on which only the duty had an important bearing. Mr. R. is quoted 
 by Mr. Everett as an authority to be relied upon. 
 
 In the debate on the repeal of the duty in 1824, he observes, 
 "wools at from Is. 6d. to 2s. 6d. were formerly imported from different 
 countries in Europe, to the great advantage of the manufacturers of 
 coarse cloths, which was the article of the most general consump- 
 tion. The existing duty on. the importation of these wools, almost 
 amounted to a prohibition." Again, " when to this difference in the 
 price of labour, was added the duty on importation of 20 to 25 per 
 cent., he would ask, whether it was possible for the manufacturers of 
 this country to compete ivith the manufacturers of the continent?" 
 This statement is confirmed by Mr. Wilson, an eminent merchant and 
 member of Parliament, who estimates the duty at 25 to 30 per cent. 
 Uniting, then, these estimates, the duty would be 25 per cent. 
 Here, then, is the testimony of two intelligent men, and strengthened 
 by that of others in the same debates, all of whom were desirous of 
 removing burdens from the manufacturing and commercial interests, 
 and willing therefore to estimate the duty at its highest rate, and the 
 most they could make of it was 25 per cent.* 
 
 By mistaking the kind of wool, in question, for an inferior quali- 
 ty, raised in England, and underrating its cost one half, our oppo- 
 nents have estimated the duty 44 per cent, instead of 25 per cent, at 
 which it was rated by British merchants and manufacturers. It 
 should be here remarked that only about one third of the imported 
 wool was of this description ; the remainder costing high prices was 
 not much affected by the duty. The whole import of foreign wool, 
 taking the average of five years before the duty was laid, was only 
 17,000,000 pounds, as stated in the debates by Mr. Western, an 
 agricultural member. 
 
 * As an evidence that we have not under-estimated the duty on wool in England, pre- 
 vious to its repeal, we make the following- extract from the Providence Memorial, pub- 
 lished in November, 1826: "Previous to the adoption of the late Tariff, there existed a 
 duty of 20 per cent, upon the importation of wool into England." It will be noticed 
 that we have allowed 2-5 per cent.
 
 56 
 
 Of this import about 5,000,000 pounds, as stated by Mr. Robinson, 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, were of the low qualities. It is true, 
 that in the year after the duty on wool was reduced to its old rate, 
 there was an increased import of wool in England, as there was of 
 everything else, during 1825, but it was upon speculation, and sold 
 at an immense loss to the importers. In 1826 the import had fal- 
 len to 15,996,425 pounds, which is something below what had for- 
 merly been the average. The whole consumption in England, as 
 we have before mentioned, is 160,000,000 pounds. 
 
 It may be well to remark in this place, that Mr. Robertson, M. P. 
 in the speech from which Mr. Everett has given extracts, to prove 
 that the British government had lowered the duty on wool, subse- 
 quently to, in consequence of, and with the view of defeating the ob- 
 ject of the Tariff" of 1824, speaks expressly in the extract we have 
 given, of the importance of enabling the British to undersell the con- 
 tinental manufacturers. Nothing is said about American manufac- 
 turers, nor anything, which upon the most partial construction of the 
 various speeches of the debate, can furnish the slightest ground,'that 
 any of the speakers had them in view. 
 
 So that had not our opponents been entirely wrong in the fact with 
 regard to the passage of the wool duty act, the inference which they 
 drew from it, as to the motives of the British government, could not 
 have been sustained by anything which passed in the debate to which 
 Mr. Everett referred. We beg leave to call the attention of our 
 readers to this circumstance as denoting that disposition, on the part 
 of some of the leading advocates for monopoly and non-importation, 
 to which we have before adverted, (and which has manifested itself 
 in most of their publications) to excite a spirit of jealousy and en- 
 mity towards Great Britain as a rival manufacturing nation, which 
 cannot fail to hasten that non-intercourse with her, which it is the in- 
 terest of our opponents to obtain.* 
 
 We now corne to the second assumption, which is that wool con- 
 stitutes a third part of the value of manufactured goods. This is of 
 course in reference to goods made in England, because those are the 
 ones that come in competition with ours. Here again we must recur 
 to British authorities. Mr. Curwen, an intelligent member of Par- 
 liament from a manufacturing district, in a debate on this subject, 
 stated that, " wool when manufactured, on an average may be es- 
 teemed at least seven times the value of the raw material." Lord 
 Milton, member for Yorkshire, who takes an active part in all de- 
 
 *Extract from Mr. Tibbit's Address. "The acts of England in refusing to takejl he agri- 
 cultural productions of the middle and eastern states, in exchange for her manufactures, 
 ought to be considered, by us, in the light of friendly and paternal admonition." Again, 
 u I should consider it a great misfortune, if England should withdraw this monitory ad- 
 iiice, and again admit our bread stuffs, provisions and raw materials. It would have a ten- 
 dency to prevent us for a longtime from rising- to that solid and permanent elevation, to 
 which by her policy, we are now fast approaching-, and to which we may very soon at- 
 tain by proper management."
 
 57 
 
 bates on this subject, and is considered a good authority, says in t 
 speech on the wool question, " cloth made of imported wool was 
 worth five times the cost of the material." The difference be- 
 tween these two valuations may have arisen from Mr. Curwen's re- 
 ferring to the average of all goods made in England, and Lord Mil- 
 ton to that particular description made of foreign wool. It would be 
 satisfactory to know the proportion in our domestic goods, but the 
 committee have not been able to obtain such information as they 
 could rely upon. From our inquiries, we should say something 
 more than a quarter of the value of the cloth. The material in our 
 manufactures would form a larger portion of the value than it does 
 in England, because we make a larger proportion of heavy and low- 
 priced cloths, in which the colours and labour are less expensive 
 than in the fine and more highly finished fabrics of England. 
 
 It is, however, the proportion used in England, and not here, which 
 we require, and we shall take it at one fifth, instead of one third, as 
 allowed by Mr. Everett. Let us now apply these corrections to the 
 calculations under examination. Our opponents by valuing wool at 
 20 cents the pound, which cost two shillings sterling, make the duty 
 44 per cent ; and assuming one third the value of cloth to be in the 
 wool, estimate the saving to the British manufacturer 14 2-3 per ct. 
 We have furnished very satisfactory evidence from those persons in 
 England, who were most desirous of obtaining the repeal of this du- 
 ty, and disposed therefore to exaggerate its amount, that it was only 
 25 per cent. We have also shewn that in England, wool was con- 
 sidered as one seventh of the average cost of the manufacture, and 
 one fifth of the cost of those goods made of their imported wool. If 
 then we take the duty at 25 per cent, and allow one fifth of the value 
 of the cloth to be in the material, the saving to the manufacturer is 
 5 per cent. This we would remind the reader, goes upon the 
 idea, that all the wool used in England, was affected 25 per cent by 
 the repealed duty on 17,000,000 pounds, their average import, 
 whereas only 5, 000,000 pounds were of the low qualities, on which 
 the duty had a material bearing. And this brings us to the third 
 point ; in answering which, we shall show what was thought in Eng- 
 land by statesmen and manufacturers, as to the effect which the 
 measure we are discussing really had on their woollen manufactures. 
 The imposition of the duty in 1819, as we have before stated, was 
 intended wholly as a measure of revenue. The amount of this duty 
 was only valued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at 350,000. 
 Mr. Huskisson, president of the board of trade, stated in the debate, 
 that " the tax was so small, that it could not be expected to affect 
 manufactures. Besides our exports were principally of the coarse 
 and home-grown wool, which was not touched by this tax." The 
 truth is, as is stated in all the debates, and proved by the British 
 list of imports, the manufacturers required very little wool from 
 abroad, and only some particular qualities, not much grown in Eng-
 
 58 
 
 land. Most sorts were cheaper in England than on the continent, 
 and at the very moment when the manufacturers called for the re- 
 peal of the import duty, they clamoured against the removal of the 
 prohibition, which prevented the export of British wools, because 
 they were unwilling their rival manufacturers on the continent, should 
 profit by their cheapness. The prohibition was, however, remov- 
 ed, and a duty of one penny the pound substituted on exportation, 
 by the very act lowering the duty on foreign wool. It appeared 
 doubtful from the petitions and debates, that balancing the advan- 
 tage of a reduction of the import duty on foreign wool, against the 
 disadvantage of allowing an export of British wool, whether the man- 
 ufacturers would gain or lose by the measure. 
 
 We quote from Mr. Robinson's (Lord Goderich) speech. " Some of 
 the manufacturers thought the repeal of the duty would be less ben- 
 eficial to them, than the removal of the restrictions would be 
 injurious, and were desirous that the matter should be left where 
 it was, and that no alteration should be made. The majority, 
 however, thought it would be advantageous to accede to the proposed 
 compromise, that the duty on wool should be repealed, and a free ex- 
 port of wool allowed." This was repeated by Mr. Huskisson in 
 another debate, in the following words : " He was confident the 
 manufacturers themselves must think the monopoly of British wool was 
 a boon to them, far more than any adequate loss arising from the tax." 
 
 We have now before us the best means it is possible to obtain, 
 of ascertaining how much this reduction of five pence half penny the 
 pound, on the small quantity of 17,000,000 pounds of imported wool, 
 of which less than one third was of the low cost, paying 25 per cent 
 duty, really affected the cost of woollens. We have before shown, 
 that allowing all the wool consumed in England to be of that partic- 
 ular quality on which the duty bore materially, and that it was con- 
 sequently enhanced 25 per cent, the saving to the manufacturers by 
 a reduction of five pence half penny, would only amount to 5 per ct. 
 in the cost of their cloths ; but the consumption in England is 
 160,000,000 pounds, the average consumption of foreign 17,000,000 
 pounds, of which only 5,000,000 pounds were of such qualities as 
 paid a high duty. Now if we connect this small import of wool with 
 the well known fact, that most sorts of wool are cheaper in England 
 than elsewhere, and with the declarations of the manufacturers, that 
 they doubted whether they should not lose as much by the export of 
 British wool, as they would gain by the reduction of the duty on the 
 foreign wool, the fair inference is, that the repeal of the duty had lit- 
 tle or no effect on the cost of woollens generally, though it might 
 have had some bearing on particular kinds of fabrics, in which the 
 foreign wool was principally used : but our importations embrace all 
 the varieties manufactured in England. We will, however, admit 
 what is far from being probable, that two fifths of the 160,000,000 
 pounds of wool used in England, or 64,000,000 pounds, will have
 
 59 
 
 been reduced 25 per cent in the cost to the manufacturers, and in 
 that case the saving to the British manufacturer by the reduction of 
 the wool duty, would amount to 2 per cent, and this indeed on the 
 aggregate value of woollens, would be about 4 1-2 millions of dollars. 
 
 We now come to the last item in the examination of the esti- 
 mate of 16 2-3 per cent, i. e. the reduction of the duties on 
 indigo, logwood, rape-seed, and olive oil, and some other articles not 
 mentioned, for all of which 2 per cent is allowed. As usual, our op- 
 ponents offer no evidence, nothing beyond their loose assertions. 
 They qXiote Mr. Huskisson as allowing 1 or 2 per cent, but at the 
 same time discredit their only authority, by stating their belief that it 
 is more than twice the amount. 
 
 The committee, on the other hand, think so highly of the fairness 
 and accuracy of that able statesman, that they would rely on his cal- 
 culations, with the greatest confidence ; but it is evident he had made 
 none. We quote from the speech to which Mr. Everett refers'; " be 
 the charge upon woollen cloths, for instance, only 1 or 2 per cent, 
 even this small addition, with the present open competition with the 
 foreign market, may turn the scale against us, and ought therefore to 
 be abandoned." It is here very evident, that Mr. Huskisson speaks 
 only in general terms, of the importance of making the smallest sav- 
 ings in the cost of woollen cloths, but does not mean to state what 
 may be the precise amount of the duties under discussion. On refer- 
 ence to the various articles in the British tariff, alluded to by our op- 
 ponents, we find the reduction on indigo to be one penny the pound, 
 about 1 per cent of its value ; logwood 4s. 8d. per ton, or about 
 2 1-2 per cent of its value; rape-seed from 10 to 5, and subse- 
 quently to 10s. per last; olive oil from 15 13s. to 7 per ton. It 
 will be noticed, the most valuable article was only reduced 1 per 
 cent. The consumption of indigo may perhaps be about 2,000,000 
 pounds, and if we allow half of it for cloths, the reduction on it would 
 amount only to 18,578 dollars, and 2 1-2 per cent on the logwood 
 consumed in cloths, could not exceed 2 or 3,000 dollars. What 
 might have been the savings on the seed and oil, we have no means 
 of judging, but if we suppose them to be to the extent 500,000 dol- 
 lars, the whole amount gained by the manufacturers, would be but 
 520,000 dollars, on a branch of business estimated to produce 
 220,500,000 dollars, or about one quarter of 1 per cent ; but as 
 there are still some other articles not mentioned, we will call the 
 whole savings an half per cent. It appears then that the whole sum 
 gained by the manufacturers, by the repeal of the duty on wool, and 
 the other articles referred to, could not exceed 2 1-2 per cent, in- 
 stead of 16 2-3 per cent, as contended for by Mr. Everett, and 
 others who have so often argued upon this statement. The existing 
 duty on woollens is not 33 1-3 per cent, as stated almost universally 
 by our opponents, but 38 per cent, from which deduct the 2 1-2 per 
 cent, " repealed by the gigantic arm of the British Government," and
 
 60 
 
 there still remains 35 1-2 per cent. We are aware it may be said, 
 that the estimates on which the calculations of the committee are 
 founded are in some measure conjectural ; this, however, must nec- 
 essarily be the case in all such matters, but it cannot be denied that 
 we have taken our information from the best sources, and have giv- 
 en the authorities, that those who doubt, may examine for them- 
 selves* 
 
 In conclusion, we say we have offered in answer to the first pro- 
 position, undeniable proofs that the British Government did not re- 
 duce the duty on wool as has been alleged, subsequently to, and in 
 consequence of the tariff of 1824, and with a view of defeating its 
 provisions ; and secondly, that admitting the truth of the first propo- 
 sition, we think the principle they would maintain in the second, un- 
 just and impracticable ; and lastly, that allowing the manufacturers 
 had a claim, equal to the taxes of which the British manufacturers 
 have been relieved by the reductions referred to, the most which 
 can be made of it is 2 1-2 per cent, which would still leave the pro- 
 tective duty 35 1-2 per cent, or an annual tax on the nation of 
 25,560,600 dollars. The protective charges would be 54 1-2 per ct, 
 amounting to 39,240,000 dollars, which must be paid by the im- 
 porters of foreign cloths, before they can meet the domestic manu- 
 facturer in his own market, and yet the nation is called upon to 
 double it. 
 
 The committee have one more remark to make, and they close 
 this part of their report. It has already been observed that Mr. Ev- 
 erett appears to rest the claims of the manufacturers to further du- 
 ties on woollens, almost entirely on the countervailing act of Great 
 Britain, reducing the charges on wool and other articles 16 2-3 per 
 cent, and Mr. Davis in his speech, says, " the duty q/"33 1-3 percent 
 tf fully enforced, as was intended when the law was passed, would 
 as effectually exclude the low priced woollens as 100 per cent." It 
 would seem then that all which these two zealous advocates of the 
 woollen manufacturers could ask for, consistently with their own ar- 
 guments and professions, would be an addition of 16 2-3 per cent to 
 33 1-3, (which they supposed was the established rate,) making 50 
 per cent, and for some new provisions in the revenue laws, to guard 
 against smuggling. If such really were their views, why. we would 
 ask, did they vote with a party, who not only resisted all attempts to 
 amend the revenue laws, but passed a bill, which offered to a class 
 of men,* (charged by Mr. Davis as having defrauded the government 
 of one half the duties on woollens,) the temptation of making 101 
 per cent, by altering the cost of an article one cent in the yard ? 
 
 *" The law of 1824, gave a duty of 33 1-3 per cent on imported fabrics, and it was 
 doubtless the design of the Government, that it should operate as a clear protective du- 
 ty ; but half or nearly that amount has been taken away by the modification of the Brit- 
 ish tariff, and the other half is evaded." Davis* Speech on the Tariff. .National Intelli- 
 gencer.
 
 61 
 
 Again, if they thought 50 per cent all the duty which the manufactur- 
 ers were entitled to, why did they vote for a bill giving rates of duty 
 of 38 and J 39 per cent, and so strangely, and so unjustly contrived, 
 as to fall with the greatest weight on those, who could least afford to 
 bear them . ? 
 
 We leave it to the candour of our readers, to say, ifitisnotat least 
 a sign of both the weakness and injustice of the cause, against which 
 we are contending, to see its most ingenious advocates driven to 
 such inconsistencies. 
 
 SKCTIOM 9th. There is another reason frequently adduced, in fa- 
 vour of the exclusive and prohibitory system ; oltener perhaps by its 
 apologists, than its authors and more zealous supporters, viz: That 
 Congress having once granted high rates of duty, and thus encour- 
 aged the establishment of woollen manufactures, it is incumbent on 
 the nation to maintain, if not to increase them. There are indeed 
 many fair minded men who are ready to concede, that the existing 
 duties on both cottons and woollens, are too high for the general good, 
 and yet they uphold them on the ground that the public faith, is 
 pledged for their continuance. We might reply to this, by saying 
 that the protective system, which imposes heavy and unequal burdens 
 on the country, for the promotion of particular interests in opposi- 
 tion to the general welfare, was manifestly an innovation upon our 
 long established policy of a more liberal and just character ; and that 
 its introduction was an encroachment upon those equal rights and 
 privileges, guaranteed by a constitution which the nation was pledged 
 to maintain. If the nation, then, is pledged to anything, it is to re- 
 turn to that .system of free trade, which we have almost entirely aban- 
 doned. Waiving, however, any further discussion of this point, let 
 us examine the claims of our opponents upon the public faith, on. 
 the most favourable grounds they themselves can pretend to place 
 them. 
 
 It will not, we suppose, be contended that if one Congress should 
 pass a law, wrong in principle, or unjust in its operation, that it would 
 not be justifiable and praiseworthy in a succeeding one to repeal it. 
 It will not, we trust, be maintained, even by the most extravagant 
 and deluded zealot of the " American System," that because Con- 
 gress once did wrong, they should never do right, but go on in error 
 and injustice, and make a bad system perpetual. If there are any, 
 however, who would assert such a principle, they can be no subjects 
 for reasoning, and any arguments addressed to such minds must be 
 unsuccessful. 
 
 We are ready, however, to admit that when laws have been pass- 
 ed, affording special encouragement to certain branches of industry, 
 and large in vestments -of capital have been made on the faith of those 
 laws, that it would be wrong in government to make any sudden or 
 great alterations in the laws, deeply affecting those interests, in cases 
 where the effects as regards the public welfare could be in the least 
 9
 
 62 
 
 doubtful ; sod we go still farther, and say, the nation is bound, under 
 those circumstances, to sustain a. considerable loss, or else to com- 
 pensate the sufferers, rather than make such changes as would in- 
 jure a class of men who had been stimulated to particular employ- 
 ments by governmental bounties. This obligation, however, on the 
 part of the nation, involves, we think, a counter one on the part of 
 the protected class, to abstain from pressing their demands too far. 
 because they might happen to have the power so to do, and to be 
 satisfied with the terms on which their privileged interests were origi- 
 nally founded. 
 
 Let us now examine the conduct of the woollen manufacturers, 
 and try their claims to a continuance or an increase of the present 
 enormous duties, on the principles here laid down. In the year 1816, 
 at the expiration of the war duties, which like all others down to that 
 period, were imposed expressly for rerenue, and without any particu- 
 lar reference to the promotion of domestic manufactures, (though 
 that was the unavoidable effect of them) it became necessary to es- 
 tablish a new Tariff. The various branches of manufactures which 
 sprung up or were extended in consequence of the war, were pre- 
 sented to the consideration of government in the most imposing 
 manner, and with a vast deal of exaggeration as to their extent and 
 importance to the country ; and after a struggle between those who 
 were for adhering to the principles of free trade, and the advocates 
 for the restrictive and prohibitory policy, the latter prevailed, and an 
 entire new system, called the protective system, was established. 
 Congress, after a mature consideration of the various interests con- 
 cerned, granted as much as was deemed necessary for the pro- 
 motion of each, consistent with what was due to the national 
 welfare. The duty on woollens, as originally established, was 5 per 
 cent., but was extended at various times to 12 1-2 per cent., solely 
 koweverfor pvrposes of revenue, and the proceeds pledged for the 
 payment of the national debt. In 1804, a further addition of 2 1-2 
 per cent, was made, called the Mediterranean fund, for the purposes 
 of supporting the wars against the Barbary powers, making 1 5 per 
 cent, and at this rate it stood till 1812, when it was advanced to 
 _~ 1-2 per cent.; still however entirely as a measure of revenue, ren- 
 dered absolutely necessary by the expenses of the war with Great 
 Britain, but limited by the act, to twelve months after the expiration 
 of the war, when it would have fallen back to 12 1-2 per cent, un- 
 less the Mediterranean duty, which was also a temporary one, should 
 have been continued by a special act of Congress ; in which case the 
 rate would have been 15 per cent, and the same also on cotton goods. 
 Down to this period of 1816, the protecting system had no existence. 
 The very important, and it may now perhaps be said dangerous pow- 
 er, granted by the Constitution to impose duties on foreign goods, 
 was considered as a qualified one, " to lay and collect taxes, duties, 
 imposts and excises," for what : " to pay the debts, and provide
 
 65 
 
 for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," 
 and not, as is now contended by some of the violent partizans of 
 this system, to enact laws with the avowed purpose of preventing im- 
 portations, and thus by destroying our best, and we might almost say, 
 our only source of revenue, and lessen the means of national defence, 
 and by building up individual and sectional interests at the expense 
 of all others, endanger the national stability, and diminish the public 
 welfare. 
 
 That domestic manufactures were protected and encouraged by 
 those duties is true, but that was an incidental effect of them. The 
 primary object of all those laws was revenue, and it was so under- 
 stood by all parties at the time they were established, nor could the 
 various augmentations of duties have been made upon any other 
 principles. 
 
 At the adoption of the protective system, the duty on woollens 
 was fixed at a nominal rate of 25 per cent., equal to 29 per cent, 
 and to fall in three years to 20 per cent. It was very naturally sup- 
 posed by the legislature, that a branch of manufactures, which in the 
 infancy of the nation, when we were without capital and possessed of 
 infinitely less skill than we now have, succeeded under a duty of 5 
 per cent, to such an extent as to supply three quarters of all the 
 cloths we consumed, could not fail of still further and of complete 
 success, under a duty of five times that amount. 
 
 Here, then, was a compromise between the nation on the one 
 hand and the woollen manufacturers on the other, to which each 
 was bound to conform ; if there was an obligation on the part of the 
 former to maintain it, there was a reciprocal one on the part of the 
 latter to be contented with it ; or at any rate to refrain from imposing 
 on the country any additional burdens. 
 
 It could never have been intended that the manufacturers should 
 call from time to time for such an addition to the rates as they might 
 deem necessary, or, as Mr. Everett contends, " would enable each 
 article manufactured at home, to sustain a competition with the same 
 article as imported." This would have been substantially a guaran- 
 tee against all foreign competition, now and hereafter, whatever it 
 might cost us, whether 25 per cent, or 200 per cent. The 
 utter absurdity and immorality of this principle has already been ex- 
 posed, and if there are any credulous enough to believe that such a 
 system can prevail, it is time they were warned that it is one of those 
 illusions which we trust can never be realized, one of those preten- 
 sions which can never be maintained. Congress then having gone 
 as far as in their wisdom they deemed the case to require, it was the 
 duty of the manufacturers, before they ventured upon a new and to 
 them untried business, to ascertain if the given encouragement was 
 sufficient to enable them to succeed, not to plunge extensively into it, 
 without the requisite experience, capital and skill, and then, failing 
 of success, caU upon the nation for still further bounties, and after
 
 having obtained them to the extent of 27,360,000 dollars a year, in- 
 sist upon this enormous tax being doubled for the benefit, too, ac- 
 cording to their own calculation, of only 100,000 persons, three 
 quarters of whom, we have proved, succeeded under a duty of 5 
 per cent. 
 
 The protecting system of 1S16 having gone into operation, and all 
 the leading interests of the nation accommodated to it, the manufac- 
 turers, whose concerns were so much benefitied by i r , at the expense 
 of the general welfare, were, we should think, the last who tu>uld 
 have violated the compact on which it was founded. How stand 
 the facts? Did the national party make any attempts to alter the 
 established system ? No j we never heard of a single remonstrance 
 or petition against it. 
 
 They submitted quietly to a most burdensome taxation on cottons, 
 woollens, glass, and many other articles, with an expectation; no 
 doubt, that they should not be called upon for any further increase. 
 What, on the other hand, was the conduct of the woollen manufac- 
 turers? Soon after the passage of the tariff of 1816, tin-} obtained 
 j a repeal of that part of the law which lowered the cln;y in three 
 years from 25 to 20 per cent. This was submitted to. What next ? 
 In 1819 and 1820, they made vigorous efforts for a further increase 
 of duties, complaining of losses, and ut the same time enlarging their es- 
 tablishments, though they were fairly warned by many of those who 
 had been friendly to the establishment of the protecting system, but at 
 the same time were desirous of limiting its extent, that no more du- 
 ties would be granted. Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, who had 
 voted for the Tariff of 1816, but considered that law had given as 
 high duties as the country could bear, observed in a debate in 1820, 
 on an application for an increase of duties, " they suggest no stan- 
 dard by which the sufficiency of the encouragement they proposed 
 could be tested, and promise therefore no limitation to the burden 
 ivhich might be imposed on the country ;" and closed by saying 
 " He believed the bill under consideration to be injurious to the go- 
 vernment, oppressive to the people, and dangerous to the stability of 
 the manufacturing industry." This is the judgment of one ol the 
 most enlightened and virtuous statesmen that ever adorned any legis- 
 lature, and one of the last services he rendered his country was to 
 leave on record his condemnation of a system founded on principles 
 of injustice, which no man could hold in greater abhorrence than this 
 distinguished and lamented patriot, and yet his reputation has been 
 most unjustly assailed by his being repeatedly ranked among the sup- 
 porters of the prohibitory and exclusive system. 
 
 From Mr. H. G. Otis's Speech in Congress in 1820, we make 
 the following extract: "The bill was a manifesto of tiie disposition 
 of a committee, and of one branch of the legislature, to listen to the 
 claim of the manufacturers for a bounty of 5,000,000 dollars in the 
 outset. Let other classes of the community the farmer, the mer-
 
 65 
 
 ehant, the mechanic, be heard upon the question, before the irrevoca- 
 ble sanction was given to the system." 
 
 If it was correct to oppose manufacturers who demanded a bounty 
 of 5,000,000 dollars, in 1820, is it reasonable to support the pre- 
 tensions of woollen manufacturers in 1827, who receive a bounty of 
 27, 360, 000 dollars, and require it to be doubled? 
 
 Mr. Silsbee, who in 1820 was in Congress, admonished the ma- 
 nufacturers " that, though friendly to manufacturing establishments, 
 and disposed to afford that interest every aid and encouragement that 
 could be given consistently with a due regard to the great interests of 
 the nation, he would not at a time of general depression, consent to 
 build up any one interest of the country upon the ruins of another ." 
 
 At the same period, Mr. Webster, among other arguments against 
 the whole system, made the following statement in reference to 
 ivoollen, and cotton goods : "The duties as they now stand, (viz. 25 
 per cent on woollens,) afford great protection, and in some cases ex- 
 traordinary bounties to our manufacturers. It was thought complete 
 satisfaction had been given at the time, by the law of 1 8 1 6, which had 
 yet again been altered most materially in favour of the manufacturers 
 of woollen and cotton cloths. By that law, the duty on those articles 
 was put at 25 per cent, but was to be diminished to 20 per cent, af- 
 ter 3 years. By a subsequent act this was altered, and the duty 
 kept at the highest rate." Again ; "The duty of 6 1-4 cents on 
 coarse cotton goods, costing? 1-2 cents, was 83 per cent ; this was in 
 addition to the cost of importation. This is so much bounty to the . 
 home manufacturers." " He hoped the present duties would stand 
 without increase or diminution, and that both government and the 
 country would resist all attempts to ma-ke new, frequent and great 
 changes in the nature of property ; in the occupations and pursuits 
 of men, and in the means of living." 
 
 These legislators spoke the sentiments of the national party, includ- 
 ing the most intelligent portion of the manufacturers in this quarter, 
 who considered the country was bound by the compact of 1816, to 
 sustain the burdens which then existed, but to resist any additions to 
 them. Having been defeated in this attempt to extend the system 
 of bounties, and prohibitions, one would imagine they would 
 have taken warning, and lessened their concerns, iiad they been un- 
 profitable ; so far from this, that having been stimulated by the ad- 
 vantages they had gained over the public interests, they persevered in 
 their efforts, (the complaints of losses slill keeping pace with the ex- 
 tension of their work?,) till 1824, when they succeeded in obtaining 
 an addition of 8 1-3 per cent to the former duty, making nominally 
 33 1-3, in lact 38 per cent. This measure was resisted by a large 
 majority of the New England delegation, and from Maine, New 
 Hampshire, and Massachusetts, the states most largely engaged in 
 this branch of business, and where its interests and its wants are best 
 understood, the new tariff had but one vote from each in its favour. -\
 
 Here then was another violation on the part of the manufacturers, of 
 that implied understanding on which the protective system was first 
 estahlished. Notwithstanding this second alteration, making the duty 
 13 1-3 per cent more than the permanent rate, given by the tariff 
 of 1816, and the fact that this last measure was carried against the 
 wishes and opinions of those manufacturing States, which comprised 
 the most numerous and intelligent class of manufacturers, and by 
 only a plurality of five in the House, and three in the Senate, the nation 
 submitted quietly to this further encroachment on its rights and inter- 
 ests. No attempts were made in any quarter to disturb the tariff. 
 The manufacturers, however, very naturally perhaps after so many 
 victories on their side, and so much endurance on the other, conceiv- 
 ed it was only necessary to make claims, in order to have them 
 granted. They still continued their complaints of the hostility of the 
 national party to manufacturers, and of the patriotic sacrifices they 
 themselves were making to improve and extend an useful branch of 
 industry, and what is more remarkable in men who had been for so 
 long a course of time pursuing an unsuccessful occupation, they had 
 increased their manufacturing capital, as stated in most of their me- 
 morials and speeches, in the short space of 8 years, from 10,000,000 
 to the enormous sum of 40 or 50,000,000 dollars. This vast acces- 
 sion of capital, from men who are supposed to understand their own 
 interests, to a branch of business which has been so long cried down 
 as a losing one, certainly looked somewhat inconsistent with the com- 
 plaints which the manufacturers were making, of a want of sufficient 
 protecting duties. These representations, however, drew in many to 
 the support of the views of the manufacturers, and in 1827 they 
 came forward and demanded what in fact amounted to an entire 
 prohibition, an increase, which carried the rates from 38 to 232 per 
 cent, and actually got a bill through the House of Representatives, 
 giving them 38 to 139 percent, averaging perhaps 80 per cent ; and 
 rising, as we have before repeated, on the consumer, not in proportion 
 to his means, but his want of them. This last application for in- 
 creased duties was made too at a time, when it must have been ap- 
 parent to the manufacturers, that the operation of the tariff of 1824, 
 had actually much diminished the importation of foreign woollens, 
 except for such articles as are not yet attempted by our manufactur- 
 ers. In 1825 the import of foreign woollens was 10,876,873 dol- 
 lars. In 1826 the amount had declined to 7,886,826 dollars, from 
 which deduct re-exportation 441,382 dollars, leaves 7,445,444 dol- 
 lars. Our whole consumption is 72,000,000 dollars, so that our im- 
 portation is reduced to about one tenth of our consumption, and the 
 proportion under the present heavy duty will decline every year; 
 notwithstanding; this trifling importation, we have had the most erro- 
 neous statements of the overwhelming consignments from England, 
 to the entire ruin of the domestic manufacturer. Mr. Otis com- 
 plains, " that while the British take nothing from tie, they seem t
 
 67 
 
 have enjoyed the prescriptive usage, (which many of our citizens art 
 willing to countenance,) of supplying us with all we want, from hats 
 to shoes, and of manufacturing for us all things down to a hob-nail." 
 The language of the Pennsylvania address, is, that " the American 
 manufacturer of wool is so far depressed, by the great quantity of 
 English woollens brought into the country, that he cannot continue 
 the business, unless the original intention of the tariff be carried into 
 effect, by the enactment of an additional duty, to countervail the ad- 
 vantage given to the English manufacturer, by the reduction of the 
 duty on the importation of foreign wool. We cannot but express our 
 disappointment, that men to whom we cannot impute intentional mis- 
 representation, should yet, probably from want of sufficient examina- 
 tion, give the sanction of their authority to statements which have 
 been, as we think, proved to be either much exaggerated, or entirely 
 unfounded, nor can we conceal our regret that those eminent states- 
 men, who have stood forth as the able and vigorous champions of the 
 national interest, by which we mean a policy comprehending all the 
 branches of domestic industry, should have thought it incumbent on 
 them to support, in opposition to their former views,* one branch only, 
 at the expense of all the others. If the secession of so many respec- 
 table men from our side, to that of our opponents, may at first be 
 thought to have an unfavourable bearing upon the cause we advocate, 
 their change does not, as we think, indicate a correspondent change 
 in the minds of their constituents generally, upon this important sub- 
 ject ; nor does it lessen the force of those facts and arguments which 
 formerly carried conviction, at least to the minds of those to whom 
 they were addressed, against the system which these respectable men 
 are now supposed to uphold. 
 
 That they have changed their ground no one can deny, and we 
 have not unfrequently been challenged for our reasons for not follow- 
 ing their example. 
 
 We should be glad, however, before we take that step, to hear 
 what we have often seen in vain asked for, the arguments by which 
 they themselves were converted; and if they are strong enough to 
 overturn those by which they formerly converted others, we will ven- 
 ture to say, all difference in opinion upon this subject, will be forever 
 at an end. 
 
 Without meaning to impugn the motives of those gentlemen, may 
 we not suppose that it is the position in which they stand to this 
 question which has changed, rather than the facts and principles, on 
 
 * It may be proper to remark, that among those who voted for the extravagant tariff 
 bill, which passed the House last winter, there were some members of our delegation, 
 from whose speeches we hav quoted arguments in support of our own views, and others 
 who formerly voted against the whole system of restrictions, bounties, and prohibitions, 
 as preposterous, unwise, and wholly at "variance with the enlightened spirit of the age. 
 These statesmen in 1820 and 1824, declared any addition to the duty which then existed 
 of 25 per cent on woollens, as unnecessary and unjust, while in 1827, when the rate was 
 38 per cent, they thought it right to support a bill which established rates of duties 
 from 38 to 139 per cent, averaging at least 80 per cent on our aggregate importations.
 
 which their former opinions were founded ? Cannot we imagine 
 there were other objects not necessarily connected with this subject, 
 but unhappily considered by them as dependant on it, which might 
 lead them to sustain a measure not in accordance with their former 
 views, for the sake of securing other measures, which they might 
 deem of much greater importance to the general welfare? Shall we 
 not consider it as one of those unfortunate emergencies, to which 
 public men are sometimes driven, when they feel compelled to 
 abandon one great public interest, for the maintenance of another? 
 
 For ourselves, we are disposed to put the most favourable con- 
 struction on the conduct of men, who have in general filled the sta- 
 tions they occupy with so much credit to themselves, and so much 
 advantage to their constituents. 
 
 If such then be the real state of the case, no inferences unfavour- 
 able to the cause they formerly supported, can be drawn from this 
 single act, and more especially as it was unaccompanied by any dis- 
 claimer of former, or any avowal of new opinions. Can it not there- 
 fore be fairly inferred, whatever appearances may indicate, that the 
 most our opponents can boast of is, that they have the votes of our 
 former friends on their side, while the arguments they have furnished, 
 are still on ours. 
 
 We have thus given a history of the conduct of the two parlies en- 
 gaged in this cause ; showing a patient endurance of the most enor- 
 mous taxation on the one hand, and an unreasonable selfishness on 
 the other ; yet the suffering party have been assailed in the most of- 
 fensive terms, with enmity to manufacturers, a want of common pat- 
 riotism, partiality for foreign interests, and hostility to our own. 
 
 By Mr. Clay, in a letter dated July 4th, 1827, all who oppose the 
 restrictive system are charged with a factious opposition to govern- 
 ment. " Jill who are opposed to the American System, all who are 
 opposed to internal improvements, are now united tvifh others in the 
 endeavour to defeat the election of the present Chief Magistrate, and 
 to elevate another individual." Again in one of his speeches upon the 
 Tariff, as reported in the National Intelligencer "The predilection 
 , of the Essex Junto for foreign trade, and for British fabrics, is 
 unconquerable." And the Boston Woollens Committee in their cir- 
 cular dated November 11, 1826, observed, "it is not now a question 
 between different American interests, but one between Americans 
 and Englishmen /" The Pennsylvania State Convention declare 
 " that there is still lingering in our sea ports a remnant of foreign 
 influence, added to the home-bred prejudices of the plantation inte- 
 rests against all manufacturing establishments." From Mr. Tibbit's 
 Essay published April, 1827, we extract the following : " Your men, 
 whose numbers you wish to enlarge, become discouraged, perhaps ru- 
 ined, and driven from all further attempts ; they are therefore and there- 
 by about as effectually destroyed as they would have been, or could 
 .have been, by any other means whatever, direct or indirect. But who
 
 69 
 
 is it that has destroyed them ? To whom is their destruction and death 
 to be attributed '? Who is the murderer ? Who is it that imposes 
 restraints upon artificers and manufacturers in this country ? Cer- 
 tainly the English manufacturer is not to be blamed." And again 
 " Who is it that imposes restraints upon artificers and manufacturers, 
 and prevents their number from increasing in this country ? Is it not 
 this sensitive shipping interest of ours, which has thus far been care- 
 fully nursed at the expense of the land, even the very men for 
 whom, rather than their vessels should not have the freight of our 
 lumber, meal and meat to the British West Indies, we submit that it 
 shall remain at home and rot ? Is it not to those sugar-planters and 
 cotton-growers at the south, some of whose leading productions 
 have protections at the expense of the Northern States of more than 
 50 per cent. ; and the frightful stories scattered about the country, 
 and told to us farmers by our petulant shipping gentlemen, and those 
 wonderful wise Sheffield and Birmingham pedlars, and chambers of 
 Commerce, through the medium of the National Gazette, the Ameri- 
 can and Evening Post, are all deceptive trumpery, of which we do 
 not believe a single word." From one of the publications of Mr. 
 Carey we take the following : " Is it then fair, is it liberal, is it gen- 
 erous, is it just, for the merchants to unite as a solid phalanx, from 
 Maine to Savannah, to oppose every attempt to afford relief to their 
 fellow citizens, however acute their distress, however intense their suf- 
 ferings ?" From Mr. Everett's Speech at the Boston Woollens Con- 
 vention we make this quotation : " There was a time, and not long 
 ago, when not merely an indifference, but a positive unfavourable im- 
 pression was felt in this community on the subject of manufactures. 
 The accounts of the corruption of morals and prostration of health^ 
 of the over-working and under-feeding of the British factories, (ac- 
 counts in themselves too true I fear) were repeated with a kind of 
 melancholy relish." We select these from innumerable other char- 
 ges and imputations in circulation, equally gross and unfounded, not 
 with a view of refuting them, (that not coming within the object of 
 this committee) but merely to show what means even some of the 
 most respectable advocates of the " American System" resort to, in 
 order to stir up the prejudices and passions of their followers against 
 their opponents, and to bring obloquy upon all those who would aid 
 in protecting the national interests against the pretensions, we will not 
 say of the manufacturers, but against that combination, partly politi- 
 cal and partly manufacturing, (all of them advocating the same 
 cause, but from different motives, and having different ends in view,) 
 who are supporting a course of policy which, even should they suc- 
 ceed in establishing, cannot be of long duration, and the eventual con- 
 sequences of which, wilt, be most destructive to the ivhole manufactur- 
 ing interests of the nation, and more especially to those of the New 
 England States. 
 
 But Mr. Tibbits, from whom we have before quoted, would have as 
 10
 
 70 
 
 infer that it is the " sensitive shipping interest," on whose account 
 " we submit that our produce shall remain on hand and rot," who 
 have been desirous that the reasonable offer of Great Britain in re- 
 gard to the Colonial trade should have been rejected ; that the " sen- 
 sitive shipping interest" wished to destroy such an advantageous 
 branch of commerce, and thus were solicitous to injure their own in- 
 terests. A misrepresentation so unfounded and absurd, we should 
 hardly have commented on, had it not been countenanced by some 
 eminent partisans of the restrictive policy, whom we have cited. 
 
 Now what is the fact with regard to the shipping employed in the 
 Colonial trade ? We find on reference to the official list of exports 
 for 1826, that the amount of domestic produce only, exported to the 
 British West Indies and American Colonies, was 4,680,414 dollars, 
 of which only 474,560 dollars was in foreign skips. Thus it ap- 
 pears that the " sensitive shipping interest" had all the advantages 
 from this trade which it was susceptible of affording, and the able 
 men who more immediately represented their interests in Congress 
 made great, though unsuccessful efforts for retaining it on the terms 
 which it was at one time offered to our government, but were defeat- 
 ed in those attempts, chiefly by men who are among the most zealous 
 advocates of the non-exportation and non-importation system. How 
 then can it be charged upon the shipping interests, that the country 
 has lost this extremely valuable branch of commerce ? 
 
 A great deal of pains has been taken by diplomatists and partizan 
 politicians, ail of them distinguished for their hostility to commerce, as 
 interfering with the complete establishment of the " American Sys- 
 tem," to divert the public mind from the true state of this important 
 question. An elaborate writer upon the subject, in a long essay 
 which has lately been published, has gone back to the history of the 
 " Long Parliament and the British Navigation Act" to prove that 
 Mr. Huskisson and other English ministers were not sincere in 
 their offers of the Colonial trade on the terms which we once rejected, 
 but afterwards offered to accept. 
 
 If the ingenious writer had given us a history of the Roman inva- 
 sion of that country, it would have been quite as much to the pur- 
 pose. Why connect the navigation act and the support of the prin- 
 ciples of that act with the name of a statesman whose fame is found- 
 d OTi his overthrow of those principles on which that act and the 
 whole series of restrictive measures which followed it, were mainly 
 founded ? The enlightened men who are now at the head of affairs in 
 England, have no particular reverence for " Navigation Acts, or 
 Long Parliaments." Their efforts for a long time have been direct- 
 ed to the destruction of the Commercial codes which originated in 
 those days ; and we believe the only admirers now left of those ven- 
 erable laws, are the advocates of the " American System." 
 
 As regards the colonial question, we shall briefly say that our gov- 
 ernment having at first declined the terms offered by Great Britain, 
 afterwards proposed to the British government to accede to them.
 
 71 
 
 Why was this offer on our part refused by the British ministers f 
 There were no circumstances to render the trade between the United 
 States and her colonies less valuable to great Britain in 1826, than it 
 was at the time they offered us the trade. What then was the rea- 
 son ? We say there is strong presumptive evidence, that it was the 
 extension and operation of our prohibitory system which led to this 
 result. The loss of a trade which took off upwards of four and a 
 half millions of domestic produce, employed in 1826, 102,000 tons 
 of shipping in the direct voyages, and 20,000 tons more river and 
 coasting craft to furnish those cargoes ; comprehending the use in all 
 those various operations of near 11,000,000 dollars of capital, may 
 be considered among the first fruits, as regards our foreign trade, of 
 the " American system." 
 
 This commerce was extremely valuable to New England, as most 
 of the shipping was owned in these states, and of the 6,000 seamen 
 it employed, nearly all were northern men. It was too, a growing 
 trade. The amount of exports since 1823, had increased upwards 
 of three-fold, the tonnage had risen from 32,000 to 102,000, since 
 1821, and could we have retained it on the extremely favourable 
 terms we had unfortunately rejected, it would, in the course of a few 
 years, have been next to the direct trade with England, the most 
 extensive and profitable branch of our foreign commerce. 
 
 We deny then, that it is the fault of the merchants of the United 
 States, that the colonial trade has been lost to the nation. It is the 
 first act of that commercial warfare which is the necessary effect of 
 our prohibitory policy, and it must be extended to every branch of 
 commerce, not only with England, but every other nation whose man- 
 ufactures or productions, may interfere with the private interests of 
 the supporters of the restrictive system. 
 
 To return to our subject; we say if there was any pledge on the 
 part of the nation, to sustain the manufacturers by a continuance of 
 the tariff of 1816, they have honourably redeemed it; they have 
 even exceeded this, by submitting to the various additions which 
 have from time to time been made to it ; while on the other hand, 
 the woollen manufacturers have repeatedly violated theirs ; and if 
 we can judge from the past, will do so again, should they prevail 
 in the contest in which we are now engaged. The bill which 
 passed the House last winter, imposing duties of from 38 to 139 
 per cent, enormous as they are, did not, we understand, satisfy 
 the expectations of all ; the more general wish appears to be, to 
 carry up the rate at once to absolute prohibition, be that what it 
 may. 
 
 At the Boston Woollens Convention, Mr. Lawrence declared, that 
 the manufacturers " wanted protection ; it mattered not whether it 
 was 50 or 150 per cent, so long as it was protection ." The Penn- 
 sylvania Convention says; " We must countervail foreign manufac- 
 tures in favour of all such as can be advantageously made at home.
 
 T2 
 
 We except none" And Mr. Everett, although he argues for 50 
 per cent, voted for 38 to 139 per cent ; and if that is not sufficient, 
 we must go to the point of prohibition, since as he observes, " The 
 principle on which the tariff of 1824 was framed, of course, was to 
 enable each article as manufactured at home, to sustain a competi- 
 tion with the same article as imported." 
 
 Here then we have a disclosure from some of the most active 
 leaders* of the party we are opposing, manufacturers, politicians, and 
 political economists, of the true spirit of the " American system.'' 
 /2/j entire prohibition by duties of every thing which can be manufac- 
 tured at home, be the rate 50 or 150 per cent, or as much as u will 
 enable each article manufactured at home, to sustain a competition 
 with the same article as iu.ported." Notwithstanding, however, the 
 tone of authority these gentlemen assume as guardians of the manu- 
 facturing interests generally, we believe a vast majority of all con- 
 cerned in their various branches, including some of the most in- 
 telligent of the woollen manufacturers, will reject the doctrine they 
 advance, as not only incompatible with their notions of what is just, 
 but what is expedient. We do not say this unadvisedly, but from 
 our own knowledge of its truth. 
 
 We admit that they may be considered as representing the views 
 of the woollen manufacturers generally, and of the much deceived 
 wool-grower, who will, however, at no distant day, find in what an 
 unprofitable alliance he has been engaged. 
 
 We are then on the subject of pledges, fairly at issue with the 
 woollen manufacturers, and as they have kept no faith with the na- 
 tion, may it not be justly said, that the compact of 1816, on which 
 the protecting system rested, is dissolved ? How then can Mr. Ev- 
 erett, who is a national legislator, and bound to stand impartially at 
 least, between the private vievfte of the woollen manufacturers, and 
 the interests of his national constituents, say " that the expediency of 
 relieving the manufacturers, is not a question on the doctrines of po- 
 litical economy, but on the plighted faith of the nation ?" Why not 
 complain of the violated faith of the manufacturers, of which we have 
 furnished such ample proofs? But unreasonable as has been the 
 conduct of some of the manufacturers, and burdensome as are the 
 taxes now levied for their support, we do not believe the nation is 
 disposed to disturb the tariff and lessen the protection they now 
 enjoy ; but should the woollen manufacturers persist in their de- 
 mands, and thus increase the excitement now existing, is it not to be 
 expected, that when the other party do obtain the ascendancy, they 
 will not only reduce the rates on woollens, but also on glass, nails, 
 hats, cottons, and other articles, which are of vast importance, and 
 
 * Mr. Pearce, member of Congress for Rhode Island, at a dinner given him lately at 
 Troy, Mass, affirms, " The time will soon arrive when all the citizens of this country 
 will be convinced they can manufacture their articles for themselves, and our Govern- 
 ment wiU see the necessity of maJyng protection, prohibition."
 
 73 
 
 are protected by very heavy duties ? Is it not to be feared, as Mr. 
 Webster has told us, that " there may come a moment of strong re- 
 action, and if no moderation be shown in laying on duties, there may 
 be as little scruple in taking them off." This is the crisis to which 
 the committee apprehend we are now tending, and which, if possi- 
 ble, they are anxious to avert. 
 
 It does indeed seem incredible, that reflecting men, however much 
 their judgments may be affected by the deep interest they may have 
 involved in the question, when they consider how small a number are 
 really interested in sustaining the protecting system, compared with 
 those who would gain by its abandonment, should not themselves see 
 the danger of pressing such unreasonable claims on the nation. 
 
 We entreat the most zealous and the most sanguine to look at the 
 state of parties as they stood last winter, and consider that a change 
 of Jive votes in the House and one in the Senate would place them at 
 the mercy of their opponents, who, if successful, would feel in some 
 measure compelled, by the conduct of the manufacturers, to carry 
 back the rates to what they formerly were, before the establishment 
 of the protective system. 
 
 We would ask if the woollen manufacturers can hope to maintain a 
 system, if they succeed in establishing it, which is so directly in op- 
 position to the interests of the nation in general ? Will an intelli- 
 gent and enterprising people quietly submit to a policy which nar- 
 rows down the market for. their produce abroad, and imposes a tax 
 even for one article, greater than the whole national expenditure ? 
 We appeal then to all rational and prudent manufacturers whether it 
 is not better, even upon the most selfish principles, to join with us in 
 resisting any further augmentation of duties, than hazard in case of 
 failure the loss of part of what they now enjoy; or if successful, increase 
 the dissatisfaction and odium which already exists against the whole 
 system of non-importation, and which, one day or other, will be fol- 
 lowed by a most ruinous re-action. 
 
 SECTION 10th. Much has been said by the advocates of monop- 
 oly and restriction about the usefulness of manufacturers, and of their 
 surprise and regret that other classes should entertain hostile feelings 
 against them, and of the right and duty of government to protect 
 manufacturing industry. We make the following extract from the 
 Pennsylvania Woollens Convention Address: "An eminent citizen, 
 lately elected governor of an influential state, has succeeded to con- 
 vince the legislature of that state, that it may question the right as 
 well as the wisdom of Congress to concern itself with manufactures ;" 
 Again " We hold it to be the constitutional obligation of the 
 government to establish and preserve manufactures as much as com- 
 merce or agriculture ; to protect the industry of the work-shop as 
 much as that of the counting house ; and to encourage all the means 
 of a people's prosperity." With regard to the usefulness of woollen 
 manufactures in common with ajl others, and the duty of govern-
 
 74 
 
 ment to protect and encourage every species of industry, a great deal 
 of trouble has been taken to prove what no one denies ; nor can it be 
 said with any truth, that manufacturing property has notin common with 
 all other kinds, such protection as the laws of the land can afford it. 
 Why then do the woollen manufacturers talk of the protection of 
 their interests, as if they were not already protected ? The question 
 then, is not about the usefulness or the protection of manufactures. 
 The question is, whether it is wise or just to tax 11,900,000 persons 
 27,360,000 dollars a year to promote the interests of 100,000 per- 
 sons, three quarters of whom formerly succeeded very well without 
 it; and having imposed such a tax, whether it is wise and just to dou- 
 ble it ? In spite of all the newly invented terms, and all the sophis- 
 try which has been used by politicians and manufacturers, to lead off 
 the public mind from the true merits of this question, this is the 
 point to which it must at last come. Let it be kept in mind, that 
 every dollar which is paid to keep out foreign woollens, is so much tax 
 paid by the nation to the manufacturers, for which no equivalent is re- 
 ceived in return; and that if woollen manufacturers do not make 
 more than the ordinary profits of trade, (and they say they make 
 less) there is a loss to the country of $23,940,000 per annum. Not- 
 withstanding this mathematical truth which must be familiar to the 
 minds of thousands of this intelligent class, the National parly are 
 charged in no gentle terms, by numerous essayists, pamphleteers and 
 orators, with hostility to woollen manufactures. Having already bur- 
 dened our report with many extracts to show the charges against the 
 National party, of a hostile disposition to manufactures, we shall con- 
 tent ourselves with giving but few more. From an address of the 
 Honorable Andrew Stewart, M. C. delivered within a short time, to 
 his constituents in Pennsylvania, we extract the following : " Shall 
 we co-operate with those who are endeavouring to build up and 
 sustain manufacturing institutions among us, or unite with Great 
 Britain, and the cotton and tobacco planters of the South in their 
 endeavours to crush them? This is the true and plain state of the 
 question, and every man can decide it for himself." Again, after 
 having stated that Great Britain prohibits the importation of our 
 agricultural produce " Shall we unite ivith the South in these at- 
 tempts to destroy us7 Shall we, the farmers of Pennsylvania, as- 
 sist to ruin the only markets we have left, to gratify Southern ambi- 
 tion or British cupidity?" 
 
 A respectable editor, to whose paper we are indebted for this ex- 
 tract, accompanies the address of which this forms a part, with the 
 following remark : " We shall close this notice with a pretty long 
 extract, in which Mr. Stewart displays his accustomed research, and 
 strength in matters of fact." Now if our readers will turn to the 
 7th section of our report, they will see that this is the same gen- 
 tleman who asserted, that in 1825 Great Britain took from the 
 Northern and Middle States nothing, and only 500 dollars of all the
 
 75 
 
 States north of the Ohio and Potomac ; and in the same section, 
 they will find proofs from official documents, that we sent that year 
 upwards of 1,200,000 dollars to Great Britain, and more than 
 4,000,000 dollars to her colonies. We can assure our readers, 
 that the other " strong facts" which this honourable legislator pub- 
 lishes, have about as slender a foundation as the one we have just 
 noticed, and the charges and imputations against cotton and to- 
 bacco planters, by whom he no doubt means all who are opposed 
 to the restrictive policy, are equally unfounded. What are the corn- 
 plaints of our opponents against the people of the South and West ? 
 That they resist the woollens tax of 23,940,000 dollars, imposed for 
 the benefit of 100,000 persons ? If they mean to assert this, nothing 
 can be more untrue. They never, after it passed, uttered a murmur 
 against it. It is in opposition to the doubling this enormous tax, 
 which they are now contending against, and for which they are de- 
 nounced by Mr. Tibbits and many of the leading men of his party, 
 as has been before shown. Our opponents complain that the South- 
 ern gentlemen are too warm upon this subject. We ask them to re- 
 flect upon the imputations cast upon them by their own leaders, and 
 they will be at no loss to see the reasons. 
 
 To talk then of hostility of the nation to manufactures," after the 
 immense taxes they have paid for their support, is worse than folly ; 
 and the Southern statesmen themselves, on the introduction of the 
 protective system in 1816, acted in the most liberal manner, by giv- 
 ing their support to duties which they knew must operate against their 
 constituents, and to the advantage of the manufacturing States. 
 Without the aid of Barbour, Calhoun, Crawford, Lowndes, and 
 others, the tariff of 1816 could never have been established; but it 
 is most unjust to the merits of those gentlemen, who were willing to 
 give 20 per cent on woollens, (which was four times the rate originally 
 established,) to charge them and their constituents with hostility to 
 manufactures, because they opposed a duty of 80 per cent. The 
 conduct of the Western States, was equally liberal. In 1824, the 
 whole vote from Missouri, Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky, was in fa- 
 vour of the tariff as it then passed. In 1827, a majority was against 
 the tariff as then proposed. There is also a great change in Penn- 
 sylvania. She gave all her votes but one for the tariff of 1824, but 
 gave, as we believe, six or seven against the tariff bill of 1827. In 
 Kentucky, of the six members who voted for the tariff bill of 1827, 
 four have lost their elections, so that instead of having the whole del- 
 egation in favour of the protective system as in 1824, all but two are 
 now opposed to it. 
 
 They have become disaffected to the whole system, and to those 
 politicians who have been the most instrumental in supporting it ; 
 not from any want of good will to the manufacturing interests, but 
 from a determination not to see the peace and welfare of the union 
 disturbed, for the sake of wearing woollens made at home, at nearly
 
 76 
 
 double the cost we can have them from abroad, and in exchange toe 
 for the agricultural productions of the country. 
 
 We have before had occasion, in repelling the charges of hostility 
 made by our opponents against the Southern States, to notice the 
 conduct of some of their prominent statesmen, in regard to the man- 
 ufacturing interests. We have now to notice a very unfair advantage 
 which has been taken of this liberal feeling, to class them among the 
 advocates of the exclusive non-importation and non-exportation sys- 
 tem. We quote the following from the address of the Pennsylvania 
 Woollens Convention, held 27th June, 1827, signed by Mr. C. I. 
 Ingersoll, Matthew Carey, and other gentlemen equally distinguished 
 for their hostility to free trade, and their devotion to the "American 
 system." " Whenever this subject has been treated in Congress, 
 both its constitutionality and policy have been conceded. The votes 
 of the much lamented Mr. Lowndes, and of the present Vice Presi- 
 dent of the United States, with those of many other eminent states- 
 men of the South, are recorded in their favour." 
 
 With regard to the Vice President of the United States, it is un- 
 necessary for the committee to say any thing more, than that by the 
 casting vote he gave against the tariff of 1827, he became the chief 
 instrument in saving the country, and more especially the manufactur- 
 ers^ from the many evils which would certainly have resulted from 
 that pernicious and impolitic bill ; and for which he is entitled to the 
 gratitude of the nation. We have already given some extracts from 
 Mr. Lowndes' speeches, which show what were his opinions of the 
 "American system." We furnish another from a speech made in 
 1820, on the application of the woollen and cotton manufacturers for 
 increased duties ; " He believed there was no nation in the world, 
 which, in proportion to its income, paid so great a bounty to its man- 
 ufacturers, as the United States." Let the reader bear in mind, who 
 it is that is speaking ; one of the most intelligent, sincere and pru- 
 dent statesmen, thai ever graced our national assembly. Let him keep 
 in mind too, that the duties on both cottons and woollens have been 
 considerably increased since that time. We take great satisfaction in 
 quoting the opinions of this venerated man ; first, to clear his reputa- 
 tion from those imputations, which our opponents have attempted to 
 cast upon it. And again, that we may avail ourselves of the authori- 
 ty of one of the wisest and best tnen our country has produced. 
 The virtues of his pure and elevated mind, were not geographical. 
 He did not measure the rights of men by the sections in which they 
 happened to reside ; nor ask when a wrong was intended, whether 
 those who were the objects of it lived on the " north, or the south 
 side of the Potomac," "in the plantation, or manufacturing States." 
 If an encroachment was made on the rights of the nation, he never 
 stooped to inquire, before he would join in resisting it, whether it orig- 
 inated in the North or in the South. Of his regard for Northern in- 
 terests, he gave frequent proofs, by his continual and efficiefit efforts.
 
 w 
 
 forjthe support of the navy, the protection of our navigation, and thd 
 extension of our commerce, and for the manufacturing States, by hit 
 support to the tariff c/1816 ; but he lived long enough to see that his 
 liberal conduct was not duly appreciated by the manufacturers ; on 
 the contrary, that they continued to make further demands for pro- 
 tection, which he did his utmost to resist. The principles of this 
 much lamented man, did not shift with his pecuniary, or his political 
 interests ; they were founded on an immutable basis which nothing 
 could shake. There was a singleness of heart, and a firmness of 
 principle about him, which inspired the whole nation with the most 
 unlimited confidence in his goodness and integrity. Mr. Lowndes 
 did not go to the national legislature tied down by pledges to man- 
 ufacturers, merchants or planters ; HE, REPRESENTED HIS COUNTRY. 
 A free, unpledged national legislator, and he would have scorned to 
 have been there, on any other terms. 
 
 But integrity and impartiality were not the only qualifications of 
 the late William Lowndes ; he brought to the discussion of every sub- 
 ject, a strong, discerning mind, well stored with facts, and entertaining 
 as he did, the most comprehensive and statesman-like views, he was 
 qualified in an eminent degree, to decide correctly upon all great 
 questions of national policy, and on subjects connected with com- 
 merce and manufactures in their various relations, no man in the as- 
 sembly in which he sat, was his superior. 
 
 That Mr. Lowndes was opposed to the whole system against which 
 we are contending, we have offered the most undeniable testimony ; 
 and as far as the authority of names ought to influence our opinions on 
 this subject, is there any statesman whose guidance we can more safe- 
 ly follow ? And will not every one who loves his country, and is 
 anxious for her welfare, be influenced by the authority and example 
 of such a man ? 
 
 We say then, that the nation, and every portion of it, has given 
 abundant evidence, of not only their good will towards the manufac- 
 turing interests, but of their partiality to them, and that their impor- 
 tance to the general prosperity, when placed on the equal footing of 
 all other interests, has always been duly appreciated. For ourselves, 
 as New England men, we think it difficult to over-rate their value. 
 We have all the requisites for success, in almost all the various branches. 
 We are, by our habits and disposition, and still more by our necessities, 
 led to them as a means of support. The very barrenness of our soil, 
 (a pre-eminence no other section can dispute with us,) compels us as 
 it were, to be a manufacturing and commercial people. We have 
 been a commercial people from the first settlement of the country, 
 and were a manufacturing one, to a great extent, at least a century be- 
 fore the protective system was established. It may be doubted, if 
 there is in any quarter of the world, England excepted, an equal num- 
 ber of persons, operating with the same capital, which produces a 
 larger amount of manufactures than the State of Massachusetts. We 
 11
 
 78 
 
 of course do not speak in reference to cottons or woollens, but to 
 manufactures generally. 
 
 There is, however, too much impatience to realize the utmost ex- 
 tent and perfection of this species of employment, by legislative enact- 
 ments, and high bounties, instead of waiting for the natural effects of 
 increased experience and skill, and a greater accumulation of capi- 
 tal, all of which we are fast acquiring, and the want of which, now 
 constitutes the only obstacle to our complete success. 
 
 We repeat then, that the only dangers the manufacturers have to 
 apprehend, arise from the insidious attachment of politicians, who, 
 feeling no interest in their permanent success, use them as a means 
 of attaining their ambitious views ; or, of short-sighted manufacturers, 
 who are putting forth pretensions which will make the whole class 
 they affect to represent, so odious to the nation, that ultimately, they 
 will lose part of the protection they now enjoy. 
 
 SECTION llth. We have endeavoured to show, and we hope with 
 success, that there never has been any hostility in any portion of the 
 nation to manufactures, and that too much has already been done in 
 the way of governmental bounties for their promotion. There are, 
 however, many leading writers and politicians among our opponents, 
 who treat this question in such a way, as to induce us to believe, that 
 if by a forced construction of the constitution, the general govern- 
 ment could go still further than they have, no other evidence need be 
 required of the justice and policy of the restrictive system carried to 
 its utmost limits. " It is constitutional, and therefore politic and 
 just." Let us then examine the grounds on which the advocates 
 of the exclusive system would justify and prove its constitutionality. 
 We will take the statement of their case, from Mr. Tibbits, as being 
 one of the authorities held by our opponents, in the greatest repute, 
 for his accuracy and knowledge. " Protection to manufactures 
 is further objected to, on the ground that Congress is not authorized 
 by the constitution to give that protection, by increased duties or 
 prohibitions ; nor to cherish and elevate one branch, where that eleva- 
 tion or protection may prejudice another branch of business ; and 
 more particularly where it may prejudice the shipping and importing 
 branches already established, and in successful operation." "The 
 power has ubquestionably been given to Congress, to lay and col- 
 lect taxes, and to establish imports ; to regulate the trade with for- 
 eign powers among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. 
 Another important function conferred upon Congress, is, to provide 
 for the public defence and for the general welfare." The same 
 ground has been taken by Mr. Carey, Mr. Niles, and other equally 
 distinguished men of that party. We understand them to maintain 
 that the general powers granted to Congress, by the constitution, " to 
 raise revenue, to regulate trade, and provide for the public defence 
 and general welfare ;" can, with a fair interpretation of that instru- 
 ment, be construed into a right on the part of Congress, to pass
 
 79 
 
 such laws, (which to use the very phrase of Mr. TibbitsJ may 
 cherish and elevate one branch, where that elevation and protection 
 may prejudice another branch of business, and the effect of which, is 
 to prohibit our principal imports, and of course to lessen very much 
 our exports, and thus in fact, instead of regulating, to materially di- 
 minish both trade and revenue ; and the further effect of which, (as 
 regards the article of woollens,) is to burden one of the first neces- 
 saries of life, with an annual tax of 23,940,000 dollars a year ; to 
 lessen the annual accumulation of national wealth to the like amount, 
 and thus most essentially to impair the general welfare. This is the 
 position taken by Mr. Everett, when he says, " the tariff of 1824 was 
 framed, to enable each article as manufactured at home, to sustain a 
 competition with the same article as imported." And by Mr. Law- 
 rence, when he contends, that " we want protection ; it mattered 
 not whether it was 50 or 150 per cent, so long as it was protec- 
 tion." And by the Pennsylvania Woollens Convention, " we must" 
 they say " countervail foreign manufactures in favour of all such as 
 can be advantageously made at home; we except none." 
 
 To assert that the power of regulating trade and raising revenue, 
 implies the right of making such laws, as cannot accomplish the pur- 
 poses for which they were made, without destroying both revenue 
 and trade ; and to conceive that the power of legislating for the gen- 
 eral welfare, can be justly exercised in such a way, as to violate indi- 
 vidual rights, and injure the general welfare, will not, we think, ac- 
 cord with the notions usually entertained of the spirit and purpose of 
 the American constitution. Such a novel, and to most of us startling 
 doctrine as this, should, we think, in order to have that currency its 
 advocates desire, be supported by something like argument, which 
 we have, however, in vain looked for, in the numerous speeches, 
 essays, reviews, agricultural addresses, treasury reports, sermons, and 
 other publications of the advocates of the " American System." 
 
 Our opponents appear to rely for the support of their new and in- 
 genious definition of constitutional power, entirely on authorities ; 
 and in the way they proceed, they find it no difficult task to ob- 
 tain them. If in any of the messages of Presidents, reports from De- 
 partments of State, debates in Congress, or the writings of any dis- 
 tinguished or popular statesman, they can find some general expres- 
 sions about the " benefit of manufactures," " the advantage of pro- 
 moting new branches of trade," the " employment of domestic in- 
 dustry," or of the " necessity of imposing duties for revenue," &c. 
 &c. the authors, without the least regard to the general scope of 
 their publications, or the avowed object of them, are at once set 
 down as the supporters of the " American System ;" and as having 
 sanctioned the most absurd and unjust schemes, of the wildest advo- 
 cate for the system of restrictions. 
 
 We again refer to the Pennsylvania address, as a document com- 
 ing from some of the principal founders of the " American System,"
 
 so 
 
 and circulated as an able exposition of the principles of the new 
 policy. As this manifesto is signed by Mr. C. I. Ingersoll, U. S. 
 District Attorney, an eminent lawyer, (and probably the only emi- 
 nent one who would countenance the new constitutional doctrine 
 as laid down by the gentlemen from whom we have just quoted,) it 
 is to be presumed, that we here have the most able defence of it, 
 which our opponents can make. " So far," say they, " as regards 
 manufactures, the right of Congress to protect them in that mode, 
 was not only admitted in the first Congress, but strenuously advocat- 
 ed by the most distinguished members of that body, Madison, Ames, 
 Fitzsimmons, &c. many of whom were members of the convention, 
 that framed the constitution." And to prove that these and other dis- 
 tinguished men, some of whom they name, upheld by their votes, the 
 principle of prohibition, they cite the preamble, " to the first act for 
 raising a revenue by impost, passed July 4th, 1789, headed 
 
 Whereas, it is necessary for the support of government, for the dis- 
 charge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement 
 and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares 
 and merchandize imported." Here then is one of the authorities, 
 which, in lieu of argument, is to prove that Mr. Madison and other 
 eminent statesmen, were in favour of the system they advocate. 
 To see what support can be obtained from this act, to which they 
 refer, in favour of the protecting system, we must see what the mak- 
 ers of it meant by that term. The sense in which our opponents use 
 protection, is, to slop the importation of all foreign goods which can 
 interfere with such as can be made at home. On reference to the 
 tariff of 1789, we find the duties on woollen and cotton goods 5 per 
 cent. The existing duty on cotton goods varies from 29 to 90 or 100 
 per cent ; on woollens 38 per cent, and the bill which passed the 
 House last winter proposed an increase of from 38 to 139 per 
 cent, increasing on the consumer, not in proportion to his wealth, 
 but his want of it. 
 
 But these rates are not satisfactory, and by the tariff which the 
 Harrisburg Convention have made for the next Congress, the rates 
 on both articles are so much increased, as to shut out all further 
 importations. On comparing the rates of duty imposed in 1789, 
 with the existing ones, and with the contemplated rates of our op- 
 ponents, they will seethe correspondence between the notions then, 
 and now entertained, of protecting duties. 
 
 The difference will, however, appear more striking by a compar- 
 ison of the ad valorem duties on the whole importations of 1789 and 
 1790, and 1825. Of the 24,341,624 dollars, imported in the two 
 former years, 
 
 21,742,291 paid 5 per cent duty, ) . 
 
 2,591,752 ^aid 7 P l-2 and 10 per cent duty, > "fif* 
 7,581 paid 12 1-2 and 15 per cent duty, ) 
 
 Of the imports of 1825, the report from the Treasury affords
 
 81 
 
 no means of ascertaining the exact rates on all the ad valorem arti- 
 cles. The leading ones are : 
 
 Cotton Goods 29 to 90 per cent. 
 
 Woollens - 38 per cent. 
 
 Silk Goods - 23 to 30 per cent. 
 
 Linens - 29 per cent. 
 
 Hard Ware - 29 per cent. 
 
 Glass Ware - 34 per cent. 
 
 Straw Hats, Caps, &c. T 58 per cent. 
 
 There were some other articles paying 25 down to 12 1-2 per 
 cent, but as more than half were cotton, woollen and silk goods, 
 and a large portion of the others which paid 25 to 30 per j, cent, 
 the average the committee believe cannot be less than 35 to 40 per 
 cent, and under the Harrisburg, or the contemplated tariff, the 
 duties on cottons will be raised considerably, and on woollens the 
 average may be 120 to 150 per cent. For instance, cloths costing 
 
 50 cents or under, a square yard, pay 40 per cent, on a valuation 
 of 50 cents a yard. 
 
 Cloths costing over 50 cents, and not exceeding $2 50 a square 
 
 yard, to pay a duty on $2 50 a square yard. 
 Cloths costing over $2 50 a square yard, and not exceeding $4 
 
 a square yard, to pay a duty on $4 a square yard. 
 Cloths costing over $4 a square yard, and not exceeding $6 a square 
 
 yard, to pay a duty on $6 a yard. 
 Cloths costing over $6 a square yard, to pay on whatever they may 
 
 cost. 
 
 It should be noticed that the duty, though nominally 40 per cent, 
 is in fact 46 per cent. Thus cloths costing 
 
 51 cents a yard, pay 46 per cent on $2 50, or 115 cents, equal to 
 
 225 per cent on the cost. 
 251 cents a yard, pay 46 per cent on 3 
 
 73 per cent on the cost. 
 401 cents a yard, pay 46 per cent on ^ 
 
 68 per cent on the cost. 
 600 and over, pay 46 per cent on what they cost, equal to 46 per ct. 
 
 on the cost. 
 
 To these rates 5 per cent is to be added after the 30th June, 
 1829, and five per cent more after the 30th June, 1830.* Most of 
 the goods consumed by the poor and middling classes, would pay 
 from 225 to 73 per cent, while the high cost goods would pay but 46 
 per cent ; and this, as we have before observed, was the case in the 
 bill which passed the House last winter ; we have too in this tariff, 
 
 * In 1830, these rates, by the addition of 10 per cent, will be increased one fourth, 
 making ... 281 per cent, 
 
 91 per cent, 
 85 per cent, 
 57 1-2 per cent.
 
 82 
 
 much greater temptations than ever, " to the dishonest importers," who 
 have been charged with evading revenue, to the extent of one half 
 under the existing duty.* In the Harrisburg tariff, an importer by 
 altering his invoice one cent a yard, may save 179 per cent in the 
 duties. 
 
 We have gone into these details, which we know will be tedious 
 to our readers, to show what different meanings are attached to the 
 word protection. The Congress of 1789 considered 5 per cent on 
 woollens as much as was due to them. The manufacturers now have 
 38 per cent. They asked for 80 per cent, at the last session, and 
 mean to call for 120 per cent at4he ensuing one. We say then that 
 the Congress of 1789, had no intention of prohibiting woollens, or 
 even of imposing such duties as would diminish their consumption, 
 and thus by lessening revenue, defeat the object for which the law was 
 passed. If those who had brought forward this act, had paid the 
 least attention to its sense, and to the obvious intention of the makers 
 of it, they would have seen by the very words they have quoted, 
 that the main and indeed sole object of it was, to raise revenue for the 
 support of government, and the discharge of the debts of the United 
 States ; protection to manufactures was altogether secondary and 
 incidental, and may be said to be rather one of its beneficial effects 
 associated with the others, to reconcile the nation to a system of tax- 
 ation. 
 
 It is perfectly absurd to suppose any other interpretation can be 
 given to the intentions of those who supported that act, and to our 
 apprehension, it implies a most strange perversion of mind in those 
 expounders of constitutional law, to imagine that men who voted for a 
 duty of 5 percent, imposed avowedly for revenue, would vote for a 
 bill imposing 80 per cent, and still more one for 120 per cent, for the 
 declared purpose of 'prohibition, and thus destroying revenue, or 
 that they would sanction the principles of a system, the object of 
 
 N. 
 
 * We notice in some late discussions, in the newspapers, that the principle adopted 
 by us of estimating the duties under the Harrisburg tariff, has been objected to. It is 
 contended for instance, that goods costing 51 cents, and not exceeding $2 50, will pay 
 40 per cent, or 100 cents, equal to 196 per cent on the cost. Whereas, we have esti- 
 mated the rate as an ad valorem duly, which would make it 44 percent, to which add 2 
 per cent for duty on shipping charges, is 46 per cent, making the duty on cost of 51 
 cents, valued at"$2 50, to be 115 cents, or 225 1-2 per cent. 
 
 This we conceive is the true construction of the memorial which proposes that "goods 
 costing over 50 cents, and not exceeding $250 per square yard, should be taken and 
 deemed to have cost $2 50 a yard, and 40 per cent ad valorem to be charged thereon." 
 A law made in conformity to the memorial, would not, we apprehend, admit of any other 
 construction, and we are the more confident in this, because the duties on the tariff bill 
 which passed the House of Representatives lastwinter, were in the debates estimated by 
 several of the speakers in that way, and not objected to. But it can be of very little 
 consequence whether Congress construe the intention of the memorialists one way or 
 the other. The existing duties have reduced our importation of woollens for last year 
 down to 7,886,826 dollars, of which 441,382 dollars exported, leaves for consumption 
 7,445,444 dollars, or a little over one tenth part of all we consume. A tariff giving one 
 third the average duties recommended by the Harrisburg Convention, would as effectu- 
 ally exclude woollens, as the enormous rates for which they have petitioned.
 
 83 
 
 which is to destroy all foreign trade, and the effect of which is to im- 
 pose burdensome taxation on the nation at large, to promote the views 
 of one particular class. Again, from the same address ; " in addition 
 to these strong facts, General Washington, who had been President 
 of the Convention, in his message of 1796, particularly recommended 
 to Congress the encouragement of manufactures ;" and there follows 
 an extract from his speech. " Congress have repeatedly, and not 
 without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of 
 manufactures. The object is of too much importance not to insure 
 a continuance of their efforts in every way that shall appear eligible. 
 Ought our country to remain dependant on foreign supply, precarious, 
 because liable to be interrupted ? If the necessary article should in 
 this mode cost more in time of peace, will not the security and inde- 
 pendence thence arising, form an ample compensation ?" They pro- 
 ceed to say, Mr. Jefferson's message of December 1802 is to the 
 same effect, and furnish the following extract : 
 
 " To cultivate peace, and maintain commerce and navigation in 
 all their lawful enterprises, to foster our fisheries as nurseries of nav- 
 igation, and for the nurture of man, and to protect the manufactures 
 adapted to our circumstances, are the landmarks by which to guide 
 ourselves in all our proceedings." 
 
 " Mr. Madison and Mr. Monroe, in their messages uniformly held 
 the same doctrine." 
 
 We have here all the proofs which have been adduced by Mr. 
 Ingersoll and others, to show that Washington and Jefferson were in 
 favour of monopolies, and exclusive systems. Their language is open 
 to the understandings of all men, and what is the inference? Why, 
 that they were friendly to commerce, navigation and manufactures, and 
 ready to do all they could for their protection and promotion. Do 
 they not connect in all their communications, manufactures with 
 commerce, navigation, and the general welfare of the nation ? Do 
 they single out manufactures, and say that all the other great inter- 
 ests of the country shall be sacrificed to them ? For this is the doc- 
 trine of our opponents. Their system goes to the destruction of com- 
 merce and navigation, and the injuring the general welfare. To know 
 the measure of protection, which they considered due to them, con- 
 sistent with the general welfare, we must look to the stale of the tariff 
 under their administrations. 
 
 In 1789, the duties on woollen manufactures were 5 per cent, 
 subsequently increased to 7 1-2, under which rates they increased 
 and flourished to such an extent as to supply three quarters of all we 
 consumed, and no complaints were heard of a want of protecting 
 duties. During Mr. Adams' Presidency, the rates on cottons and 
 woollens were advanced to 12 1-2 per cent, to which 2 1-2 per cent 
 was added, under Mr. Jefferson's administration, to meet the ex- 
 penses of war with the Barbary powers. All these additions were 
 expressly for revenue, and not a word said about protecting systems.
 
 84 
 
 As to what has been quoted from the communications of the various 
 Presidents to Congress, it was incumbent on them, and in conformity 
 to usage, to notice manufactures in common with all the leading 
 interests of the country, and to have said less, would have implied a 
 gross neglect of duty, but it discovers a singular misapprehension of 
 the characters and understandings of these patriotic and intelligent 
 statesmen, to imagine that either of them would recommend or coun- 
 tenance the policy we are resisting, so entirely at variance as it is with 
 that free and liberal system under which the country had flourished 
 during their administrations. 
 
 As to Mr. Madison, the use which our opponents have made of 
 his name, to gain converts and support to their principles, has com- 
 pelled him to disavow publicly his acquiescence in their notions. 
 
 " I must observe also," he says, " that though it is true that I 
 have spoken of the power of Congress, in its enlarged sense, over 
 commerce} as a primary and known object in forming the Constitu- 
 tion, the language of the statement is inaccurate, at least as being 
 susceptible of a construction embracing indefinite powers over the en- 
 tire resources of the country." What is the inference ? Why, that 
 Mr. Madison did not consider that Congress had an " indefinite pow- 
 er over the entire resources of the country." What is it our oppo- 
 nents contend for ? Why, that Congress, under certain powers in 
 the Constitution to lay imposts for revenue, regulate trade, and to pro- 
 vide for the general welfare, have the right to pass laws, the obvious 
 effect of which is to diminish and destroy trade, and the inevitable 
 consequences of which will be to impose an enormous taxation on 
 the nation at large for the benefit of a few, to annihilate revenue, 
 and thus to impair the general welfare. Now what is this but the ex- 
 ercise of an indefinite and unlimited power over the resources of the 
 country ? This is the spirit of the " American System," and will its 
 advocates find any thing in Mr. Madison's writings* to justify the 
 principles on which it is founded ? 
 
 With regard to Mr. Monroe's opinions, we refer our readers to an 
 elaborate argument of his, published in IS22, under the title of 
 " Views of the President of the United States on the Subjects of In- 
 ternal Improvements;" in which he defines ihose powers of the Con- 
 stitution, under which our opponents look for the support of their 
 principles. There is nothing in that disquisition, which can give the 
 least countenance to the advocates of unlimited powers of Congress, 
 to the supporters of the " American System." 
 
 That the advocates of restriction and prohibition should pretend to 
 rank Mr. Jefferson on their side, is the more remarkable, because he 
 
 * " He hdd it to be one of Ike truths most demonstrable, that commercial shackles, in 
 general, were impolitic and unjust. It was his opinion, that if industry and labour were 
 suffered to take their own course, they would find their proper objects. He believed 
 that the national interests were not more promoted by these restrictions than \vere those 
 of individuals. The same was the case between different parts of the same community, 
 and between one nation and another." Madison's Speeches.
 
 85 
 
 was not only hostile to forcing manufactures by bounties and prohibi- 
 tions, as being a resort to unjust contrivances for their support, but 
 he considered that it would be, for a long time to come, the interest 
 of this country to exchange freely the products of our soil for the 
 manufactures of Europe, both as a matter of pecuniary benefit, and at 
 the same time as more conducive to the health, morals and happi- 
 ness of the nation. These opinions were expressed in various pub- 
 lications, and at different periods of his life, and he remained stead- 
 fast to them to the very close of his existence. 
 
 But of all the authorities adduced in favour of monopoly and pro- 
 hibition, the most unwarrantable use has been made of the name and 
 writings of Alexander Hamilton, of which we have already produced 
 one striking instance in the 5th division of this report. The source 
 on which our opponents rely for the opinions of this illustrious 
 man, is his celebrated report on manufactures, which we regret is not 
 more generally read, that its meaning and intention might no longer 
 be perverted to sustain a system which the author of that paper 
 would have been one of the first to condemn. 1st. on account of 
 its injustice ; and 2ndly, because of its tendency to injure, instead of 
 promoting manufactures. Shortly after the adoption of our consti- 
 tution, Hamilton was placed by Washington at the head of the finan- 
 cial department of the government. In that situation, it became part 
 of his official duty to present reports on the various great interests of 
 the nation, which he accordingly did one on public credit ; another 
 on a national bank; one on a mint, and a fourth on manufactures. 
 
 In the last, he went into a detailed and minute exposition of the 
 advantages of manufactures ; the facilities we had of carrying them 
 on, and the best means of promoting them ; not, however, confining 
 himself entirely to manufactures, but extending his remarks to agri- 
 cultural products; such as grain, cotton, hemp, flax, &c. See.; also 
 to the best means of inland transportation, and of the expediency of 
 canals and other improvements ; recommending an increase 
 of imposts on some articles and bounties on others, which he considered 
 virtually the same as imposts. Now, though there are some doctrines 
 and some expedients for the encouragement of manufactures, which 
 would never have found admission to his report, had the writer lived 
 in the present advanced state of political economy, and when the 
 statesmen of the old world are acting upon more liberal and enlight- 
 ened principles, still there is not a line nor an opinion in it, from 
 which it can be inferred, that he would for an instant have sanctioned 
 the policy or principles of the system we are opposing. Hamilton 
 found the country without revenue and without credit ; a government 
 new and unsettled, and in the minds of many, there was a want of 
 confidence in its strength and durability. The revolution had left 
 the nation poor, and when Hamilton made up his reports, the public 
 debt was upwards of 54,000,000 dollars a sum equal in our pre- 
 sent increased wealth and population, to 500,000,000 dollars which 
 12
 
 86 
 
 latter sum can be more easily discharged now, than the former could 
 at the period of which we are speaking. We were without the means 
 of paying even the interest on this debt, and the current expenses of 
 the year. The very existence of the government, seemed at that 
 moment to depend on the establishment of the public credit on a firm 
 and lasting foundation. 
 
 Hamilton was called upon to create and organise a revenue sys- 
 tem. The main object of his report on manufactures, was to sup- 
 port his previous one on public credit, by holding out all the collat- 
 teral advantages of the new and increased duties proposed in the lat- 
 ter ; and to call the attention of government to other suitable objects 
 of impost, that the nation might become the more reconciled to the 
 necessity of further taxation ; and at the same time, in connexion 
 with the other reports, to define and strengthen some of the powers 
 of the general government, which were at that moment distrusted, or 
 not well understood. Pressing, however, as were the wants of 
 government, one cannot but admire the judgment and moderation with 
 which he recommends the alterations on the various articles. The 
 leading principle he adopted, and which all will admit is the fair one, 
 was to impose high rates on superfluities, and low ones on the neces- 
 saries of life. Accordingly on teas, sugars, coffee, wines and spirits, 
 deemed luxuries in those days, the duties were high ; while on cot- 
 tons and woollens, without which we cannot exist, they were low. 
 The principle now acted upon by the advocates of the " American 
 System," is to put the highest duties on some of the first necessaries 
 of life, and to increase those rates according to the coarseness of 
 the articles. 
 
 That Hamilton was friendly to manufactures as being next to agri- 
 culture and commerce, the leading interests of the country, there 
 is evidence enough, and what other statesman is there of any emi- 
 nence, of which the same may not be said ? That he contended 
 for the right in Congress to impose duties for revenue, the effect of 
 which would be to encourage and promote manufactures is also true, 
 and who is there who does not commend him for it ? 
 
 It ,is the abuse of this power, when carried to such extremes as to 
 prohibit imports, and consequently lessen our export trade, destroy 
 revenue, burden one part of the nation ivith heavy taxes for the 
 benefit of another, which constitutes the wrong, and which we contend 
 is neither in accordance with the spirit or letter of a constitution, which 
 was intended to guarantee equal laws, equal rights, as well as equal 
 burdens, to all who live under it. 
 
 But, say our opponents, Hamilton supported the doctrine of pro- 
 tection. Now this is one of those terms which the advocates of re- 
 striction have found it convenient to explain in a sense, the very op- 
 posite to what its true meaning imports. We have seen that their 
 protection means prohibition and destruction, to both* revenue and 
 trade, and enormous taxation to support the views of particular indi-
 
 37 
 
 viduals at the expense of the nation ; but to know in what sense 
 Hamilton used it, we will refer, not to their definitions, but to his acts. 
 
 At the time Hamilton drew up his report, the duties on ad valorem 
 goods, as we have before shown, averaged 5 1-2 per cent.; to some 
 of the articles, he recommends additions of 2 1-2 per cent. The 
 duty on cotton goods was 5 per cent., to which he suggested an in- 
 crease of 2 1-2 per cent. On woollens, which he says " from spe- 
 cimens in his hands, had already attained a very considerable degree 
 of perfection, and which he was most anxious to cherish and bring to 
 maturity," he recommends " no addition to the 5 per cent, they then 
 enjoyed, except 2 1-2 per cent, on carpets and carpeting, which he 
 thinks will not be objected to, on account of the nature of the articles 
 " being considered as luxuries." 
 
 By what process of reasoning, then, can it be inferred that this 
 able statesman, who, in a most elaborate report, drawn up with a 
 view to revenue, as well as the promotion of manufactures, consi- 
 dered 5 per cent, on woollens as high a duty as they ought to re- 
 ceive, consistent with the general welfare, would be favourable to the 
 present high rates, and still more, that he would sanction the policy 
 or constitutionality of laws proposed avowedly for their prohibition? 
 
 We will now give a few extracts from the report, which will futv 
 nish more positive evidence of his entire disagreement with our op- 
 ponents. Speaking of the policy of encouraging manufactures by 
 high duties on rival articles from abroad, he says " This is another 
 and an efficacious mean of encouraging national manufactures ; but 
 in general it is only fit to be employed when a manufacture has made 
 such a progress, and is in so many hands, as to insure a due compe- 
 tition, and an adequate supply on reasonable terms." 
 
 Here then is one of the passages, which is relied upon as making 
 most strongly in favour of high duties. What, then, are the circum- 
 stances under which Hamilton recommends high duties ? " When a 
 manufacture has made such a progress as to insure competition, and 
 an adequate supply on reasonable terms." Now we have already 
 shown that in 1790 we manufactured upwards of three quarters of all 
 the woollens we consumed, and the report admits that " they had ar- 
 rived to a very considerable degree of perfection, and that the writer 
 of it was anxious to cherish, and bring them to maturity," and con- 
 sequently they had attained that condition, on which prohibitory or 
 high duties were justifiable ; still Hamilton would give only 5 per 
 cent, which he deemed sufficient to bring the homo fabric to still greater 
 maturity ; considering, no doubt, that any further protection would 
 be subjecting the nation to a heavier burden than was expedient or 
 just. 
 
 We see then most clearly, the difference between Hamilton's ideas 
 of protection, and those of the supporters of the present system, and 
 that, too, upon an obvious construction of a passage considered by 
 them as most favourable to their views. Again "It would deserve
 
 88 
 
 attention, however, in the employment of this species of encourage- 
 ment in the United States, as a reason for a moderate degree of it 
 in the instances which might he deemed eligible, that the great dis- 
 tance of this country from Europe, imposes very heavy charges on 
 all the fabrics which are brought from thence, amounting to from 15 
 to 30 per cent, on their value, according to their bulk." Thus under 
 his duty of 5 per cent, the other charges might have been 16 to 17 
 per cent, making in all 21 to 22 per cent, which he deemed ample 
 encouragement for woollens. The existing duty is 38 per cent, 
 and the other charges 19 per cent, making 57 per cent, which 
 an importer must pay, before he can meet the domestic manu- 
 facturer in the home market. The Harrisburg duty is at least 120 
 per cent, which, adding the 19 per cent, for expenses of importation, 
 will make the average charges on foreign woollens 139 per cent, but 
 on coarse ones, they will be from 175 per cent, to 200 per cent. ! ! ! 
 Again " The continuance of bounties on manufactures, long esta- 
 blished, must always be of questionable policy, because a presump- 
 tion would arise in such case, that there were natural and inherent 
 impediments to success. But in new undertakings they are justifiable, 
 as they are oftentimes necessary." We have here another view of 
 his idea of protecting duties ; and let us apply his reasoning to the 
 case of woollens. 
 
 The manufacture of woollens, (an article which, as a mean of ex- 
 istence, stands next in importance to food) is certainly among the 
 oldest in the country; and, according to Hamilton's doctrine, if it has 
 not succeeded under protecting duties of 5 to 38 per cent, it should 
 be considered as one of those undertakings to which " there are na- 
 tural and inherent impediments, which would render a continuance 
 of the already existing bounty, as of questionable policy." This re- 
 flection goes upon that sound, elementary principle of political econ- 
 omy, which is now universally admitted, that those manufactures which 
 need the least protection, are best suited to our existing condition, 
 and most conducive to the national welfare ; and that those which 
 can only be maintained by great bounties, are shown by that very 
 circumstance, to be least adapted to our character and situation, and 
 therefore injurious to the general welfare. 
 
 We give one more extract from this report, and we have done. 
 In speaking again of protecting duties, he observes: 
 
 " The propriety of this species of encouragement need not be 
 dwelt upon, as it is not only a clear result from the numerous topics 
 which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the laws of the Unit- 
 ed States, in a variety of instances ; it has the additional recom- 
 mendation of being a resource of revenue." 
 
 This passage affords a further explanation of Hamilton's notion of 
 protecting dutiee, and evinces most clearly, that so far from his con- 
 sidering them as an instrument of monopoly to build up the interests 
 of one class to the prejudice of all the others, that he looked to them as 
 a source of revenue, and as a means of promoting the general good.
 
 89 
 
 We could multiply quotations, were it necessary, equally to our 
 purpose, but we refer the reader to the report itself, and if he will 
 give it that attentive consideration which so comprehensive and pro- 
 found an essay merits ; taking into view also the circumstances under 
 which it was written, and the objects the writer had most at heart, he. 
 will, we are certain, rise from its perusal with the same entire conviction 
 we have done, that there is nothing he has said, which can afford the 
 least support to the doctrines we are resisting ; indeed it would be 
 extraordinary, if a man of Hamilton's strong, discerning, and just mind, 
 and of his liberal and patriotic views, could for an instant uphold those 
 narrow, impolitic, and unjust principles, on which the prohibitory and 
 exclusive policy is founded. 
 
 Having examined the authorities on which our opponents seem to 
 rely the most confidently, to support the justice and constitutionality of 
 their principles, we will now exhibit other authorities, which go to 
 sustain opposite views of the case. 
 
 The eminent citizen, referred to by the Pennsylvania Society, as 
 having convinced one of the most enlightened legislatures of the Union 
 of the unconstitutionally as well as folly of the prohibitory system, is Mr . 
 Giles, and those who have any recollection of the character he sus- 
 tained in Congress during the early part of Mr. Jefferson's adminis- 
 tration, when he was one of the principal supporters of the government, 
 against as able an opposition as any administration ever encountered, 
 will not doubt his qualifications to form an opinion upon any subject 
 connected with the laws and constitution of the country. To deny 
 the pre-eminent talents and knowledge of a man who could contend 
 successfully in debates upon the most difficult and abstract questions, 
 with the Griswolds and Bayards of the day, would not only be un- 
 candid, but ridiculous. 
 
 To the opinion of this experienced and enlightened statesman, we 
 could add those of other public men, distinguished for talents and 
 character, but it would perhaps be objected to them, as it has 
 been to Mr. Giles and others, that from the relation in which they 
 happened to stand to the contest, which now agitates the nation, they 
 were biassed by political considerations. 
 
 It is, however, not only an unreasonable, but a very inconsistent 
 objection, because it is notorious, that the opinions of most of them 
 were expressed and acted upon, before the question referred to ex- 
 isted, and it is equally well known that the candidate who is held up 
 for the presidency by those gentlemen and their constituents, has 
 given the prohibitory policy a more open and efficient support, than 
 the person who is supported for the same office in those sections, 
 where the exclusive system is now chiefly maintained. These, 
 however, are political mysteries with which we have no concern ; 
 nor should we again have adverted to them, but to show the gross in- 
 consistencies of the partizans of the " American System." 
 
 It will not, we presume, be pretended by our opponents, after the
 
 90 
 
 extracts from his works, which they have published, to prove that 
 Jefferson was favourable to their views, that they can object to his 
 authority. We proceed then to lay before our readers, an extract 
 of a letter written to one of his confidential friends, the year after 
 the tariffof 1824 went into operation, by which the duties on various 
 articles were raised, and on woollens from 29 to 38 per cent. " Un- 
 der the power" says Mr. Jefferson, " to regulate commerce, they as- 
 sume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures; and 
 called it regulation too, to take the earnings of one of those branches 
 of industry, and that too the most depressed, and put them into the 
 pockets of the others, the most flourishing of all. 
 
 Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of 
 cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging ca- 
 nals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words "general ivelfare," 
 a right to do not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically 
 enumerated and permitted, but whatever they shall think or pretend 
 will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the 
 preservation of the constitution ? Reason and argument ? You 
 might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling 
 them ! The representatives chosen by ourselves, they are joined in 
 the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some 
 from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound 
 parts, and with majorities of only 1, 2, 3, bold enough to go forward 
 in defiance. Are we then to stand at arms ? No ! That must be 
 the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater 
 sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties, is to 
 be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed 
 which would last one year. We must have patience and long en- 
 durance then, with our brethren, while under delusion. Give them 
 time for reflection and experience of consequences ; keep ourselves 
 in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents, and separate from 
 our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution 
 of our union with them, OR SUBMISSION TO A GOVERNMENT WITHOUT 
 LIMITATION OF POWERS. Between these two evils, when we must 
 make choice, THERE CAN BE NO HESITATION, but in the meanwhile 
 the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on 
 their rights, to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory 
 terms, to protest against them, as wrongs to which our present sub- 
 mission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents 
 of rights, but as temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their ac- 
 cumulation shall outweigh that of separation." We entreat most 
 earnestly, that our readers, to whatever party they may belong, 
 would not pass this passage in our report, without giving it that deep 
 consideration which it merits. We here behold a venerable and ex- 
 perienced statesman, who loved his country, understood her interests, 
 and was solicitous for her future welfare ; wholly unconnected with 
 parties, having nothing to fear from the one, or to hope from the
 
 91 
 
 other ; disengaged as it were from this world, and standing on the 
 confines of the other, and anxious to render his last service to his 
 country, pronouncing in the most emphatic, but unimpassioned man- 
 ner, his judgment on the system we are opposing. 
 
 He denounces it as unjust, unconstitutional, and as inevitably lead- 
 ing, if persisted in, to a dissolution of the Union, and a separation 01 
 the States, and even recommends that alternative, as more tolerable 
 than the evils which would grow out of a submission to a policy, so 
 ruinous to the peace and welfare of the nation. Solemn and impres- 
 sive as this denunciation is, it serves rather to deepen a former, than 
 create any new conviction in our minds, of Jefferson's disapprobation 
 of the principles which have so unjustly been imputed to him. The 
 sentiments here expressed, are conformable to Mr. Jefferson's well 
 known opinions upon subjects of this nature, and are in proper keep- 
 ing with the whole tenor of his life and character, and could we ap- 
 peal personally, to Washington, Hamilton, and Ames, upon the mer- 
 its of the prohibitory system, we should have from them, also, the same 
 sentence of reprobation against it, which Mr. Jefferson has just pro- 
 nounced. 
 
 It was natural enough, that those who imagined they had suc- 
 ceeded in imposing on the nation the belief that the acts and opinions 
 of Mr. Jefferson would sanction the prohibitory policy, should feel 
 disturbed at the appearance of a letter which placed them and their 
 cause, in such an awkward predicament, and that consequently they 
 would endeavour to evade, or lessen its force. 
 
 Accordingly, both the author of the communication and the gen- 
 tleman to whom it is addressed, have been assailed by the friends of 
 the " American System," with the most abusive terms ; but the 
 reasons which have been given to discredit the opinions it contains, 
 are so extraordinary, that we will state them in the words which our 
 opponents themselves employ, in their remarks upon Mr. Jefferson's 
 letter. 
 
 We find the various objections to Mr. Jefferson's opinions embrac- 
 ed in the following extracts from the remarks of the editor of the Na- 
 tional Gazette, of Philadelphia, and Richmond Whig, in Virginia. 
 The editor of the former, in speaking of the opinions expressed by 
 Mr. Jefferson in the letter, observes " If he (Mr. Jefferson) had ex- 
 ercised his judgment independently, and studied the questions thor- 
 oughly and impartially, he would have been far from adopting, or at 
 least uttering with freedom and confidence" The editor of the 
 Whig remarks " We now ask which opinions deserve our confi- 
 dence most? Those which were expressed by Mr. Jefferson, 
 when in the vigour of life and public usefulness, which were pub- 
 lished to the world, and enforced by his great authority as President 
 of the United States, or the opinions of the same Mr. Jefferson, de- 
 livered at the advanced age of 82 years, under the weight of infirmity 
 and private embarrassments, and communicated in a private and
 
 92 
 
 confidential letter, which he had no expectation would ever be re- 
 vealed." 
 
 The motives which induced Mr. Giles to publish this letter ought 
 not to affect our confidence in the opinions of Mr. Jefferson, but so 
 far from conceiving this a blameable act, we think Mr. Giles, as a 
 friend to Mr. Jefferson, was bound so to do. A party interested in 
 building up a system hostile to the best interests of the country, very 
 improperly, as we have before shown, quote Mr. Jefferson as sup- 
 porting their views and proceedings. His friends justly considering 
 such a charge as injurious to his character and fame, publish such an 
 explicit declaration of his opinions, as they think must remove from the 
 minds of every one, so blasting an imputation. What could be more 
 natural ? What more praiseworthy f The objections to Mr. Jeffer- 
 son's opinions are, that he was not a man of sincere and independent 
 mind ; that the opinions, as one of them expresses himself, were 
 "uttered with freedom and confidence;" or as the other, "communi- 
 cated in a private and confidential letter" and lastly, that " they 
 were delivered at the advanced age of 82." 
 
 The charges of insincerity and want of independence, we never 
 heard brought against Mr. Jefferson in the most violent and intolerant 
 days of political warfare; we presume that no persons who ever 
 knew Mr. Jefferson's character, will for a moment give the least 
 credit to them. The communication of an opinion in a "private 
 and confidential letter," we should not think, under any circumstan- 
 ces, would lessen our belief in it ; more especially, if like our oppo- 
 nents, we considered the writer wanting in sincerity and indepen- 
 dence. 
 
 We had supposed if political men had two sets of opinions, that 
 the "private and confidential" were the most to be relied upon. 
 
 We come now to his age. We admit that no man's opinion, upon 
 a new and difficult subject is to be entirely relied upon at that ad- 
 vanced period ; but this was not a new question to Mr. Jefferson, and 
 as the editor truly says, " it was at the age of 82 he delivered this 
 opinion." It was formed early in life, and never forsaken. We 
 of course do not mean that the identical points discussed in the letter 
 to Mr. Giles, were at an early period presented to him, but the gen- 
 eral princples on which the system was founded, and its consequen- 
 ces were familiar to him, and he had only to apply them to the case 
 before him ; our opponents might as well, therefore, object his age 
 to the re-affirmation of a proposition in arithmetic which had been 
 familiar to him from his youth. As to his former opinions, he never 
 entertained any other on the question we are discussing, than 
 the one expressed in the letter to Mr. Giles. In the letter to Mr. 
 Austin, cited by the editor of the Whig, he expresses himself friend- 
 ly to manufactures, as he had done before in his messages, and we 
 have shown to what an extent he deemed it proper to go for their 
 promotion ; but it is one thing to give such an honest support to man-
 
 93 
 
 ufactures, as is compatible with a just regard to the public welfare, 
 and another to be friendly to a system which is injurious to all the 
 rest of the nation, and may finally ruin the manufacturers them- 
 selves. 
 
 Another great statesman, claimed by Mr. Carey and others, as in 
 favour of the forcing system, is Franklin ; but with how little truth, 
 the following extract from his works will show. 
 
 " Several of the Princes of Europe, of late, from an opinion of the 
 advantage to arise by producing all commodities and manufactures 
 within (heir own dominions, so as to diminish or render useless their 
 importations, have endeavoured to entice workmen from other 
 countries, by high salaries, privileges, &tc. Many persons pretend- 
 ing to be skilled in various great manufactures, imagining that Amer- 
 ica must be in want of them, and that the Congress would be dis- 
 posed to imitate the Princes above mentioned, have proposed to go 
 over, on condition of having their passages paid, lands given, salaries 
 appointed, exclusive privileges for terms of years, &,c. Such per- 
 sons, on reading the articles of confederation, will find that Congress 
 have no power committed to them, or money put into their hands for 
 such purposes, and that if any such encouragement is given, it must 
 be by the government of some separate State." Again; "And when 
 the governments have been solicited to support such schemes by en- 
 couragements, in money, or by imposing duties on importation of such 
 goods, it has been generally refused, on this principle, that if the 
 country is ripe for the manufacture, it maybe carried on by private 
 persons to advantage. ; and if not, it is a folly to think of forcing na- 
 ture. Great establishments of manufacture, require great numbers of 
 the poor to do the work for small wages ; those poor are to be found 
 in Europe, but will not be found in America, till the lands are all 
 taken up and cultivated, and the excess of the people who cannot get 
 land, ivant employment." 
 
 Is there any thing here to support the wisdom, the justice, or con- 
 stitutionality of the prohibitory, non-importation, non-exportation, 
 " American System ?" 
 
 We will now present our readers with some of the resolutions, ap- 
 pended to an able report of a committee, appointed at a general 
 meeting of the citizens of Boston, August 1820. The committee 
 consisted of the following persons: 
 
 William Gray, Daniel Webster, George Hallet, 
 
 James Perkins, Nathan Appleton, S. P. Gardner, 
 
 John Dorr, Abbot Lawrence, Josiah Knapp, 
 
 Nathaniel Goddard, Joseph Sewall, Isaac Winslow, 
 
 Benjamin Rich, Jonathan Phillips, Winslow Lewis, 
 
 Israel Thorndike, Jr. Lot Wheelwright, Thos. Wigglesworth, 
 William Shirnmin, "Caleb Loring, John. Cotton, 
 
 Thomas W. Ward, Samuel A. Welles, John Parker, 
 William Harris, George Bond, William Sturgis. 
 
 IS
 
 94 
 
 It will be admitted by all those acquainted with the pursuits and 
 characters of those gentlemen, that it is a fair and able representa- 
 tion of the various interests of the country. 
 
 " RESOLVED; That no objection ought ever to be made to any 
 amount of taxes, equally apportioned and imposed for the purpose of 
 raising revenue necessary for the support of government ; but that 
 taxes imposed on the people for the sole benefit of any one class of 
 men, are equally inconsistent with the principles of our constitution 
 and with sound policy." 
 
 " RESOLVED ; That high bounties on such domestic manufactures 
 as are principally benefitted by that tariff, favour great capitalists 
 rather thanpersonalindustry,oi'i\}e owners of small capitals, and there- 
 fore, that we do not perceive its tendency ^to promote national industry." 
 
 " RESOLVED ; That the imposition of duties, which are enormous, 
 and deemed by a large portion of the people to be unequal and un- 
 just, is dangerous, as it encourages the practice of smuggling." 
 
 " RESOLVED ; That in our opinion, the proposed tariff and the 
 principles on which it is avowedly founded, would if adopted, have a 
 tendency, however different may be the motives of those who recom- 
 mend them, to diminish the industry, impede the prosperity, and cor- 
 rupt the morals of the people." 
 
 " RESOLVED ; That we are equally incapable of discovering its 
 beneficial effects on agriculture, since the obvious consequence of its 
 adoption, would be, that the farmer must give more than he now does 
 .for all he buys, and receive less for all he sells." 
 
 These positions were sustained by facts and arguments which sat- 
 isfied the meeting held on the 2nd of October, 1820, of their cor- 
 rectness, and they were unanimously adopted. 
 
 It should be borne in mind, that at this period, the duties on all 
 but very fine cotton goods were considerably less than they now are, 
 and that woollens which then paid 29 per cent, now pay 38 per cent. 
 The Harrisburg tariff calls for a very great increase of duties on 
 coloured and printed cotton goods, which made up near five-sevenths 
 of the whole importation of cotton goods in 1826. 
 
 On coarse woollens the maximum is fixed at 225 per cent, to be in- 
 creased in 1830 one fourth, making 281 per cent ; on fine goods 46 
 per cent, to be increased in 1830 to 57 1-2 per cent. This we 
 believe is to be one of the established maxims of the " American 
 System," viz. The coarser the goods, the higher the duties, because 
 they interfere more than the fine ones with our own fabrics. 
 
 It may be well also to remark, that among the committee, and at 
 the meeting which adopted the resolutions, were many gentlemen, 
 who, by their wealth, talents and enterprise, have taken the lead in 
 the introduction, establishment, and improvement of various manu- 
 factures, and more particularly cottons and woollens, and as it is 
 within the knowledge of the committee, that many of these persons 
 have since greatly extended their concerns, it is reasonably inferred,
 
 95 
 
 that they either considered the former duties sufficient, or at any 
 rate, as high as it was right for the government to impose ; and we 
 believe such are the opinions still entertained by those who best 
 understand the manufacturing interests. We say then, that the lan- 
 guage of these resolutions bear us out in the doctrine we are attempt- 
 ing by authorities and arguments to support, " that taxes imposed on 
 the people, not with a view to revenue, but for the sole benefit of any 
 one class of men, are inconsistent with the principles of our constitu- 
 tion, and with sound policy." Such were the opinions and declara- 
 tions of the most intelligent manufacturers in this quarter, when the 
 duties on cottons were much less than they now enjoy, and still less 
 than what they are rated at in the Harrisburg tariff, and when the 
 duties on woollens were 29 per cent ; they now enjoy 38 per cent, 
 and are to be raised on an average, (if the Harrisburg tariff is 
 adopted,) first to 120 per cent, and finally to 150 per cent ! ! ! 
 
 The following extracts are from the memorial to Congress, of a 
 general meeting of merchants from the principal cities in the United 
 States, held in Philadelphia, November, 1820, with a view to oppose 
 those additions made to the tariff in 1824. 
 
 " Once admit, that Congress may use thepower of taxing imports 
 ad-libitum, for any other purpose but that of revenue, and you give 
 them in reality, the power to say to the citizens of these United 
 States, you must devote yourselves to agriculture, commerce or man- 
 ufactures, not as you may happen to be inclined, but according to our 
 sovereign will and pleasure. 
 
 Let it never be forgotten, that the question now about to be deter- 
 mined, is not so much what may be beneficial to manufactures, as 
 whether government has a right to benefit these, to the manifest injury 
 both of the agricultural and commercial classes *? Whether the con- 
 stitutional provisions against taxing exports, can be rendered in a 
 great measure nugatory, by diminishing at pleasure, the value of our 
 exportable commodities, through the instrumentality of a tax upon 
 imports ? And finally, whether the direction and employment of in- 
 dividual capital, are matters to be regulated and controlled by indi- 
 vidual choice, or by the will of the national legislature ?" 
 
 " That where such duties are imposed to foster the particular in- 
 terests of any class, who pay no part thereof, those duties must neces- 
 sarily come out of the pockets of all the other classes in the community, 
 and are in direct violation of that fundamental maxim, " not to tax 
 the many for the benefit of the few." These doctrines were not 
 thought unsound in this quarter by manufacturers generally, nor any 
 other classes ; nor are they, we trust, at this moment, except by a 
 very limited number of persons. 
 
 The following extract is the closing paragraph of the Salem me- 
 morial to Congress in 1820, in opposition to any further increase of 
 duties. That memorial contained probably the clearest and most 
 comprehensive statement and defence of the advantages of a free
 
 96 
 
 trade, and the evils and injustice of the " American System," which 
 was presented to Government on that occasion. It was well tinder- 
 stood at the time, to come from the rnind of one of our most learned 
 and accomplished men, whose profession, united with the advantage 
 ofa long residence in a manufacturing and commercial community, 
 made him familiar with all the leading interests of the country, and 
 enabled him to decide correctly and impartially upon the encourage- 
 ment each might require, or might deserve, with due reference to 
 the rights and interests of the nation. 
 
 " Upon the whole, the memorialists would respectfully state their 
 unequivocal opinion, that all the measures to which they have alluded, 
 are calculated to impair our naval strength and glory; to injure our 
 most profitable commerce ; to diminish in an alarming degree the 
 public revenue ; to promote unjustifiable speculation ; to enhance the 
 prices of manufactures ; to throw the great business and trade of the 
 nation into the hands of a few capitalists, to the exclusion of the in- 
 dustrious and enterprising of other classes ; to introduce general dis- 
 tress among commercial artizans and agriculturalists ; to aggravate 
 the present distress of the other classes of the community; to pro- 
 voke and extend an undue appetite for fraud and smuggling ; and in 
 fine, to destroy many of the great objects for ivhich the constitution of 
 the United States was originally framed and adopted."* 
 
 We do not mean to say that the author of this powerful and elo- 
 quent memorial, of which we have just given a portion, meant to give 
 any opinion on the point we are more particularly discussing, it 
 might have appeared improper to him so to do, standing in the offi- 
 
 *" Nothing can be more obvious, than that many of the manufacturers and their 
 friends are attempting- by fallacious statements, founded on an interested policy, or a mis- 
 guided zeal, or very short-sighted views, to up-root some of the fundamental principles 
 of our revenue policy, and to compel our merchants to abandon some of the most lucra- 
 tive branches of commerce ; branches which alone enable us to contend with success 
 against the monopoly and the competition of foreign nations". Salem Memorial. 
 
 "The memorialists most sincerely believe that is is a sound political maxim, that the 
 more free trade is, and the more widely it circulates, the more sure will be its prosperity, 
 and that of the nation ; every restriction ivhich is not indispensable for purposes of reve- 
 nue, is a shoal, which will impede its progress, and not unfrequently jeopard its securi- 
 ty." Salem Memorial. 
 
 " It is not a little remarkable too, that those attempts to which the memorialists al- 
 lude, are not only repugnant to those maxims of free trade, which the United States have 
 hitherto so forcibly and perseveringly contended for, as the sure foundation of na- 
 tional prosperity ; but they are pressed upon us at a moment, when the statesmen of the 
 old world, in admiration of Ike success of our policy, are relaxing the vigour of their own 
 gystems, andyielding themselves to the national doctrine, that national wealth is best pro- 
 moted by a free interchange of commodities, upon the principles of perfect reciprocity." 
 Salem Memorial. 
 
 " The cotton and woollen trade is already loaded with 20 and 25 per cent duties, and 
 if there be added the freight and charges upon importation, the domestic manufacturers 
 have now an encouragement, or a profit, of 30 to 35 per cent more than the European 
 manufacturers possess, if the same articles can be manufactured as cheap at home as 
 abroad." " Why should the farmer, and the planter, and the merchant, and the labour- 
 ing classes of the community, be taxed for the necessaries of life, a sum equal to more than 
 one quarter part of the whole expenditures on these objects, that the manufacturer* 
 may put this sum into their own pockets ?" Salem Memorial.
 
 97 
 
 cial relation which he does to the government ; but he has shown in 
 the most convincing manner, the inexpediency and injustice of the 
 whole system we are opposing. 
 
 We have one more authority, and we have done. We hope it 
 will be satisfactory to all parties, for though it must be admitted that 
 the gentleman to whom we are indebted for it, has dealt most severely 
 with the "American System," yet our opponents cannot deny that he 
 has also been friendly to manufacturers, more especially the manu- 
 facturers of woollens ; and at any rate, all will agree that his opinions 
 are to be respected. 
 
 The following is an extract of a speech made by Mr. Webster, at 
 Faneuil Hall, 2d October, 1820, on the adoption of the report arid 
 resolutions ofthe Boston Committee, to which we have before adverted. 
 " There is a power in names ; and those who had pressed the 
 tariffon Congress and on the country, had represented it as imme- 
 diately, and almost exclusively connected with domestic industry, and 
 national independence. In his opinion, no measure could prove more 
 injurious to the industry of the country, and nothing was more fan- 
 ciful than the opinion, that national independence rendered such a 
 measure necessary. He certainly thought it might be doubted, 
 whether Congress would not be acting somewhat against the spirit and 
 intention ofthe constitution, in exercising a power to control essen- 
 tially the pursuits and occupations of individuals, in their private 
 concerns ; a power to force great and sudden changes, both of occu- 
 pation and property, upon individuals, not as incidental to the exercise 
 of any other power, but as a substantial and direct power. If such 
 changes were wrought incidentally only, and were the necessary con- 
 sequence of such impost as Congress for the leading purpose of reve- 
 nue should enact, then they could not be complained of. But he 
 doubted whether Congress fairly possessed the power of turning the 
 incident into the principal ; and instead of leaving manufactures to 
 the protection of such laws as should be passed with a primary re- 
 gard to revenue, of enacting laws, with the avowed object of giving a 
 preference to particular manufactures, wilh an entire disregard to all 
 the considerations of revenue; and instead of laying such imposts as 
 would best answer the purpose of raising revenue, with the least bur- 
 den on the public ; carrying the impost on certain articles to a bur- 
 densome excess, ivith a full knowledge that the increase of duty will 
 diminish the amount of revenue raised." 
 
 These were the sentiments of Mr. Webster, when there was a 
 question of raising the duties on cotton goods from rates much less 
 than all but very fine ones, now enjoy. 
 
 The import of cotton goods from all quarters for 1826, after 
 deducting the amount re-exported, is 5,601,961 dollars, of which 
 4,024,344 dollars, were coloured and printed. These goods now 
 pay 7 1-2 cents a square yard, which may perhaps average 50 per 
 cent., and by the Harrisburg Tariff, they are to pay 10 cents, for the
 
 98 
 
 avowed purpose of excluding them. Our importation of the greatest 
 staple of trade and consumption, next to woollens, will then be re- 
 duced tol,577,6!7 dollars, which was the amount of white cottons 
 imported for consumption in 1826. The woollen manufacturers' 
 Tariff of 1827, called for an average duty on woollens of 80 per 
 cent. ; but that not being sufficiently encouraging for the " Ameri- 
 can System," the Harrisburg Convention have raised it from 57 1-2 to 
 281 per cent. It is impossible to say exactly what it may average, nor 
 is it of any importance, for nothing can be imported under it, except 
 the finest cloths which pay the duty of 57 1-2 per cent., nor indeed 
 can they be imported when our manufacturers turn their attention to 
 goods of that description. Here then it must be admitted we have 
 arrived at that point of prohibition, which Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Eve- 
 rett, Mr. Niles, Mr. Carey, and other distinguished leaders of the 
 prohibitory party, say is essential to their purposes, and to the na- 
 tional welfare. 
 
 Mr. Webster's opinion, as to the constitutionality of the prohibitory 
 system, is expressed with that caution, which so important a question 
 merits, and habitual, we suppose, to a man who must be conscious of 
 the great influence he exercises over the public mind. It is not for 
 us to put a construction upon it different from what he might have in- 
 tended. 
 
 We see no ambiguity in the terms and phrases he uses, and we 
 ask our readers to take them according to their fair import, and 
 in connexion with the resolutions and report before mentioned, which 
 he had previously sanctioned, and we apprehend there can be no 
 doubt on the mind of any one, what his opinion really was. If, how- 
 ever, there were any doubts on the mind of Mr. Webster, and they 
 rested on the question whether the rales of duty had then reached 
 that point, when they must necessarily produce those bad effects which 
 he describes we must conclude those doubts would be removed, 
 when the rates in question are from 80 to 150 per cent. ; still more, 
 when the evident object of the advocates of the system, is to prohibit 
 foreign importations. 
 
 We believe that the opinions expressed by Mr. Jefferson, Mr. 
 Giles, Mr. Webster, and other distinguished legislators, are held in 
 common by all men of sound and enlightened views, who look at 
 the subject with an eye of impartiality, divested of those sectional, 
 political, and personal considerations, which seem so unfortunately 
 to have blended themselves with this important question; and that 
 they all equally condemn the impolicy, injustice, and unconstitution- 
 ality of those principles against which we are contending, when car- 
 ried to the extremes, which our opponents seem determined to car- 
 ry them. 
 
 We had forgotten one other authority, which we fear however our 
 opponents, from their manner of treating their own case and the un- 
 derstandings of their followers, can have very little reverence for. 
 We mean, the authority of common sense.
 
 We would appeal then to the common sense of every fair and un- 
 prejudiced mind, whether it comports with their notions of justice and 
 constitutionality, for Congress to avail itself of powers granted for 
 certain ends, and those ends, such as would conduce to the gen- 
 eral welfare to accomplish other purposes, for which those powers 
 were never intended, the certain effect of which is to destroy trade, 
 and the inevitable consequences an almost entire loss of revenue 
 a heavy taxation of the many for the benefit of the few an inter- 
 ruption of our commercial intercourse with the rest of the world 
 and finally, to put in jeopardy the peace and happiness of the nation* 
 
 If, however, the government really does possess such powers, and 
 we can suppose that there ever would be a Congress assembled^ de- 
 termined to exercise them in the way our opponents recommend, 
 then we say, that, that sacred instrument, we call a Constitution, has 
 not those virtues we once imagined it to possess ; and we fear, should 
 the time ever arrive, when it is exposed to such a trial, that it can no 
 longer answer the purposes for which it was intended. 
 
 SECTION 12th. Another plausible argument in favor of the pro- 
 hibitory system and against foreign trade, and which is very much 
 dwelt upon, even by some very intelligent men, is, the dignity and 
 advantage of being independent of foreign nations. Mr. Clay ob- 
 serves in one of his speeches on the Tariff in 1820 : " The inde- 
 pendence of my country, on all foreign states, as respects a supply of 
 all foreign wants, has ever been with me a favorite object." That 
 this is a correct sentiment no one will dispute, but to our apprehen- 
 sions, it is totally misapplied. It is founded on a strange misappre- 
 hension of the term independence. 
 
 What is independence, but the means of providing for our own 
 support ? Now the tendency of commerce, whether foreign or do- 
 mestic, is, not to lessen, but to increase those means. If this is true as 
 regards the intercourse between sections, states, towns and individu- 
 als, it is equally so with regard to nations ; and if it was otherwise, it 
 is manifest, that commerce would cease to exist, without the aid of 
 legislative expedients, as no intercourse could be of long continu- 
 ance, which was not mutually beneficial. But, say our opponents, 
 "it is a badge of dependance, unworthy of a free and great nation." 
 
 We answer, that this is a sentiment worthy of a slavish, unenlight- 
 ened and barbarous nation, and to no other should it ever be 
 addressed. There is no question of dignity involved in our foreign 
 trade, more than there is in the transactions between our own states, 
 towns and individuals. No one considers the inhabitants of the south 
 as derogating from their characters in exchanging their produce for 
 our manufactures, nor is there any abatement of our own self-respect, 
 in buying from them what their soil and climate can best afford, in 
 return for the results of our industry. We should entertain the same 
 views in regard to our intercourse with foreign nations. It is an af- 
 fair of mutual convenience, and sought for equally by both parties. 
 It is founded on reciprocal wants and reciprocal benefits.
 
 Is it not so, too, in respect to what some term national depend- 
 ence ? We exchange with various foreign nations, such superfluities 
 as we have to spare, for what they have to give in return, and which 
 we may happen to want. What we receive is paid for in equiva- 
 lents, which cancel the obligation, and make the dependance mutu- 
 al. Where then is that loss of dignity and independence, which 
 those terms, in the sense our opponents use them, would imply? 
 
 We grant there may be a dependance on foreign nations, which 
 would really be inconvenient and dangerous : such as too great reli- 
 ance on them for munitions of war, and other means of self-defence ; 
 and still more, if we were to depend on them for bread stuffs, provi- 
 sions and other means of existence, to such an extent, as on any in- 
 terruption of the usual intercourse, might expose us to great suffer- 
 ings. But in the commercial relations which we have with all the 
 world, our situation is precisely the reverse of this. We supply raw 
 materials and provisions, and rather create in others that sort of de- 
 pendance which it is prudent to avoid, than take any risk of being 
 exposed to it ourselves. 
 
 Our situation has never been such within the memory of any one 
 now living, that a total non-intercourse with the rest of the world, 
 would have deprived us of the necessaries, and hardly even of the 
 superfluities of life. No nation on earth can be more favourably sit- 
 uated than this, in being beyond the reach of those evils which may 
 arise from the derangement or stoppage of an extensive foreign trade. 
 
 Obvious however as this view of our situation must be to all re- 
 flecting men, our opponents are making incessant appeals to the na- 
 tional prejudices, national pride, and national fears, of the disgrace 
 we now incur, and the sufferings we may be liable to, from foreign 
 dependance. 
 
 The only event which can interrupt our intercourse with foreign 
 nations, to any inconvenient degree, is a war with Great Britain. 
 
 This has happened twice, and the first time at a period when we 
 were, comparatively speaking, in a helpless situation ; yet we sur- 
 vived all the evils incident to that state. But it was during the last 
 war with Great Britain, our opponents pretend to say we experienced 
 the greatest inconveniences and sufferings, and we refer to the 
 Pennsylvania Address for the most distressing instance we have yet 
 seen, in proof of their assertion. "The attempts to establish the 
 woollen manufactures, during the first 20 years of the operation of 
 our government, had so wholly failed, that in the year 1812, we 
 were unable to furnish a supply of blankets for the Indians to the 
 amount of 6,000 dollars, so that the Secretary of War applied to 
 Congress to repeal the non-intercourse law, to enable us to procure 
 them from Great Britain. 
 
 As to the assertion li that all attempts to establish woollen manu- 
 factures during the first 20 years of our government," we have al- 
 ready shown its incorrectness by proving that we supplied three-
 
 101 
 
 fourths of our consumption as far back as 1790, and that the manu- 
 facture had then attained a considerable degree of perfection, as we 
 are told by Hamilton, in an extract from his report, given in our last 
 section. Of the fact of the 6,000 dollars worth of blankets, so 
 much wanted, we cannot doubt, since we have so often seen it re- 
 peated in the speeches, memorials, and essays of the leading advo- 
 cates of the non-importation system, and always as illustrating in 
 the most striking and affecting manner, the dangers and sufferings 
 which this nation had actually been exposed to, by her foreign de- 
 pendance. Let us examine this extraordinary fact. A nation of 
 9,000,000 people, consuming 55 to 60,000,000 dollars of 
 woollens, 3-4 of which were made at home, distressed for want of 
 6,000 dollars worth of blankets ! ! Now, it would, we think, be 
 rating the spirit of our countrymen very low, to suppose that a requi- 
 sition upon the patriotism of any of our large cities, would not have 
 procured 6,000 dollars worth of blankets in six hours, without dis- 
 turbing the comfort of one of their citizens ; and it would be putting 
 the industry and skill of our manufacturers still lower, not to believe 
 that in as many weeks, they could have furnished 600,000 dol- 
 lars more, from materials of both cotton and wool, which we then 
 had, and always shall have, in the greatest abundance. But was 
 there no other way to escape from this alarming emergency ? What 
 were the difficulties which stood in the way of our relief? Why, they 
 themselves tell us, that we had only to repeal our own non-inter- 
 course laws, and our very enemy would send us blankets by ship 
 loads ! ! But this, say the advocates of non-importation, was undig- 
 nified and unpatriotic. We do not see it in that point of view. It 
 might be unwise to make laws which stand in the way of our own in- 
 terests, but it certainly would not be unpatriotic to repeal them. We 
 are afraid our readers may think we are trifling with the subject, but 
 we can assure them, the statement we have just examined, contains 
 the strongest argument which the historical researches of our oppo- 
 nents for 200 years, have yet furnished, to prove the dangers inci- 
 dent to a dependance on " foreign supplies." 
 
 But were the interruptions to commerce more frequent, and more 
 serious in their effects, than any we are now liable to suffer, yet it 
 would not be wise to forego the immense benefits we enjoy from a 
 free trade, for the short periods in which those difficulties might exist. 
 We are told to be sure, by Mr. Otis, in his Woollens Convention 
 Speech, that " the ordinary relations of the nations of the world, are 
 those of wars and rumours of wars." Why not add, their ordinary 
 condition is pestilence and famine ? It would be just as wise to reg- 
 ulate our commercial policy upon the latter contingencies, as the 
 former. If there is any truth in history, the ordinary relations of 
 nations, are peace and commerce; the exceptions, commercial re- 
 strictions, prohibitions, non-intercourse with foreign nations, foreign 
 wars and civil dissensions; and such we apprehend, will be the end of 
 14
 
 102 
 
 the " American System ," falsely so termed, should it unhappily ever 
 prevail. 
 
 But Mr. Clay is not consistent with himself. In a speech made 
 at Pittsburg, in June, he observes, "if, as I hope, our system is pre- 
 served and improved, I will now hazard the prediction, that in less 
 than 20 years, the value of our exported manufactures, will exceed 
 in amount, that of all the exports of raw produce from this country." 
 
 Of the extravagance of such a prophecy, we think there can be 
 but one opinion, and so little is it believed in, by the manufacturers 
 themselves, that the delegates at the Harrisburg Convention, men 
 chosen, as it is well known, for their knowledge and experience, and 
 praised for their disinterestedness and moderation, have just decided, 
 that cottons will not succeed without an addition of 20 or 30 per cent 
 on such kinds as are chiefly imported ; and woollens cannot flourish 
 without duties of 46 to 225 per cent, to rise hereafter 57 1-2 to 281 
 per cent, reserving to themselves the right, we suppose, of going still 
 further, should these moderate rates, prove insufficient to keep out of 
 our markets, the foreign manufacturer. Admitting, however, that 
 by some miraculous changes, which no one but a prophet can fore- 
 see, Mr. Clay's prediction is fulfilled, what then would be our situa- 
 tion ? We should have manufactures instead of raw produce, or both 
 manufactures and raw produce to export, and for which we should 
 still have to rely on foreign nations for the purchase and consump- 
 tion, and our citizens would again rely on foreign nations for the sup- 
 ply of those articles we should receive in return. What then becomes 
 of our dignity, and the independence of our country on all foreign na- 
 tions ? The commerce we have with Europeans is almost entirely 
 an exchange of our raw produce for their manufactures, or produce. 
 It is the exchange of these equivalents, which constitutes its sup- 
 port. If either party, therefore, refuses what the other can alone give, 
 there must necessarily be an end of all commercial dealings ; and 
 such, whatever may be the intentions of those who advocate what is 
 termed independence of foreign nations, will be the effect of exclud- 
 ing by high duties, the fabrics and produce of other countries. If, 
 however, the argument of being independent on foreign nations is 
 worth any thing, it is on account of the interruptions to which our 
 trade with them may be subjected. Now there is no event which 
 can produce that effect, except a war with Great Britain ; and 
 New England would, in that case, find it as difficult to com- 
 municate with the Carolinas, and still more with the States 
 south and west of them, as with France, or those European na- 
 tions with whom we might be at peace. It is true we should 
 have an inland communication, but none of the productions we get 
 from those States, would bear the heavy expense of transporting ; at 
 any rate, the cost would be greater than the freight and insurance 
 upon transporting goods to and from Europe. The same would 
 apply to most of the articles we send from hence to the Southern
 
 103 
 
 States. If it is wise, therefore, to lessen or destroy our foreign trade, 
 on account of any interruptions it may be liable to by war, it would 
 be equally wise to prohibit all intercourse between those sections of 
 the United States, which may be exposed to the same hazards. In- 
 deed, to carry out this principle of independence, and to have the full 
 advantage of it, we should extend it to the intercourse between towns, 
 families and individuals, and to enjoy the full value of the blessing, 
 we must go back to that independent state, where the habits, occu- 
 pations, and limited wants of man, sink him to a level with the 
 brute. So far, however, is this voluntary commercial dependance 
 from being injurious, that it not only increases our means of being in- 
 dependent, but serves, like the intercourse between the various sec- 
 tions of our own country, as a bond of amity, which is the more 
 likely to be lasting, because of the mutual advantages it confers. 
 The prevention of our trade with Europe, for the sake of making cer- 
 tain goods at home, at double what they would cost abroad, is just 
 as impolitic, as if New England, being a sovereign State, should, in 
 order to preserve what is called her independence, compel her inhabit- 
 ants to pay 10 dollars for a barrel of New .England flour, which 
 could be had in Virginia for 5 dollars. 
 
 Under such a system, we should be independent on Southern sup- 
 plies, but the loss to New England would be $5,000,000, $7,000,000 
 or $ 10,000,000, as might be, for each year. And this is the ope- 
 ration of the " American System," in promoting our national inde- 
 pendence. It is, in fact, lessening our means of support, in order 
 that we may be more independent. Can any thing be more irrational 
 or more preposterous ? 
 
 SECTION 13. The balance of trade, by which our opponents mean 
 the gain or loss we sustain in our foreign trade, is one of those miser- 
 able and exploded errors of the mercantile system, which having 
 long since been banished from every enlightened mind, has like many 
 similar delusions, been revived among us, to work upon the preju- 
 dices of the nation, and reconcile them to the prohibitory manufac- 
 turing policy ; as it was formerly, to build up commercial monopo- 
 lies. " The foreign commerce of the country," says Mr. Clay in one 
 of his speeches, " from some causes, some of which I have endeav- 
 oured to point out, has been extended as far as it can be. And I 
 think there can be but little doubt, that the balance of trade is, and 
 has been for some time past against us. I was surprised to hear the 
 learned gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster, of Boston,) re- 
 jecting as a detected and exploded fallacy, the idea of a balance of 
 trade. I have not time nor inclination to discuss that topic now." It is 
 with much surprise, and still greater regret, we see men of Mr. 
 Clay's knowledge and powers of mind, defending such " exploded 
 fallacies." It is the currency these errors derive from such names, 
 which has compelled the committee to go into explanations upon 
 many points so familiar to an intelligent mercantile community like this, 
 as to appear quite superfluous.
 
 104 
 
 There are three circumstances, chiefly relied upon, to show which 
 way the balance of trade lies. 1st. The course of exchange. 2d. 
 Debts due to foreign countries. 3d. The Custom House returns of 
 exports and imports. 
 
 1st. If the premium on bills on any particular country is high, it is 
 inferred that the balance of trade is against us, or that we lose in our 
 transactions with that nation. Now the price of bills, like every thing 
 else, depends upon the supply and demand, and those again are affect- 
 ed by the import and export trade, between the two countries, 
 making these negotiations, and by other circumstances also ; but the 
 premium or discount on bills, cannot much exceed the trouble and 
 expense of transmitting coin, for which indeed they are a substitute. 
 When the rate rises beyond that, the merchant who has debts to 
 pay, or goods to purchase, will send gold or silver. On the other 
 hand, should the course of trade lessen the demand for exchange, so 
 as to produce a decline in price, greater than the expense of import- 
 ing coin, it will be for the interest of the merchant to import his funds 
 in coin, instead of selling bills, and in this way the price is kept, 
 either above or below par, within about such a rate, as will equal the 
 expense of importing or exporting bullion or specie. It is not nec- 
 essary, however, to do this to any great extent in our trade with 
 Europeans, for the commercial transactions between us and them 
 nearly balance each other. The exchange on England has for sev- 
 eral years past borne a nominal advance of 7 to 12 per cent, ave- 
 raging perhaps 10 per cent, varying from time to time, according 
 to the course of trade, value of bullion, scarcity of money, &c. &tc. ; 
 but the real advance, as we shall hereafter show, is about 2 1-2 per 
 cent.* It is inferred from this premium on bills, that we lose by our 
 trade with England, but nothing can be more false than such a con- 
 clusion ; and so would the opposite one be, if it was inferred from 
 our drawing on England at a discount, that we were doing a profita- 
 ble business. What then does the premium for bills on England in- 
 dicate ? Why, that funds are wanted in England, where they are 
 accumulated, from the proceeds of cargoes sent to Great Britain, and 
 also from the proceeds of cargoes sold in other parts of the 
 world, and transmitted to England, from whence they are again 
 distributed to France, Germany, Russia, China, India, &c. for va- 
 rious commercial purposes, a portion being retained to pay for im- 
 portations of British goods. We find it convenient to concentrate our 
 resources in England, as the centre of all our mercantile dealings. If 
 a merchant wanted funds in China or India, he would also have to 
 pay a premium equal to the interest, freight and insurance, or the 
 charges of transmitting specie, which would of course be higher than 
 
 * " Our exports," says the Pennsylvania Address, " notwithstanding- we manufacture 
 about $25,000,000 per annum of cotton and woollen goods, are insufficient to preserve a 
 favourable course of exchange."
 
 105 
 
 the cost of sending to Europe, and yet no one would pretend to de- 
 cide from that circumstance, upon the profit or loss of those branches 
 of trade. It might be convenient to collect our funds in some place 
 where we neither -purchase or sell any goods, still the owners of those 
 funds would require the current premium, or sell at the current dis- 
 count, and it certainly could not in that case be said, that the premi- 
 um or discount on exchange, indicated a balance of trade either for 
 or against us. 
 
 2d. Another indication of the bad state of our foreign trade, espe- 
 cially with England, is the debt we are said to owe to that country, 
 and this is one of the evidences of a balance of trade being against 
 us. That we are much in debt, is evident, says Mr. Niles, " because 
 exchange is 10 per cent against us." 
 
 It is not true that exchange is 10 per cent against us, nor has it ever 
 been so. The real advance, as we have before observed, is now 
 about 2 1-2 per cent. It has been occasionally higher, and some- 
 times, as in 1825, below par, but only for a short period. If bills 
 were, however, at 20 per cent premium, it would not follow, that we 
 owed money in England, still less would it show that the trade with 
 her was unprofitable. If Great Britain owed us $20,000,000, there 
 might be such a demand for these funds abroad, as to make them 
 worth a premium ; and on the other hand, if we owed Great Britain 
 as much, there might be such a demand for money here, as to make 
 bills sell at a discount. The course of exchange then, is no certain 
 evidence of the state of debt due to, or from England ; nor would 
 the contracting of debts yearly in England, show that we were doing 
 an unprofitable business. Let us imagine that last year our exports to 
 Great Britain were $40,000,000, and our imports the same ; then, 
 according to our opponents, we should be doing a saving business. 
 Let us suppose then we export this year $40,000,000, which pro- 
 duces the same as in the former one, but that we borrow in addition 
 $10,000,000, and import the amount in merchandize j this would af- 
 ford evidence according to our opponents, that we were carrying on a 
 losing trade. Why so, we would ask ? Because, say they, we have 
 incurred a debt. That is true, but we have an equivalent in goods, 
 which will at any time enable us to cancel it. Where then is the loss 
 to the nation, or how does the existence of such a debt prove a bal- 
 ance of trade against us ? Now if this $10,000,000 borrowed money 
 had been brought home in dollars, an advocate of the " American 
 System" would have admitted that there was no loss to the country. 
 But $10,000,000 in merchandise, may be of as much value as 
 $10,000,000 in specie. The merchant, who knows the wants of the 
 country better than legislators or economists, because it is his 
 business to know them, would bring the specie, if it was more wanted 
 than the merchandise ; but if the specie was less wanted than the 
 merchandise, it would not only be an act of folly on the part of the 
 merchant, but an injury to the nation to import it.
 
 106 
 
 A superfluity of specie is of no more use to a country, than a su- 
 perfluity of almanacs, except as an article of commerce to send where 
 it is wanted. 
 
 The U. S. Bank, and other institutions, have occasionally borrow- 
 ed large sums in England at a lower rate of interest than what could 
 be obtained here, on which they may perhaps have gained 1 or 2 
 per cent, by re-loaning. Here is a debt created, but does any one 
 consider that the balance of trade is against them ? The effect of 
 borrowing from a foreign country is the same as that of one state 
 borrowing from another. Ohio sends to New York produce which 
 sells for $2,000,000, and borrows in addition $2,000,000 more, 
 which is carried back in specie or merchandise, whichever may hap- 
 pen to be most required. Now this to the apprehension of those 
 we are opposing, shows a balance of trade, or an unprofitable busi- 
 ness on the part of Ohio ; though with the 2,000,000 dollars of bor- 
 rowed money she should construct canals, worth to her double the 
 amount. The amount of our debt to England is an indication of the 
 greater demand for capital here, than there. 
 
 If money can be hired for 3 per cent, in London, and reloaned 
 for 6 per cent, here, then it would be expedient to borrow largely, and 
 we should do so if we had credit enough, till the transfer of capital 
 brought down the rate of interest. The fact, however, is, that for 
 some years past, the interest in England, and the charges for effect- 
 ing loans, would make the rate as high as the value of money here, 
 consequently we cannot borrow to any great extent. It is, however, 
 just as advantageous for this country to borrow money in England, 
 if it can be had cheaper than at home, as it is for Ohio to borrow of 
 New York, when she can do so on better terms than of her own citi- 
 zens. If the effect of this introduction of new capital was to create 
 habits of idleness, and lessen the stimulus to industry, then the re- 
 sult would be injurious, as it might diminish the accumulation of 
 wealth; but on the other hand, if the effect is to put in motion la- 
 bour to make public improvements extend trades, manufactures, 
 and agriculture then the result would be beneficial, and increase the 
 accumulation of capital ; and such, in a country like this, where there 
 is so much industry and intelligence, is the tendency of creating debts 
 abroad, and thus adding to our own resources. But whether the 
 effect of such operations be injurious or beneficial to those whornake 
 them, it is no concern of Congress, or any other public body, any 
 more than the negotiations of individuals, with our banking institu- 
 tions, or the lawful operations of a farmer, a mechanic, or a navi- 
 gator. 
 
 3d. The most usual and most imposing method, however, which 
 has been adopted to prove the balance of trade, is by a reference to 
 the Custom House exports and imports. If on examining the trade 
 wilh any particular country, the exports are found to exceed the im- 
 ports, it is said to be profitable, and on the other hand, if the imports
 
 107 
 
 exceed the exports, it is called a losing trade, and the balance is con- 
 sidered to be against the country. Thus, if we export to Great Britain 
 $ 40,000,000 a year, and import $50,000,000, we lose $10,000,000, 
 and it is a ruinous year, while an import of $30, 000, 000 against sin ex- 
 port of $40,000,000 is a profitable result, or a balance of trade in our 
 favour. Now the most natural inference of an excess of imports over 
 exports is, that the trade is profitable ; as in the case of a merchant who 
 on exporting a cargo of $100,000 receives in return $120,000, we 
 should imagine there was a gain of $20,000 ; but this would not necessa- 
 rily be the case, because his homeward investment might have been 
 made up from other sources, than the avails of his outward adventure. 
 So if we import $50,000,000 from England against $40,000,000 ex- 
 port, $10,000,000 of the import may have been transferred from 
 some other quarter, in which case there would be no gain or loss ; 
 but if we imagine $15,000,000 had been transferred from other 
 quarters, to make up the $50,000,000 import, than there would be 
 a loss of $5,000,000. It requires very little reflection to see, that 
 accounts made up without any reference to other circumstances be- 
 yond the amount of exports and imports, afford no evidence whatever 
 of the balance of trade between one country and another. We may 
 take the China trade, as illustrating in a remarkable manner, the in- 
 correctness of this mode of ascertaining the balance of trade. A re- 
 ference to the Custom House records, from the origin of this trade, 
 might perhaps show an export of $80,000,000 and returns to the 
 amount of $160,000,000 ; now according to the notions against 
 which we are contending, this would exhibit a most disastrous result, 
 a loss of $80,000,000 ; but the more reasonable inference it affords, 
 would be a profit of $80,000,000, and yet that in fact, would not 
 be true, for on inquiry it might be found that $40,000,000 had been 
 added to the $80,000,000 shipped from hence, from funds furnished 
 by indirect voyages to Europe, South America, the N. W. Coast, 
 &c. &c. which would reduce the profits to $40,000,000. That this 
 commerce has been profitable no one can doubt, who is acquainted 
 with the men who pursue it, and the fortunes they have acquired, 
 yet there are no documents by which the most intelligent man engaged 
 in it, can say exactly or even nearly to what extent, since the opera- 
 tions are so complicated, as to confound any attempt to separate the 
 profits which belong to the China trade, from other branches connect- 
 ed with it, nor is it of any importance to ascertain that point, since 
 those who are engaged in it find it lucrative, and when it ceases to 
 be so to them, it will cease to be so to the country ; and the mer- 
 chants who carry it on, will discontinue it, without the interference 
 or advice of politicians or legislators. 
 
 Although this branch of commerce, with others which are imme- 
 diately connected with it, has probably added as much to our national 
 wealth as any in which we have been engaged, except with Great 
 Britain, yet owing to the erroneous notions of balance of trade, and
 
 108 
 
 the prejudice against exporting specie, which is equally unfounded, 
 it has always been assailed by the anti-commercial, non-importation 
 party, as a most ruinous and unpatriotic trade, and would long since 
 have been restricted or prohibited, had the principles we are now 
 contending against, prevailed. 
 
 Although it is impossible then, from such evidence as may be with- 
 in the reach of any one, to ascertain the profit or loss of particular 
 branches of trade, yet all will agree, that taking a course of years to- 
 gether, the excess or diminution of imports as compared with exports, 
 will afford some general notion, though not a very accurate one, ol the 
 results of the foreign trade of the country. The imports will gener- 
 ally be equal to the exports, with the freight and other charges, to- 
 gether with the ordinary profits of business, and if this sum exceeds 
 the exports, the inference is, that the foreign trade of the country is 
 profitable ; but our opponents would from this fact draw the opposite 
 conclusion, and affirm the balance of trade is against us. This con- 
 clusion is now, by all practical men, admitted to be so erroneous, 
 and so much at war with common sense, that the partisans of this 
 obsolete doctrine are obliged to sustain it, as we have already shown 
 they do most of the leading positions on which their cause rests, by 
 assumptions, which they have not proved. 
 
 They affirm, that in order to make up the excess of importations, 
 we are obliged to send abroad "all our gold and a great part of our 
 silver," and " a very large amount of our public and private securi- 
 ties," and thus the country is mortgaged for their payment. That 
 we may not be accused of exaggeration, we will let them state their 
 own case. " It may be a matter of surprise," say the Pennsylvania 
 Society, " to many unacquainted with the subject, how our immense 
 importations have been paid for. To this we answer, that a very 
 large amount of our public securities has been remitted abroad for 
 that purpose, and thus the country mortgaged for their payment." 
 From Mr. Lawrence's Speech, we extract the following : " How 
 did we pay for this immense import? As far as we could by our 
 Southern staples ; for the balance, we have pledged our national 
 stocks to Great Britain, and all our gold and a great part of our 
 silver, has been carried to England to pay for British manufactures." 
 
 Now what are the facts ? On turning to the export of gold for 
 1825, (which is the first year a separate return has been made for 
 that article, distinct from silver) we find the whole amount exported 
 to be only $315,672, and our import $529,277. To Great Brit- 
 ain not one ounce of gold was sent, but we imported from there 
 $2,772. The whole export of gold for 1S26 was $450,203, and 
 the import $116,194. Of the export of gold $17,271 went to 
 Great Britain, and $4,360 was imported from Great Britain. The 
 remainder of the gold for 1825 and 1826, went principally to Cuba 
 and other Spanish countries, and was chiefly in doubloons, that be- 
 ing the coin which will make the most profitable remittance. The
 
 109 
 
 amount of silver exported to Great Britain in 1825 and 1S26 was 
 $858,528, and amount imported $199,954. The export of gold 
 and silver to Great Britain in 1823 and 1824, amounted to $677,744, 
 and the import to $441,149. How does this statement compare 
 with the assertions of our opponents, who say, that " all our gold 
 and greater part of our silver, has been carried to England to pay lor 
 British manufactures." And what if it was true, that all our impor- 
 tations were paid for in gold and silver ? It would be no evidence 
 that the trade was not profitable. It would only show, that those ar- 
 ticles of merchandise, like cotton and tobacco, were worth more in 
 England than here. Our imports from Java, Sumatra, Bengal, &c. 
 are paid for in silver, but is there any one in this community so un- 
 enlightened as to say those branches of commerce are not profitable ? 
 We are surprised to find practical men falling into such errors of fact 
 and reasoning. But an exaggerated statement of the exportation of 
 specie to England, has been one of the methods adopted by our op- 
 ponents to excite a prejudice against our trade witlf a country, which 
 by the produce she takes from us, employs twenty times at least the 
 domestic labour and capital that theivoollen manufactures c/o,and with- 
 out imposing a heavy taxation on the nation. But it is a commerce 
 which stands in the way of the woollen manufacturers, and it must 
 be destroyed. It appears by the Custom House returns, we send 
 more than thirty times the gold to Cuba and South America, that we 
 do to Great Britain, but we hear no complaints from the advocates 
 of the "American System," against this commerce. There are no 
 woollen manufacturers in that quarter, to ruin the inhabitants of this 
 country, with their cheap fabrics. 
 
 Let us now examine the other assertion, as to the remittance of 
 public securities, in payment for imports. It is only since the 
 " American System" originated, that this objection to our trade with 
 England was started. In the first place, the national debt, which 
 constitutes the principal item, was much of it contracted during our 
 Revolution, by Government, and has eince'been increased by various 
 negotiations ; for instance, the purchase of Louisiana and Florida, 
 for a large portion of which, the government has received the value 
 here in territory. The stock, therefore, issued for such debts, must 
 not be set down as remittances for the purchases of goods, and as a 
 part of the mercantile debt. In the next place, our public debt 
 abroad, instead of increasing, as our opponents would have it infer- 
 red, is constantly diminishing. It appears from official documents, 
 that in 1803, there was due to foreigners, of funded debt of the Unit- 
 ed States, $32,119,210. On the 1st January, ISIS, it had been 
 reduced to $25,444,049. On the 1st October, 1826, it was 
 $21,520,695, and is at this time something less than $20,000,000. 
 It would seem, then, that so far as regards the national securities, we 
 have been paying debts, instead of contracting them ; and how has 
 this been done, but by remittances of merchandise ? It should be 
 15
 
 110 
 
 observed, also, that of the $20,000,000 due in Europe, a por- 
 tion is owned by American citizens who are residing abroad. It 
 is within the knowledge of this committee that near $1,000,000 
 is the property of some citizens of Philadelphia. There are, how- 
 ever, as our opponents truly assert, other stocks which have been 
 sent abroad as remittances to purchase goods. They consist chiefly 
 of U. S Bank Stocks, New York Canal Loans, and the stocks of 
 some of the banks in New York city. The committee have made 
 inquiries in various quarters, but cannot obtain any precise informa- 
 tion as to their amount, but we have reason to believe it does not ex- 
 ceed $8,000,000. Of the (private) individual debts, such as will 
 ever be paid, we do not believe the amount can be large, because 
 there can be no inducement to borrow. We think they can hardly 
 exceed the balances which are usually due to our merchants from 
 bankers and commission agents ; but let us however admit that they 
 may amount to $2,000,000 and the other stocks to $10,000,000 
 instead of $8,000,000, making $12,000,000. Now this is nothing 
 near the amount of public debt which has been paid abroad since 
 the establishment of our government. This estimate, which we be- 
 lieve rather an uncler-statement of our own case, shows how entire- 
 ly groundless are the declarations of the non-importation party, that 
 immense sums in public securities are sent abroad, and that we are 
 mortgaging the, country inpayment for British goods. 
 
 Let us now turn to the other side of the account, and examine the 
 balance in our favour. The committee have no means of ascer- 
 taining for the whole period of time, since the adoption of the con- 
 stitution, the excess of imports over exports. 
 
 They find, however, in Pitkin, that from 1795 to 1801, seven 
 years, the average was over $14,000,000. From that period down 
 to 1812, they might have been greater and since then, less but it 
 would probably be within bounds to call the whole $400,000,000, 
 which may be considered the national gain, on the mere transport oj 
 our export produce. We admit that this is not a very accurate 
 method of estimating this result, but it is sufficiently so, to show how 
 entirely the notion entertained by our opponents of the balance of 
 trade being against us, can be refuted upon their own principles, tak- 
 ing the facts as they really are, and not their incorrect assumptions. 
 
 But the view we have given of the balance of trade, affords a very 
 limited and inadequate idea of the benefits of foreign commerce. It 
 is only one item in the account, to which must be added the profits on 
 the returns of our exports, and the advantages which the agricultu- 
 rist, the mechanic, the labourer, the capitalist, the navigator, the mer- 
 chant, as well as the citizens at large, derive from the production 
 and transportation of this immense amount of property, shipped to 
 foreign countries. Of the pecuniary amount, it is so blended with 
 other interests, that it is impossible to form any estimate, but one 
 must be blind not to see its results, in the various improvements of
 
 Ill 
 
 all the great branches of industry connected with, and dependant on 
 trade in the erection of towns and cities the establishment of mon- 
 ied corporations, and the general comfort and prosperity of the mer- 
 cantile classes and the many other forms in which wealth displays 
 itself, not the least imposing of which, are those extensive manufac- 
 turing establishments, which are mostly founded on the gains of for- 
 eign commerce. 
 
 It is true, that the quantity exported of many of the great staples 
 of the country, flour for instance, compared with the consumption, is 
 small, but the means of disposing of this excess, has a very impor- 
 tant bearing on the condition of the farmer, as in years of abundance, 
 without a foreign outlet, the prices would be ruinously low, and such 
 as to hold out no encouragement to his industry. An export of 
 500,000 to 1,000,000 barrels of flour, raises the value of the whole 
 crop of 12,000,000 barrels, or whatever may be our annual produc- 
 tion of that article, 25 or 50 per cent, and without imposing any tax 
 upon the nation. Now the inevitable effect of the non-importation 
 system, is a non-exportation of our produce, since foreign nations on 
 whom we now depend for custom, cannot buy of us, if we refuse their 
 produce and manufactures, which is all they can give us in payment. 
 All classes must suffer by the prohibitory system, but the evils of it 
 will press with most severity upon the agriculturists. The truth is, 
 and it must be obvious to every reflecting mind, that there is no such 
 thing as a balance of trade against one nation, in its dealings with 
 another. The supposition involves a manifest absurdity. Commerce 
 is not a game by which one party loses what the other party wins ; many 
 individuals engaged in it may suffer, and others may be ruined, but as 
 a class, the merchants and traders will gain, as will the nation which 
 they represent. The balance is in favour of every country. Mutual 
 wants and mutual benefits, constitute the very essence of com- 
 merce, and when it ceases to have that character, it must cease to 
 exist. Foreign trade like the home trade, from which it differs only 
 in extent, not in its effects, is advantageous to every country when 
 left to itself; and it is only when forced out of its natural channels 
 by legislative bounties and restraints, that it ceases to be otherwise. 
 The balance of trade may truly be said to be against a nation, which 
 imposes such restrictions as to lessen or destroy that trade it affects 
 to promote ; and of this we have a striking instance in the woollens 
 duty, which levies on the nation a tax of $23,940,000 a year, without 
 even (if we credit the statements which are published) saving 
 those from ruin, in whose Aivour it is established. 
 
 SECTION 14th. The premium paid for bills on England, and 
 remittances of specie, and public securities abroad, to pay for our 
 importations from England, are sources of dissatisfaction to the oppo- 
 nents of free trade, and held to be certain indications of the evils of 
 foreign commerce. " In the mean time," says Mr. Clay in one of his 
 speeches, " there will be an export of the precious metals, to the
 
 112 
 
 deep injury of internal trade an unfavourable state of exchange 
 an export of public securities a resort to credit, debt, mortgages." 
 Mr. Niles and others, call the exchange on England 10 per cent, 
 against us, and they consider the premium paid on bills as so much 
 lost to the nation. The nominal rate is at this moment 1 1 per cent., 
 but 10 per cent, is perhaps the average rale for three years past. 
 This nominal advance of 10 per cent, is made up principally by the 
 difference between the estimate of silver here and in England. We 
 put a higher value on it than they do in England, as compared with 
 gold, which is their only standard of value. With us, the standard 
 of value, is both gold and silver, but as our estimate of the former in 
 relation to the latter, is lower than it is in Great Britain and some 
 other countries, the gold is sent abroad as an article of merchandise, 
 while the silver remains at home, to such an extent as is required for 
 our circulating medium. If our standard of value was regulated ex- 
 actly to that of the English, or if gold and silver bore the same re- 
 lation to each other here, as they do in countries to which we send 
 gold, then we should retain at home gold as well as silver, but while 
 there is the difference which now exists, the gold from our mint would 
 all be exported, or nearly all, if we coined ten times the amount we 
 now do. On the other hand, there are some countries, particularly 
 most parts of Asia, where the estimate of silver as compared with 
 gold, is higher than it is here, and to those nations we send silver. 
 The price of silver in England, like other merchandise, fluctuates, 
 though not to the same extent ; at the last quotation it was worth 4 
 shillings, 9 and 3 farthings an ounce for Spanish dollars, making a dol- 
 lar worth 92* 47-100ths. as compared with 100 here, or a difference 
 of 7 1-2 per cent. 
 
 The true par of exchange then upon London, is 7 1-2 per cent, 
 advance, on our silver currency. In other words, our silver currency 
 with which we purchase bills on England, is a depreciated one, com- 
 pared with the English, of 7 1-2 per cent. A bill-holder then, who 
 sells at 10 per cent, premium, gets an advance, or a premium of2 1-2 
 per cent., which is rather less than it would cost to transmit dollars 
 at this moment. 
 
 The premium for bills on Hamburg and Holland, from whence we 
 import few goods, is also from 2 to 3 per cent.., and on France the 
 same. But if we suppose the real advance on bills to be 10 per cent., 
 it would afford no evidence that the foreign trade was unprofitable; 
 nor is the premium any loss to the nation, since what is paid for the 
 bills goes to augment the proceeds of the shipments, against which 
 they are drawn, making it a mere transfer from one citizen to 
 another. 
 
 * We have taken the Spanish dollar at the legal value, but as an article of merchan- 
 dise it fluctuates according to the demand for exportation and other purposes. It has 
 within ten years borne a premium of 8 or 9 per cent., but for some years past, it has va- 
 ried from 1-2 per cent, to 3 per cent.
 
 113 
 
 Public stocks, and money securities, whether public or private, are 
 sent abroad for sale, or as pledges for loans of money. In the first 
 case, they may be considered as articles of merchandise, and are 
 sent backwards and forwards as they happen to fluctuate in value, in 
 this country or in England, to which they are chiefly sent, on account 
 of the greater value they bear in that country than in any other. 
 
 When loans are effected on them, they serve a useful purpose, by 
 introducing capital on better terms than it can be hired at home, and 
 instead of showing the unprofitableness of trade, it is a sign of its ac- 
 tivity, and that we enjoy a high credit abroad, and are disposed to 
 profit by it. It is surprising that politicians and woollen manufactu- 
 rers should give themselves any uneasiness about a business, which, 
 like all such transactions, may be safely trusted to the management of 
 the individuals who are engaged in these operations, and who proba- 
 bly understand their own concerns better than legislators who under- 
 take to direct or controul them. We agree, however, that it would 
 be full as wise and just in Congress to legislate against sending abroad 
 public securities, as it is to legislate in favour of the manufacture of 
 woollens. These are all matters which should be left to individuals 
 (free from governmental restrictions or bounties) who in pursuing 
 their own interests, best promote those of the nation. 
 
 The idea that a free and constant exportation of specie is disad- 
 vantageous to a nation, is one of those illusions which has so often 
 been exposed, and so entirely abandoned by men of common intelli- 
 gence, that we should pass it without any further notice than it has 
 already received, but for the frequency with which it is still alluded 
 to, by members of Congress, members of Woollens Conventions, and 
 writers of all descriptions, on the side of our opponents, and 
 some of them, too, men whose opinions are entitled to respect. 
 "The trade with China and East Indies," says Seybert, "has 
 been uniformly disadvantageous; and the more so, because our 
 purchases are made almost entirely with specie." Mr. Carey 
 and others speak of the " uncontrolled importation of foreign 
 goods, as draining us of our circulating medium." We have 
 already quoted from Mr. Clay's and Mr. Lawrence's speeches, 
 passages implying the same opinions. The object in sending gold 
 to England, is the same as sending cotton and tobacco, because 
 it is more valuable there than here. It is sent to Cuba and oth- 
 er countries for the same reason, while on the other hand, we are 
 continually receiving both silver and gold from other countries where 
 they are less valuable than here. We exported in 1826, of bullion 
 and specie, $4,098,078, while our import amounted to $G,S80,9GG. 
 In 1825, our export of the precious metals amounted to $8,797,055. 
 and the import to $6-,150,825. In 1824, the export of gold and 
 silver amounted to $7,014,552, and the import to $8,379,855. 
 Thus the import and export trade of specie fluctuates like all other 
 branches of commerce, and it is as much an article of merchandise
 
 114 
 
 as coffee or sugar, and as appears to us. it is quite as unnecessary, 
 and as unwise in the legislature to concern themselves about the one, 
 as the other. The merchant, whose business it is to watch the 
 markets, will, for his own interest, import specie when it is wanted, 
 and when it accumulates beyond the wants of the country, he 
 will export it. The comparative scarcity of gold, as we have be- 
 fore remarked, arises from our putting a lower value on it in pro- 
 portion to silver, than most nations do, with whom we have com- 
 mercial dealings, and as long as that is the case, it will continue to 
 be shipped abroad, and the circulating medium, supplied almost 
 entirely with silver, as the cheapest of the two metals. If there 
 was any other money more over-valued than the Spanish dollar, we 
 should see that coin disappear, and its place occupied with the cur- 
 rency still more depreciated. Where then, we would ask, is the 
 loss or inconvenience to the nation from a free exportation of the 
 precious metals? The only use we have for them, is a circulating 
 medium, and as a material for manufactures, and any superfluity be- 
 yond what is required for those purposes, can be of no more use or 
 benefit to have retained at home, than an excess of tobacco or 
 cotton. 
 
 So far then is the export of specie from being prejudicial, that it is 
 advantageous to a country. Suppose it had been possible to devise 
 any laws, which could have had the effect of retaining in the country 
 the 150 or 200,000,000 dollars in specie, which have been imported 
 for the last 30 years; of what use (beyond the ordinary wants of the 
 country) would it have been to the nation ? No more than the 
 hoard of a miser, buried a thousand feet under the earth ! It 
 would have been just so much capital withdrawn from a useful cir- 
 culation. The advocates of the opinions we are opposing, appear to 
 us to have mistaken an effect for a cause. The abundance of specie 
 in a country, is one of the signs of wealth ; but it is not the cause of 
 it. Our opponents treat this subject as if a country was rich in pro- 
 portion to the quantity of the precious metals it possessed. Gold 
 and silver are wealth, but not more so than flour, lead, cotton, or any 
 thing else, which has an exchangable value. 
 
 The specie we may have in our country, is, then, but the conse- 
 quence of our prosperity, not the cause of it. If not a particle of sil- 
 ver or gold had ever been seen on this continent, we should still 
 have been prosperous and wealthy. There might have been great in- 
 convenience, and some loss, for the want of such a convenient stand- 
 ard of value, but we should have found substitutes, as indeed we now 
 do in paper, which forms nearly the whole of our circulating medium. 
 We do not mean to underrate the advantages of silver and gold, as 
 they unquestionably perform a very useful office, in regulating our 
 currency, but we contend that every dollar which is retained at home, 
 beyond what is wanted to keep our currency in a sound state, is just 
 as much loss to the nation, as it would be to an individual to deposit 
 those dollars in his chest, which could be safely loaned on interest.
 
 115 
 
 But is not the country liable to suffer from a scarcity of silver and 
 gold? No, not more so than from a scarcity of coffee or sugars, and 
 when that difficulty occurs, we shall be relieved by importations, as 
 we are in case of all other articles. Nothing is so easily transferred 
 from one country to another as specie. There is much less danger 
 to be apprehended from an over-export of specie than of iron, and 
 still more corn, as they are both necessaries of life, (without which 
 we cannot well do,) and a scarcity of the latter would be far more 
 distressing, especially to those who could least bear the ill conse- 
 quences of want of cheap food. There are substitutes for coin, but 
 none for iron and bread. 
 
 Now, none of the advocates of the " American System" discover 
 any anxiety to stop the exportation of those necessary productions, 
 those staples of Hie. Why then do they concern themselves about 
 the exportation of silver and gold ? But will not a free exportation 
 of coin, derange and depreciate our paper currency ? No; a de- 
 preciated paper currency will drive coin out of circulation, by creating 
 an anxiety in the holders of the paper, to make an exchange ; 
 while on the other hand, the exportation of that specie has a tenden- 
 cy to restore a currency to a sound state, by checking those over- 
 issues which depreciate the currency, by compelling banks to with- 
 draw from circulation, those floods of paper money, those facilities 
 of trade, as they are generally called, but too frequently, (from the 
 manner in which many of our institutions are managed,) facilities to 
 commercial gambling, extravagance, and ruin. 
 
 The deep injury to internal trade from the exportation of the 
 precious metals alluded to by Mr. Clay, at the commencement of the 
 section, must not be imputed in any degree to foreign commerce. 
 
 There has been no such effect experienced from it in this quarter, 
 nor in any of the States from whence those exportations are chiefly 
 made. The expulsion of specie from the Western States, which Mr. 
 Clay may perhaps have had in view, was effected, we apprehend, 
 wholly by " stop laws" and " relief acts," against which Mr. Clay, to 
 his honour, always contended; and the want of specie in the inland 
 States, had nothing to do with the export trade of specie from the 
 Atlantic ports. 
 
 It was a legislative interference between debtor and creditor, by the 
 enacting of laws, which compelled the latter to accept for his de- 
 mand a depreciated paper, not convertible into money, at least, not 
 into an equivalent for his demand ; a printed rag, and sometimes a 
 worthless one, instead of a silver dollar. Such measures will always 
 banish specie, and every thing else which is valuable, if long con- 
 tinued. These laws were considered by such as chose to avail 
 themselves of them, as a "protecting system." They were founded 
 on the same principles as what is called the " American System ;" 
 the only difference we can perceive, is, that in the former case, 
 there was a sacrifice of the rights of the few, for the benefit of the many,
 
 116 
 
 and in the latter, there is a sacrifice of the rights of the many, for the 
 benefit of the few. 
 
 " Stop Laws," " Relief Systems," and " American Systems," all 
 spring from the same causes, an ignorance of, or a disregard to in- 
 dividual rights, and should all of them be equally resisted. 
 
 Perhaps there is nothing which can more strongly show the fu- 
 tility of legislating upon trade, beyond what is really necessary for 
 its safety and protection, than those legal restraints which have 
 been frequently imposed with a view of retaining in a country an 
 abundant supply of the precious metals. In the first place, it is not 
 in the power of Kings, Congresses, or Parliaments, by any laws 
 which they can contrive, to prevent their exportation. If there was 
 a law, making it death to send it out of this country, the premium 
 for smuggling would not exceed one per cent. In the next, the 
 practical effect of such a law, if it could be enforced, would be 
 to prevent specie from corning here, as it would be in the case 
 of coffee and sugars, were those articles restricted to our consump- 
 tion ; and thus, instead of having that superabundance of all those 
 commodities which we now have, there would often be a scarcity. 
 These are truths familiar to the minds of practical men in general, 
 and it is time they were so to those legislators, politicians, and 
 manufacturers, who undertake to found new systems of commercial 
 policy. 
 
 SECTION 15. We now proceed to the consideration of two other 
 points, frequently urged by our opponents, in favour of the "Ameri- 
 can System," viz. The security of the home market against those 
 interruptions to which our foreign trade is exposed. Again; the evils 
 we are subjected to, from those irregularities and fluctuations of 
 prices, which our export articles are liable to, in consequence of our 
 dependance on foreign markets. Mr. Clay, in a speech upon the 
 tariff in 1824, remarks, " the superiority of the home market results, 
 first, from its steadiness and comparative certainty at all times j 
 second, from its greater security; third, from the creation of recip- 
 rocal interests ; arid lastly, from an ultimate and not distant augmen- 
 tation of consumption, and consequently comfort, from increased 
 quantity, and reduced prices." These arc great advantages, pointed 
 out by Mr. Clay, as the results of the " American System," but 
 to our apprehension, the inevitable consequences will be directly the 
 reverse of ivhat he describes. First; the great superiority of the 
 home market on account of its security, is founded on that extra- 
 ordinary assumption we have before noticed ; that " the ordinary 
 relations of the nations of the world, are those of war, or rumours 
 of war." Now it appears from the statements of our opponents, 
 which we have given in section 12th, that the greatest inconvenience 
 we have suffered from the interruption of our supplies, " by this 
 ordinary state of war," since the " landing of our fathers" was the 
 want, during the late war with Great Britain, of 6000 dollars
 
 117 
 
 worth of blankets for the Indians, and they admit that the otily ob- 
 stacle which stood in the way of obtaining them, was our own 
 laws ! ! If, however, there is any force in this objection to the 
 foreign trade, it applies also to the intercourse which one half of 
 the Union carries on with the other. It must be obvious to every 
 one acquainted with the subject, that it would be as hazardous 
 during a war with Great Britain for the New England and the 
 Middle States to communicate with the Southern sections, as it 
 would for either of the extremities of the Union to communicate 
 with Europe. The premium and freight on goods shipped from 
 Boston or New York to the Southern States generally, would ave- 
 rage as high or higher than on goods shipped to those countries in 
 Europe, with whom we might be at peace ; and it would be 
 easier and cheaper to send cotton from Charleston to Havre de 
 Grace, than to Boston. 
 
 What then should we do with those immense cargoes of domes- 
 tic produce and manufactures, for the consumption of which we must 
 depend upon the South, or how should we procure from them the 
 materials of which many of these fabrics are made ? We are 
 aware that some articles might be transported by inland convey- 
 ances, but the expense would be very great, and such as most of the 
 staples of trade would not bear. 
 
 Where then is that security of the home trade, against those in- 
 terruptions which the foreign trade is liable to ? The argument, if 
 it is worth any thing, goes to the expediency of limiting our trans- 
 actions to those sections of the country with which we can com- 
 municate safely, in the event of war with England, the only nation, 
 which in case of war with us, can show a flag on the ocean. 
 Now this non-intercourse policy between the extremes of our own 
 country, however much it might be approved of by some of those 
 wild enthusiasts, (who having no interest in manufactures themselves, 
 seem both ignorant and regardless of the ruin they may bring on 
 others by their unenlightened and ill-directed zeal,) would not suit the 
 interests of the New Englanders, who must depend mainly on the 
 " plantation States," for the purchase of their manufactures ; and 
 much more than they do on us for the purchase of their staples, 
 since they would find a market in foreign countries for all they can 
 raise, and procure in exchange a supply of all their wants, on better 
 terms than we now furnish them. We do not mean, however, to deny 
 the general proposition, that the home trade is somewhat more 
 secure from interruption than the foreign trade, nor to underrate the 
 advantages of that security ; but to show, that were we to act upon 
 that principle, we ought to confine our trade within such a limited extent, 
 as not to be affected by a war. But war is not the " ordinary relation of 
 the nations of the world," and when it does occur, such is the hu- 
 mane and enlightened policy of the age, that belligerent nations them- 
 selves are willing to give facilities to an intercourse with each other, 
 16 

 
 118 
 
 \ 
 
 even when it might appear most important to restrain it. Have not 
 our opponents themselves furnished a striking fact, in proof of what 
 we advance in the case of the 6000 dollars worth of woollen blan- 
 kets, for the want of which we were so much distressed ? Did not 
 our enemy, who came to our shores to distress and destroy us, and 
 who must have been acquainted with the dangerous emergency to 
 which we were driven, freely offer us all the supplies of which we were 
 in want ? Even Buonaparte, who is held up by Professor List,* 
 and some others, as a patron of the anti-commercial and restrictive 
 policy, and who certainly made some remarkable demonstrations in 
 its favour, granted licences to carry wheat from his empire to Great 
 Britain, when the latter was in danger of a famine. Not so much 
 perhaps to indulge his benevolent feelings towards those islanders, as 
 from a desire to fill his own treasury ; well knowing, such is the na- 
 ture of trade, that although he might withhold supplies, they could 
 be obtained from other nations, and even from his own subjects, thus, 
 besides failing to ruin his enemy, he would suffer the loss of so much 
 revenue. 
 
 Could we, however, anticipate frequent wars with England, the only 
 nation that can interfere with our trade, and were we certain she 
 would depart from her accustomed wise policy of allowing com- 
 mercial intercourse to go on with her enemy, we should soon be in a 
 condition (if commerce is not legislated out of existence by our "pro- 
 tecting system,") if not to dispute the supremacy of our rival on the 
 ocean, at least to keep open sufficient channels of communication with 
 the rest of the world, to save us from many of the evils incident to a 
 war with her. 
 
 Second. With regard to the irregularity and unsteadiness of prices 
 in consequence of our reliance on the foreign trade, referred to by 
 
 * The following are extracts of a series of letters upon " cosmo-polUical economy," by 
 Professor List, introduced to the putlic with high commendations, by Mr. C. J. Ingcr- 
 soll, one of the promoters of, and delegates to the Harrisburg Convention. " The ob- 
 ject of the economy of mankind, or to express it more properly, of cosmo-political econ- 
 omy, is to secure to the whole human race, the greatest quantity of the necessities and 
 comforts of life." Here is one of the definitions of " cosmo-political economy," by one 
 of the most learned defenders of the " American System," and we shall now give the 
 Professor's remarks upon one of the greatest advocates of the restrictive system, and who 
 carried the principles into full operation. " I saw then in my native country, (Germany,) 
 the admirable effects of what is called the continental system, and the destroying effects 
 of the return of what they call trade, after the downlal of INapoleon." Again ; " Na- 
 poleon would have been very willing to charge himself with the trouble of uniting the 
 whole surface of the earth, and to procure to the human race the blessings of a general 
 free intercourse, but the English, it seems, did not like the prospects of such a general 
 happiness. So the Americans, I suppose, would never like to exchange their national 
 independence and power for a general law of nations founded upon .English power; they 
 would not like the prospect. It seems, therefore, cosmo-political institutions, like those 
 of free trade, are not yet ripe for being introduced into practice." Whether the " cos- 
 mo-polilical institutions," to which this ingenious writer alludes, are fully ripened or 
 not, is beyond our understandings to judge, not knowing exactly what they are, but 
 we apprehend that we have all seen enough of Napoleon's " cosmo-political systems," 
 and " continental systems," not to desire a return of them, and we hope the time is not 
 far distant, when the principles of the" American System" will be as well understood, 
 and as justly estimated.
 
 119 
 
 Mr. Clay, we quote from Mr. Niles, among other similar complaints, 
 the following statement, to prove the existence of those evils. " To 
 show the ruinous effects that follow trade with Great Britain, because 
 of the irregularity in the markets of that country and our own, and 
 which, by building up the " American System," we desire mainly to 
 guard against take these items : 
 
 In 1825. we imported British goods to the value of $36,713,000. 
 
 In 1826, do. d& $26,131,000. 
 
 Difference, $10,582,000. 
 
 In 1825, the cotton, tobacco, rice and indigo ex- 
 ported to the United Kingdom, was valued at $33,042,000. 
 In 1826, do. do. $18,871,000. 
 
 Difference, $14,171,000. 
 
 Who can calculate the distress and destruction, caused to the plan- 
 ters of the south and manufacturers of the east, middle and west, and of 
 the farmers who supply the latter with food and materials, because of 
 such enormous fluctuations in the value or amount of articles ex- 
 ported or imported ?" 
 
 The " irregularity" in the imports, or falling off in 1826, is owing 
 to a very natural cause the operation of the heavy duties imposed 
 on the staple fabrics of England by the Tariff of 1824. This will 
 appear more evident by some statements we shall hereafter exhibit ; 
 but we are entirely at a loss to comprehend how the " manufacturers 
 of the east, &c." can be distressed by this diminution in the imports 
 of foreign goods, of which they have heretofore made so many com- 
 plaints. We apprehend then it must be the consumers, to whom Mr. 
 Niles refers this part of the distress must fall on them. The falling 
 off in our exports to England was occasioned in part by the decrease 
 of our imports, which of course must lessen the demand abroad for 
 our products ; and partly by a great decline in the price of cotton. 
 Now, without pretending to understand all the meanings which our 
 opponents attach to their new invented terms, or being acquainted 
 with all the powers of their new system, we cannot conceive how its 
 complete establishment could have prevented the people in England 
 from running mad upon cotton in 1825, and paying double prices for 
 it; nor do we perceive that the effect of those' speculations can be 
 considered a " ruinous irregularity" to this country, or a source of 
 distress to our planters nor if such were the case, in what way 
 those evils could have been prevented by the " American System." 
 Of the present crop of cotton, 1,000,000 bales, we could not con- 
 sume more than 200,000 bales if we did not import a yard of cloth 
 the remaining 800,000 bales would go to Europe, and about a simi- 
 lar proportion of the crop of 1825 must have been disposed of in the
 
 120 
 
 same way, and although Congress, according to the doctrines of our 
 opponents, may regulate our own foreign trade in what way they 
 please, it would be impossible for them to exercise the same powers 
 in England, so as to prevent that ruinous rise of price there, which 
 would of course affect the prices here in a like proportion. But we 
 will imagine that under the full operation of the " American System" 
 we should retain all our cotton Pt home, and that the planters should 
 limit the cultivation to the home v demand, would that prevent fluctua- 
 tions of price ? To prevent irregularity in price, the supply and 
 demand must be equal. If our national legislators, who are called 
 upon to direct us where we are to buy our woollens, and to compel us 
 to pay double prices for them, can regulate the produce and con- 
 sumption of cotton to a single bale, then regularity of prices may be 
 maintained ; but we think this would be difficult. They may, per- 
 haps, under that power in the Constitution for " promoting the general 
 welfare," prescribe the quantity of land which shall be planted ; but 
 will the product always be equal ? Who can calculate the vicisitudes 
 of the season, or who can guard against them ? 
 
 Congress then, in order to carry out the principles of the " Amer- 
 ican System" to their utmost limits and perfection, will require some- 
 thing greater than even the constructive powers of our constitution 
 the power of controling the operations of nature and the wants of 
 man, and without which, their efforts to regulate prices, will be as fu- 
 tile and preposterous, as their attempts to regulate the manufacture of 
 woollens or any other of the great branches of industry. So far, 
 however, from its being the tendency of a limited and restricted mar- 
 ket, to produce regularity of prices, that the very reverse of it has 
 been found, by experience, to be the fact. Restraints upon impor- 
 tation or exportation are ahoays productive of uncertainty and fluctu- 
 ation in prices ; and perhaps there is nothing which places this truth 
 in a stronger light, than the operation of the British Corn Laws. 
 
 The supplying of the inhabitants of Great Britain with grain of 
 all descriptions, is guarantied to the landholders of that country, by 
 laws and regulations, founded on the broadest principles of the 
 " American System," so as to exclude the import of foreign grain 
 entirely, except in seasons of extreme scarcity ; yet so far is the mo- 
 nopoly from having the effect of keeping prices steady, that they 
 have varied extremely even within the compass of the year, and from 
 one season to another, the fluctuations have been from 40 to 50 per 
 cent., and if we extend the period still further, the variations have 
 been greater than in any other article of merchandise in the history of 
 commerce. 
 
 On reference to the Parliamentary returns for the last fifteen years, 
 we find wheat has been from 43s. 3d. to 122s. 8d. per quarter ; rye, 
 from 75s. lid. down to 20s. 3d.; barley, from 21s. 3d. up to 64s., 
 and other sorts nearly in the same proportion ; and these sudden and 
 enormous fluctuations, are justly considered by the nation, as among
 
 121 
 
 the most pernicious consequences of this restrictive system, and as 
 adding one, to many other strong reasons, for its abandonment. Had 
 the trade in corn been an open one, the fluctuations would have been 
 less frequent, and less in extent, because the prices would then have 
 been governed by the average rates of grain in this country and on 
 the continent of Europe. So far then, is the " American System" 
 from holding out any prospect of steady prices, that if it ever does 
 get into full operation, we shall see the same effects resulting from it, 
 as the British Corn Laws have produced. The object of the " Amer- 
 ican System," as avowed by the Pennsylvania Convention and its 
 other most influential supporters, is " to countervail foreign manu- 
 factures in favour of all such as can be made at home. We except 
 none ;" or, as Mr. Everett expresses it, " to enable each article as 
 manufactured at home, to sustain a competition with the same arti- 
 cle as imported." What Mr. Everett really means by such rates as 
 will enable our manufacturers to sustain a competition, we can all un- 
 derstand by his voting for a Tariff, giving 38 to 139 per cent., and 
 promoting the views of a Convention, which has declared it is not 
 satisfied with those discouraging rates, and that they must be raised 
 57 1-2 to 281 per cent. " We want," says Mr. Lawrence, "pro- 
 tection, it matters not whether it was 50 or 150 per cent., so long as 
 it was protection." 
 
 It may perhaps appear, to many of our readers, superfluous to call 
 their attention to this point so often, but we have done so because our 
 opponents are constantly disclaiming in their papers and speeches, any 
 intention of prohibiting foreign goods. If there is, however, any 
 difference in the effects of laws passed avowedly against the importa- 
 tion of foreign goods, and laws which impose such duties, as will 
 prevent their importation, we should be' glad to see it pointed out by 
 some of the defenders of the " American System." 
 
 If we are to take the explanations of the views of our opponents, 
 from Mr. Niles, Mr. Everett, Mr. Carey, and Mr. Lawrence, all of 
 whom were chosen delegates of that Convention, which was assem- 
 bled to regulate the manufacturing concerns of the nation, and to car- 
 ry into complete operation the principles we are opposing, then it is 
 in vain to deny that it is the intention of their party to shut out every 
 foreign article which can be made at home ; and this, having once 
 been accomplished, the system will be must be extended to every 
 production of the country, which the producer may fancy stands in 
 need of protection. Having then arrived at this point, no nation can 
 buy of us what we have to sell, because they can have nothing to pay 
 which we shall be allowed to receive in return, and thus we shall 
 have no foreign markets for our surplus productions. What then 
 will be the condition of the agriculturist who depends for his thrift 
 and even for his support, on the value of his surplus produce? Every 
 one, having the slightest acquaintance with commerce, must be satis- 
 fied that the most trifling excess, if we have no vent for it abroad,
 
 122 
 
 will materially affect the value of the whole crop, while in years of 
 great abundance, prices will be so ruinously low, that the farmer will 
 not only lose the fruits of his industry, but may find even the bounty 
 of Providence a burden to him. On the other hand, should the crops 
 fall ever so little below the ordinary wants of the country, prices of 
 the necessaries and comforts of life, will be oppressively enhanced to 
 the consumers, without affording a relief to the farmer, since in years 
 of scarcity he can have little to sell. A free export trade then, which 
 we cannot have, however, without a free import trade, prevents those 
 irregularities in prices, occasioned by the restrictive policy, and serves 
 to maintain them on that level and moderate footing, which is in the 
 end, most advantageous to all parties. We entreat the farmers the 
 honest yeomanry of the country to look well to the principles of the 
 "American System;" to examine into its consequences for themselves, 
 and not be deluded by the statements of our opponents, ivhich we 
 have proved in so many instances wholly unworthy of confidence; for 
 whatever view we take of the effects of the non-importation policy, 
 the cultivators of the soil cannot fail of being the greatest sufferers. 
 
 As a continuance of the Corn Laws is constantly alluded to by our 
 opponents, as not only a proof of the wisdom of the policy they re- 
 commend, but as an evidence that Great Britain still upholds the 
 principles of the prohibitory system, we will show, in a few words, the 
 tax which that monopoly imposes upon the British nation, according 
 to the views of the most intelligent writer* upon that question in Eng- 
 land. The consumption of grain of all sorts, for the United Kingdom, 
 is estimated at 48,000,000 quarters per annum. Now it has been 
 ascertained by an accurate comparison of the prices of grain in Eng- 
 land with those on the continent of Europe and America, for the last 
 ten years, that had the British ports been open under a duty of 5 
 shillings a quarter, the average price of grain in the Kingdom would 
 have been reduced 8 shillings a quarter, below what it has actu- 
 ally sold for, during the period we have stated. That is", the con- 
 sumers would have saved 8 shillings a quarter on 48,000,000 quar- 
 ters grain, or 19,200,000 pound sterling, equal at the present exchange 
 to near $94,000,000, which for the whole ten years amounts to 
 $940,000,000. Of this immense sum, about one quarter is 
 considered, by some persons, as a real benefit to the landlords, who 
 own the soil. The other three quarters are entirely sunk by the in- 
 creased expenses attending the management of the bad soils, which 
 are forced into cultivation by this enormous bounty on grain. The 
 farmers who hire the land, and the labourers who work upon it, can- 
 not benefit by this monopoly, since the rent is advanced in proportion 
 to the enhanced value of the produce ; in that respect they are in 
 the situation of the workmen and labourers in our manufacturing 
 establishments. Tariffs and monopolies cannot help them, since their 
 
 * Mr. McCulloch, Professor of Political Economy, London University.
 
 123, 
 
 wages are regulated by the average rates of other labour, which they 
 must have, whether their employers make or lose. Thus if we sup- 
 pose that of the 100,000 persons now employed in the woollen 
 manufactures, 95,000 are workmen on mere wages, and 5,000 are 
 proprietors, the last are the only ones who have an interest in pro- 
 moting the " American System." The 95,000 gain a support, and 
 it would no doubt be a source of inconvenience and loss to them to 
 be turned away from their accustomed occupation ; but three quarters 
 succeeded very well under the 5 per cent, duty, and the others 
 would not long be idle for want of employment. What then is the 
 effect of the corn monopoly in England? It lessens in ten years the 
 accumulation of national wealth $705,000,000, without giving any 
 more employment to domestic labour and capital than would have 
 found occupation, had the trade been open and corn freely admitted ; 
 on the contrary, the fund on which labour must depend for support 
 being lessened $705,000,000, the effect of the corn laws has been 
 to diminish the demand for labour. Had the ports been open, there 
 would have been fewer labourers engaged in agriculture, but there 
 would have been more than a corresponding increase in the numbers 
 employed in manufacturing, to supply the increased demand for 
 British fabrics, which the import of corn would have occasioned, and 
 also from the increased means of the British consumers to pay for 
 them. It is evident that the land-holders are the only persons who 
 can be benefitted by the corn monopoly, and it is contended by the 
 most sensible writers, that they would save as much by the reduction 
 of the poor rates, and other taxes which press heavily on them, and 
 by their share of the general benefits, which would result from a more 
 liberal system, as they now gain from a continuance of the corn laws. 
 
 Here then is another illustration of one of the injurious effects of 
 the prohibitory system, on the welfare of a nation, and resembling in 
 a pecuniary point of view, the burden imposed upon us by the wool- 
 lens tax. The corn monopoly levies an annual tax on the British 
 nation of $94.000,000, one quarter of which, is supposed by those who 
 take the most favourable view of it, to be gained by the land owners. 
 The woollens duty, if we can import goods 38 per cent, cheaper than 
 we can make them, (and it is contended by our opponents that we 
 can do so SO per cent, cheaper) imposes a tax of $27.360,000 
 per annum, of which $3,420,000 goes to the nation for revenue, 
 being the amount of duty on what goods are imported, and the resi- 
 due, $23,940,000, is so much bounty to the manufacturers, without 
 however, as is contended, affording them the ordinary profits of 
 business, and is consequently just so much diminution of capital ; and 
 would amount in ten years to $239,400,000. 
 
 The corn tax, at the first view, appears the most burdensome, but 
 when it is considered that Great Britain has 22.000,000 people 
 against our 12,000,000, and probably five or sis times our wealth, 
 our opponents may truly say, that although the " American System 1 "
 
 124 
 
 is not yet in full operation, we have already rivalled the English, 
 (whose exploded principles we are now adopting,) in the worst fea- 
 ture their restrictive policy ever exhibited. 
 
 So far however are the Corn laws from finding any advocates in 
 England, except among those who imagine themselves immediately 
 benefited by them, that no statesman or writer of any reputation has 
 for a long time been a supporter of the principles on which they are 
 founded. The only tenable ground of their defence, urged even by 
 the land-holders, is that from long existence, they have become so 
 much a part of their system, as to affect rents, taxation, &c. &c. in 
 such a way as to render their abolition an act of injustice towards 
 them. There has not been, for many years past, much, if any, dif- 
 ference of opinion as to the impolicy of these restraints, though there 
 has been a good deal as to the best method of getting rid of them, 
 with the least injury to those in whose behalf they were enacted. 
 The time has, however, at last arrived, when they can no longer be 
 borne ; and no considerations have prevented the present enlightened 
 ministers, (whose ascendancy and continuance in power, turned en- 
 tirely on their known hostility to commercial restrictions, as well as 
 their attachment to the principles of civil and religious freedom,) from 
 introducing such modifications of those laws, as will mitigate their 
 worst effects ; and, at no very distant day, there will no doubt be 
 such further alterations made, as will render them entirely harmless. 
 It is true, the act has not yet passed, but it is well known that the 
 few individuals, through whose instrumentality it was defeated, now 
 regret the course they took, and avow that they will hereafter give 
 all their aid for its enactment. 
 
 But we are told by Mr. Clay, that " another result of the ' Ameri- 
 can System,' will be the creation of reciprocal interests." We can- 
 not perceive any such tendency in it. Who is there to share with 
 the manufacturers in the advantages of these monopolies ? or how, 
 we would ask, can a course of measures, founded on the most nar- 
 row sectional views, and personal interests, adverse to those of the 
 nation at large, be productive of such consequences ? The more 
 obvious, and as we apprehend, the inevitable effects of this policy, 
 will be mutual disgust and mutual hatred between those who reap the 
 benefits of the system, and those who are the victims of it. Again 
 according to Mr. Clay, we are to have " ultimately, an augmenta- 
 tion of comfort, and consequently, consumption, and reduced prices. 
 
 To compel the people of this country to pay double prices for 
 many of the first necessaries of life, and at the same time to lower 
 the value of all our surplus produce, by disabling foreign nations 
 from being its purchasers, is a novel and extraordinary method of 
 increasing consumption and comfort, though it must be confessed, it 
 is quite as reasonable a one as many of the expedients, recom- 
 mended by our opponents, for promoting the general welfare. 
 
 To equalise the advantages of the " American System" to all
 
 125 
 
 parts of the Union, Congress should grant bounties to all the other 
 great branches of industry ; for instance, a bounty of 20 cents a 
 bushel on wheat, 20 dollars a hogshead on tobacco, and 3 cents a 
 pound on cotton, the whole of which would not equal the woollens ( 
 tax the nation now pays. There is not an argument advanced in fa- ~f 
 vour of the claims of the woollen manufacturers, which could not be 
 urged with much more reason in favour of similar ^demands on the 
 part of the inhabitants of the "plantation states." 
 
 The manufacturers assert, that their goods have fallen since 1816, 
 and their business is unprofitable. What, pray, is the condition of 
 the tobacco planter, whose staple, except for the finer qualities, has 
 fallen three-fourths in value, since the protecting system was establish- 
 ed, and is now hardly worth transporting to the coast or, of the 
 cotton grower, whose produce has declined since 1816, from 30 to 
 9 cents a pound ; while the expenses of cultivation, have not been 
 lessened any thing near in the same proportion ? 
 
 The woollen manufacturers employ 40,000,000 dollars capital, 
 and the wool growers (who never have yet realized the benefits they 
 anticipated from the woollen monopoly, and never will, we think,) 
 employ 40,000,000 dollars more, three-fourths of which, as well of 
 the manufacturing capital, be it always remembered, was profitably 
 employed under a 5 per cent duty. If we grant, that they do em- 
 ploy 80,000,000 dollars, do not the wheat, tobacco, and cotton 
 planters, employ twenty times as much ? The manufacturers employ 
 100,000 labourers, we think it probable they do more than that num- 
 ber, but not a man of them would have been idle, if the protecting , 
 system had never been established. On the other hand, ihe cotton^" 
 and tobacco planters employ 2,000,000 persons, many of whom 
 could not subsist, even if a check is given to the foreign demand for 
 their staples. 
 
 There is no principle of reciprocity in the " American System," 
 whether we view it as bearing on our foreign or our domestic rela- 
 tions certainly not, if we extend it beyond the few states which can 
 profit by this sectional and personal policy. It will be injurious in its 
 effects, to the planter of the South, and the farmer of the East, to 
 the merchant, the mechanic, the seaman, and to all classes ; but its 
 evils will press most heavily on those sections of the country,* and 
 
 * " The burden occasioned by most of the particular duties recommended, would fall on 
 all the community, but chiefly on those least able to bear it. In this country, the poor 
 man personally consumes nearly as much tea, sugar, and coffee, as the rich ; and 
 though his clothing is not so fine, yet its cost constitutes a much greater proportion of 
 his whole expenses. Besides, this new Tariff is so nicely adjusted as to lay a far heavier 
 import on cottons and linens, than on those of finer texture." This is an extract from 
 the memorial, referred to p.:ge 93, signed by 27 of our most intelligent citizens, one 
 third of whom were manufacturers at the time they signed it, and a still larger portion at 
 this moment. Woollens, which to the poor, is the tnost important article next to bread, 
 then paid 29 per cent the existing duty is 38 per cent and the Harrisburg Tariff calls 
 for 57 1-2 per cent cm fine goods, up to 281 per cent on the coarsest thus acting 1 most 
 fully upon the practical doctrines of our opponents, that the coarser the goods, the higher 
 must be the duty. Again, from the same memorial " But the influence, which has been 
 17
 
 126 
 
 that portion of the 'community who are the least prosperous. It will 
 destroy our foreign, diminish our home trade, and finally unsettle the 
 feelings and principles on which the prosperity, peace and union of 
 these States, mainly depend. 
 
 SECTION 16th. The committee will now proceed to the exami- 
 nation of the notion which is often advanced, and may be still more 
 frequently inferred from the publications of some of the most approved 
 speakers and writers in favour of the non-importation policy, viz. : 
 That the home market will not only furnish a demand for all the 
 produce we might lose the sale of, in consequence of our refusal to 
 take the produce and manufactures of foreign nations, but if due 
 encouragement was given to our own domestic manufactures, we 
 should have a market at home for all our surplus produce. 
 
 The better to establish this position, our opponents declare that 
 foreign nations will not take our produce to any great extent, partly 
 on account of their restrictive policy, and partly because the con- 
 sumption of it has already " reached, if not passed its maximum;" 
 and that consequently we ought no longer to look abroad for a sale of 
 our constantly increasing productions. 
 
 We are told by Mr. Otis in his Convention speech "Europe will 
 take almost nothing which your soil produces. Imports in the long 
 run cannot exceed exports, consequently the latter must decline first 
 in value, by accumulation; then they will diminish in quantity;" and 
 Mr. Lawrence, on the same occasion, remarked " Those who op- 
 posed the great American System, said we wanted canals and rail- 
 roads, and internal improvements. He agreed with them ; he was 
 in favour of a system of internal improvements. The exports were 
 not one fourth so much as in 1792 ; 629,000 barrels of flour were 
 imported into New England during the last year, most of which were 
 consumed among us;* the whole export of bread north of the Poto- 
 mac, was $251. These were appalling facts, but they were notwith- 
 standing susceptible of proof." We repeat the remark, that we 
 pursue the plan on which we first commenced, of selecting state- 
 ments and arguments from the most respectable of our opponents. 
 We have already answered Mr. Otis' assertion " that Europe will 
 take almost nothing which our soil produces," by proving from the 
 Custom House reports, that in 1825, we exported of domestic pro- 
 > duce $66,944,745, of which, at least $50,000,000 went to Europe, 
 and the same year we exported $32,590,643 foreign produce and man- 
 ufactures, more beneficial to us than the former exports, because they 
 
 obtained by the seal ofprirate interest, admonishes us that those whose situation and ex- 
 perience enable them to judge of the operation of this new system, should exert them- 
 selves to diffuse such information, as may tend to make its consequences rightly and gene- 
 rally understood. Its avowed object is to direct and control the occupations of men, by 
 granting special privileges to those engaged in particular pursuits." 
 
 * It is stated in the Address of the Harrisburg Convention of the importations of flour 
 into Boston, which of course comprises part of ihe 629,000 barrels, 130,000 barrels were 
 exported in 1825 and 1826, from Boston alone.
 
 127 
 
 employed more labour in transporting backwards and forwards, and 
 were at the same time purchased in exchange for domestic produc- 
 tions. Of the domestic productions exported, $40,372,987 went to 
 Great Britain and her colonies, of which $35,043,466 to Great 
 Britain. We beg the reader to keep this fact in mind relative to the 
 large proportion of our exports to England, because this is a branch 
 of commerce, which our opponents are endeavouring to prejudice the 
 nation against, as injurious to our national welfare. 
 
 Whatever view we take of the trade with Great Britain, it will be 
 found to be equal in value to two thirds of all the commerce which 
 we carry on with the remaining parts of the whole world ; but it will 
 be impossible for us to retain but a small portion of what we now en- 
 joy, if the system we are opposing should prevail. 
 
 But it may be deemed incorrect in us to found our reasonings on 
 the exports from the United States in 1825, because it was one of 
 speculation, and our produce was forced up, as we are told by Mr. 
 Niles, to "a ruinous irregularity of prices, for want of the Ameri- 
 can System." We will then take the year 1826, when there was a 
 reaction which caried back many commodities below their ordinary 
 value. Our export domestic products, amounted in 1826 to 
 $53,055,710, of which, $25,842,299 went to Great Britain and her 
 colonies, and of foreign articles, were shipped $24,539,612, amount- 
 ing in the whole to $77,595,322. This statement proves how 
 entirely unfounded are the complaints, made by our opponents, against 
 Europeans, and more especially against Great Britain, for taking 
 "nothing almost which our soil produces." We affirm that every 
 thing which Europe and Great Britain generally furnishes us with, is 
 paid for in the products of our domestic labour, and that we cannot 
 have their produce or manufactures on any other terms. As to the 
 import of 629,000 barrels flour into New England, we have no 
 means of inquiring into its correctness, we had supposed the quan- 
 tity was larger, but it has little or no bearing on this subject. We 
 have already shown that the increased consumption of flour, by the 
 25,000 persons taken from the agricultural employments and con- 
 verted into woollen manufacturers by the system of high duties, 
 cannot exceed 22,916 barrels for the whole of the United States, of 
 which perhaps half may be in New England, as it is in this quarter, 
 principally, where the woollen manufacturing business has been much 
 extended since 1816. 
 
 We come now to Mr. Lawrence's assertion, that the whole export 
 of bread north of the Potomac in 1826, was only $251. Now as 
 bread has never been a leading export from this country, we presume 
 he means bread-stuffs. 
 
 There is no way of ascertaining exactly where all the bread-stuffs 
 which we export are produced, though it is to be hoped, if these dis- 
 tinctions are to be kept up, that the Treasury Reports will hereafter 
 specify more particularly than they do now.
 
 128 
 
 In 1826, the amount of flour, Indian corn, rye, and other grains 
 used for bread was $5,288,129, of which, there can be no question, 
 that the largest portion was raised north of the Potomac. The 
 amount of bread was a little over one quarter of a million of dollars. 
 The export of bread and bread-stuffs in 1825, was $5,510,223. 
 We are aware that New England herself furnishes a very small por- 
 tion of the agricultural exports from the United States, because we 
 are a manufacturing, navigating, and commercial people, and depend 
 on importations from the southern and middle states, for our own 
 consumption ; but this is nothing new, and has nothing hardly to do 
 with the " protecting system," as we pursued these occupations to 
 almost the extent we now do, in proportion to our population, thirty 
 or forty years ago ; and in regard to the importation of flour from the 
 southern states, we contend that if the Tariffof 1816 had never passed, 
 we should have taken nearly or quite as many barrels as we actually 
 imported, since our commercial capital would have been greater.* 
 
 The complaints made by New Englanders that Great Britain 
 would not buy our bread-stuffs are absurd, since if she offered $5 a 
 barrel bounty, not a pound could go from any state north of the 
 Hudson. But it is a miserable notion to entertain, that because we 
 have no agricultural staples to export, we do not participate with the 
 southern and middle states, in the advantages of their export trade, 
 since it is the transportation and the proceeds of their produce, which 
 is the main support of our commerce, navigation, fisheries, mechanic 
 arts, and manufactures. 
 
 Again ; we are told by Mr. Lawrence, that our exports are not 
 one fourth so much as in 1792. This assertion is so much at vari- 
 ance with facts, (which must, we should think, be familiar to a gen- 
 tleman so well known for his information and intelligence,) that we 
 apprehended at first it must be a mistake, or refer to something else 
 than the general exports of the country, but the declaration as it now 
 stands, conveys no other idea than the one we attach to it. If it was 
 a mistake, it should have been corrected. On turning to Pitkin, the 
 committee find the whole exports for 1792 were $20,715,098, (do- 
 mestic and foreign,) there being at that time no separate return. In 
 1825 we exported $99,535,388, and in 1826, $77,595,322, which 
 is, on the average, more than four times as much as in 1792. We 
 lament to see such erroneous statements as these and others, which 
 we have commented upon, circulated by men, in whose information 
 and correctness the community place so much reliance ; it is by such 
 mistakes, that the delusion now existing with regard to the " Amer- 
 ican System," as it is termed, is supported. 
 
 We agree, however, with our opponents, that although our exports 
 are still large, particularly when compared with these of 1792, yet 
 
 * Mr. Niles states, in one of his publications, thatof the flour imported into New Eng- 
 land during 1825 and 1826, 130,000 barrels were re-exported from Boston alone, and 
 no doubt from the small ports a still larger proportion was re-exported.
 
 129 
 
 when contrasted with a later period, they are otherwise. We find by 
 the Custom House returns, that our exports from 1796 to 1811, ex- 
 cluding two years of embargo, averaged $76,335,539. Our popu- 
 lation within those periods of time, was 4,500,000 to 7,500,000, and 
 we did not possess one third of the wealth we now do. Our exports 
 for the last six years, excluding the speculative year of 1825, were 
 on the average $73,083,137. Now, taking our population at 
 12,000,000, and estimating our wealth at more than double what it 
 was 25 years since, we ought at this time to export at least 
 120 to 130,000,000 dollars. 
 
 It will, however, be said, that many nations, for whom we acted as 
 carriers, during the wars they were engaged in, now have shipping of 
 their own. This is true in some degree, but not to the extent gener- 
 ally imagined. Some of those nations who forty years ago almost 
 rivalled the English in their foreign trade, scarcely now show a flag 
 upon the ocean. Holland has very little shipping, and the Baltic 
 powers still less ; while the Mediterranean states, some of which, 
 especially the Greeks, formerly employed a considerable quantity of 
 shipping, have entirely withdrawn from foreign commerce. Portugal 
 has still considerable shipping, but it is diminishing ; while the trade 
 of Spain, except between Cuba and the mother country, is annihi- 
 lated. France, of all the European nations, has, next to Great 
 Britain, the greatest resources of all kinds, to make her a commer- 
 cial nation, yet her foreign trade is very insignificant compared with 
 England or with this country. It is stated in the Journal of Com- 
 merce, published in Paris, that for six months, ending 30th June, 
 1827, " there were 626 foreign vessels entered, of which 197 were 
 from the United States, 37 from Hayti, and 219 from the French 
 colonies. French vessels expedited, 391 ; of which 251 to French 
 colonies, 30 to Hayti, and 8 to the United States." We cannot from 
 such a statement ascertain exactly the extent of their shipping en- 
 gaged in foreign trade, but it may be within bounds to say, that this 
 account does not indicate so large a tonnage as is owned in Massa- 
 chusetts, which amounted, according to the last returns, to 352,442 
 tons. 
 
 It would appear then, that the United States and Great Britain 
 share, almost without a competitor, the foreign trade of the world, and 
 in the contest between this country and Great Britain, every thing 
 but their superiority of capital, is in our favour. That we navigate 
 cheaper than they can, is evinced from their having almost entirely 
 withdrawn from transporting our produce to their own markets. It 
 will be seen, on reference to official documents, that of $40,372,987 
 exported to Great Britain and her colonies in 1825, five-sixths went 
 in American ships r and about the same proportion in 1826; while of 
 the imports into the United States, amounting in 1825 to $96,340,075, 
 only $4,437,563 was in foreign ships. Of the imports of 1826, 
 amounting to $84,974,477, $4,196,357 was in foreign ships. It
 
 must then be evident, to every one conversant with the subject, that 
 our enjoying so large a portion of our own export and import trade, 
 with the immense quantities of goods we transport for other 
 nations, (while our ports are open to our commercial rivals on the 
 same terms as to our own citizens,) affords conclusive evidence that 
 we under-carry all other nations. 
 
 What then is the reason that both our tonnage and exports have 
 decreased in amount the last fifteen years? Our average exports for 
 the last six years, excluding 1825, are $3,252,402 less than the 
 average of 1796 to 1811, excluding two years of embargo. Our 
 tonnage in 1810, was 1,428,728; in 1820, it amounted to 1,452,598 
 tons, and in 1826, to 1,423,111 tons. We answer, that the demand 
 for our produce has been lessened by our prohibitory system, which, 
 by excluding foreign manufactures and produce, has diminished the 
 means of our customers to buy of us, and this has operated to reduce 
 our tonnage. Had we continued to act upon the free trade system, 
 which we found from 30 years' experience to be so beneficial, there 
 is reason to believe that our exports would at this time have been 
 from a quarter to a third more than they now are, and that our ton- 
 nage would have increased in the same proportion. Our opponents 
 tell us in answer to these complaints, that we cannot, after all, prove 
 much diminution of tonnage or exports for the last 15 or 20 years, 
 and therefore the shipping and commercial interests must be pros- 
 perous. We reply, that in a country which has doubled its popula- 
 tion, and more than doubled its wealth within twenty-five years, 
 a branch of business which is stationary at best, cannot be said to be 
 prosperous. They do not reason in this way in their own case. 
 They complain of a want of encouragement to woollen manufactures, 
 while they admit they have increased in ten years from 10 to 
 40,000,000 dollars. 
 
 The facts we state with regard to our commerce and navigation, 
 are within the reach of every one, and cannot be disputed ; it is 
 therefore in vain for the advocates of the prohibitory policy to dany 
 that its effects have already been extremely injurious to the navigating 
 and commercial, as well as the agricultural interests. Are we not 
 told by Mr. Otis, in his Convention speech, " that exports in the 
 long run cannot exceed imports" ? Nothing can be more true, and 
 the converse of that proposition is equally so, exports cannot long 
 exceed imports. If we refuse to receive from foreign nations what 
 they have to exchange, they cannot receive from us what we wish to 
 dispose of. 
 
 This is not a matter of choice with those who trade with us ; our 
 refusal to barter the produce of our soil, for such articles as they 
 have to give, isill compel them to resort to those countries where such 
 exchanges will be made. The effect of this artificial system this 
 regulating trade by legislative restrictions and prohibitions, and in a 
 manner frustrating the benevolent intentions of Providence, who has
 
 131 
 
 given to nations various wants, and various means of satisfying them, 
 by an interchange of those commodities which might be most suita- 
 ble to the circumstances of each to supply, and thus by a useful 
 dependence unite them together in the bonds of interest and friend- 
 ship is strongly illustrated by the existing state of the trade between 
 France and England. A reference to the British official statement 
 of exports and imports for 1825, shows an export from Great Britain 
 to France of $5,730,183, and an import from France to Great 
 Britain, of $8,844,509. We here have another remarkable result 
 of the exclusive and prohibitory system, operating upon the com- 
 merce of the two most intelligent and wealthy nations of the old 
 world, and placed within sight of each other. France has various 
 commodities which England wants, while England has manufactures 
 and colonial produce which would be equally desirable to France; 
 but the latter country, hampered by that restrictive policy, which was 
 established in those unenlightened ages, when it was thought patriotic 
 and beneficial finds itself compelled as it were, against the opinions 
 of her wisest statesmen and economists, to decline the offers made 
 by Great Britain, for the mutual abandonment of those restrictions 
 which now operate so injuriously to the welfare of both. Could 
 those nations place their commercial intercourse on that footing which 
 each would desire, were they relieved from those impediments grow- 
 ing out of former laws, there would probably be an exchange, if we 
 may judge from their riches, diversity of productions and vicinity, of 
 at least ten times the amount of their present transactions, and both 
 would experience an increase of happiness and wealth. We will now 
 select an instance to show the effects of a more liberal and wise 
 system. 
 
 In the same year we have referred to, the exports from Great 
 Britain to the Netherlands, amounted to $22,137,411, and the im- 
 ports from thence into Great Britain, $9,497,846. What a contrast 
 does this comparison present ! The Netherlands with a population 
 of about one-sixth of that of France, has double the trade with a na- 
 tion whose commercial intercourse is more valuable than that of any 
 other, because of her great consumption and wealth, which enables 
 her to make those large exchanges of merchandise, which render trade 
 beneficial. We should think no statesman having the good of his 
 country at heart, and who will examine into the effects of this prohibi- 
 tory system, and compare them with the results of the opposite one, 
 would ever become the advocate of the former ; yet we are called 
 upon by Mr. Otis to imitate the commercial policy of France, though 
 reprobated by the. most intelligent men in that country, theoretical 
 and practical, and apologised for by those who venture to uphold it, 
 as a system forced upon the nation by the ignorance of their ances- 
 tors. 
 
 We have remarked that one means resorted to by the supporters 
 of the exclusive and non-importation policy, to bring the nation to
 
 132 
 
 iheir views, was to represent the foreign demand for our produce, as 
 having already reached its maximum, and that it is unwise to depend 
 on foreign nations for its consumption. We extract the following 
 from a speech made by Mr. Clay, on a proposed alteration of the 
 Tariff in 1820: "Nothing is more uncertain than the pursuits of 
 agriculture, when we mainly rely on foreign markets for the sale of 
 its surplus produce." We say nothing is more true than the reverse 
 of this proposition. A country which depends on the home market 
 for the sale of its surplus produce, will always be subject to great 
 fluctuations andlow prices, since there will be no vent for that sur- 
 plus produce, which constitutes the income of a nation, and the 
 only preventive of those evils is a free trade. Again observes Mr. 
 Clay on the same occasion " We had reached the maximum of for- 
 eign demand, for our three great staples, cotton, tobacco, flour, and 
 no man will contend, that we should go on to produce more and more, to 
 be sent to the glutted foreign markets, and consumed by devouring ex- 
 penses, to give employment to our tonnage and foreign commerce. 
 It would be extremely unwise to accommodate our industry to 
 produce, not what was wanted abroad, but cargoes for our 
 unemployed ships." We cannot perceive that bad markets abroad, 
 or low freights, afford any argument for the establishment of a system, 
 which must injure branches of business, which Mr. Clay admits, are 
 already too much depressed. But what has the legislator to-do with 
 glutted markets and unemployed ships? These are the private con- 
 cerns of the merchant and the ship owner, and no more subjects for 
 legislation than the common operations of the farmer or mechanic. 
 The facts, however, adduced by Mr. Clay, to show the expediency 
 of prohibitory duties, prove, beyond all doubt, that they are wholly 
 unnecessary, even for the purposes of the manufacturers. If it is true 
 that foreign markets are glutted with our staples, and we have reached 
 the maximum of foreign demand for them, then it is certain that we 
 shall no longer have the means of importing foreign articles, and the 
 domestic manufacturers would be secure against all foreign competi- 
 tion without the aid of those bounties which they now demand. 
 
 As the demand for our staples had not however ceased at the time 
 Mr. Clay was speaking, he must have had the future in view, but it 
 seems to us unwise to legislate the nation out of a profitable trade, 
 because it may be affected by events which no human mind can 
 foresee. Why not rather legislate on past experience and our pres- 
 ent condition? If statesmen and legislators are to be governed by 
 their imaginations, instead of exercising a sound judgment, and will 
 found systems on future possibilities, there is no end to the injuries 
 we may sustain from their acts. 
 
 To suppose that the nations with whom we trade, will hereafter 
 be stationary in population, wealth, and civilization, and consequent- 
 ly have no increasing wants to supply, is, to say the least, a most ex- 
 travagant and irrational conjecture. Why not imagine what is much
 
 133 
 
 more within the range of probability, that by some tremendous con- 
 vulsion of nature, the Andes should be thrown into the ocean, and 
 thus interrupt the communication we now have with Asia and South 
 America ? What then ! Could we not have a canal across the 
 isthmus of Darien, a North West passage, or a rail road to the Pa- 
 cific ? But what if all those projects failed, should we not be de- 
 prived of those facilities of conveyance which we now enjoy ? Yes ; 
 it cannot be denied. But would it be wise in anticipation of such a 
 change, to embarrass and destroy the valuable commerce we now 
 carry on with those extensive regions ? 
 
 Who can say what is now the maximum of consumption, and still 
 less, what it will be hereafter ? In 1820, the demand abroad for 
 flour may have been limited, but a few weeks drought in South 
 America, or three or four days bad weather in England at a critical 
 period of their crops, would create a greater demand for bread-stuffs, 
 than we can usually supply. But perhaps nothing can show in a 
 more impressive manner the inexpediency of legislating on the future, 
 than what has actually occurred sfnce Mr. Clay's prediction in 1820, 
 " that our cotton had reached its maximum of foreign demand." We 
 have before us a statement of the crop ending 30th of Sept. 1820, 
 making it 453,588 bales; and another for the year 1821, when the 
 crop was 472,000 bales, each weighing perhaps on the average, 300 
 pounds. The exports from our cotton ports, the year ending 30th 
 September last, are estimated at 970,000 bales, averaging 340 Ibs. 
 per bale, or 329,800,000 pounds, against 136,076,400 pounds, the 
 crop of 1820. It is contended by our opponents, that part of this 
 increased consumption, has been occasioned by the prohibitory sys- 
 tem, which they are advocating; but it must be evident to every 
 reflecting mind, that the effect of our high duties has not been to 
 increase the consumption, since the same cotton worked up here, 
 would have been manufactured in Europe, had we made fewer 
 cloths. Indeed there would have been a greater quantity consumed, 
 since had the duties remained at 15 per cent on foreign cotton goods, 
 the consumption of cotton fabrics in the United States would have 
 been still greater than it has been, as they would have come cheaper 
 to the consumers. There can be no stronger evidence of this, than 
 the fact of our having imported in 1825, 11,036,038 dollars worth 
 of cotton goods, which paid 29 per cent, to 100 per cent, duties, 
 averaging perhaps 45 per cent. We see, then, that this immensely 
 important staple, which enriches the whole Union, more than any 
 article we produce, instead of having reached its maximum of export 
 demand in 1820. has risen from 136,076,400 to 329,800,000 
 pounds, and so far is there from being any want of sale, that the 
 quantity on hand is not more than enough for our consumption 
 till the new crop arrives; and although the stocks in Europe may 
 at the end of the year be 30 or 40,000 bales more than the 
 preceding one, still they will be less than they have been in some 
 IS
 
 134 
 
 former years, and probably not larger than the interests of trade 
 require. It is said again by the supporters of the non-importation 
 policy, that this extended cultivation, has brought down the price too 
 low for the planter's support, and this we fear is too true, but the 
 planter if such is the case, will be content to adopt the remedy, 
 which men engaged in other branches of industry do, when the 
 profits fall below the average rates that is, he will turn his capital 
 and labour to some other pursuits, and not call upon the Government 
 to exact an exorbitant sum from the nation, to enable him to prose- 
 cute a losing business. So far however from appearances indicating 
 a stationary demand for cotton in Europe, it appears that the ratio 
 of increase is now equal to any former periods. Pitkin states the im- 
 ports into France to have been 17,000,000 pounds in 1800, or about 
 50,000 bales ; Great Britain imported the same year, 56,010,732 
 pounds, or about 180,000 bales. The consumption of France and 
 Switzerland in 1825, was 230,000 bales, in 1826 it had extended to 
 280,000 bales, and may perhaps this year come up to 300,000 
 bales. 
 
 The consumption in Great Britain for 1815 and 1816, averaged 
 343,000 bales, and in 1820, 491,000 bales. In 1826, the con- 
 sumption had reached 560,000 bales, while for 1827, down to 3d 
 September, the sale in Liverpool alone had been 12,880 bales per 
 week, which would give for the whole year, 669,760 bales, besides 
 sales in London, Scotland, &c. We may therefore take the con- 
 sumption at 690,000 bales, which is rather more than double what it 
 was in 1815 and 1816, without any allowance for the increased 
 weight of the bags. There is no way of ascertaining the consump- 
 tion of the rest of Europe, but the entire consumption of all Europe, 
 is estimated by intelligent men, at about 1,125,000 to 1,150,000 
 bales, excluding perhaps Turkey, which supplies her own consump- 
 tion. At the commencement of this century, the consumption of 
 Europe, did not exceed 300,000 bales. What has extended the 
 consumption so rapidly ? It is the very great reduction in the prices 
 of cotton fabrics, caused by the decline in the material, improve- 
 ments in machinery, increased skill in the workmen, together with 
 an increase of population, and a vast accession to the means of the 
 common people in Europe, since the general peace, of consuming 
 freely all the necessaries and comforts of life. 
 
 The material is now so low, that any further decline cannot much 
 affect the consumption of cotton cloths, but the other causes are still 
 in active operation ; new inventions for manufacturing will reduce 
 goods still lower ; population will increase, and it is to be hoped, and 
 to be expected, that the condition of all classes of people will be im- 
 proved, and consequently there will be an augmented demand for 
 cotton manufactures, as being among the first necessaries of life. 
 Let us look at the consumption of Great Britain, and we may draw 
 some inferences from the result, of what would be consumed in other
 
 135 
 
 countries, did they possess a population equally industrious and 
 wealthy. 
 
 Mr. Huskisson stated in 1824, that "he had taken considerable 
 pains to ascertain the real value with respect to home consumption, 
 and he found that the cotton goods consumed at home within the last 
 year, amounted to 32.000,000." 
 
 The official value of exports of cotton goods and yarn for 1824, 
 was 30,154,436. From this statement one would infer that some- 
 thing over one half the material worked up in Great Britain was con- 
 sumed there. The consumption in 1824, was 570,000 bales, and if 
 we suppose the cloths consumed in England to be of the same quali- 
 ties as those she exported, the quantity of cotton actually worked up 
 for British consumption, would be 293,000 bales ; but as the cloths 
 exported were of heavier and coarser kinds than what were used in 
 England, it may perhaps be nearer the truth, to estimate the con- 
 sumption of the United Kingdom for 1824, at one half of the whole 
 quantity manufactured, or 285,000 bales. We have before assumed 
 the consumption for 1827, to be 690,000 bales, and we have found- 
 ed our estimates upon the best sources of information, but we will 
 reduce it to 670,000 bales, and allow one half, or 335,000 bales to 
 be manufactured for British consumption. 
 
 As this country is the only one which has any thing like the same 
 means of consuming freely of the comforts and superfluities of life, 
 which the British nation enjoys, let us compare our consumption with 
 hers. 
 
 The manufacturers differ in their estimates some allowing 
 150,000 bales, and others 175,000 bales ; if the latter sum is meant 
 to include what is worked up in the interior of the cotton states, we 
 apprehend it may be something near the truth, though rather an 
 over-estimate. The population of Great Britain is 22,000,000, con- 
 suming 335,000 bales, and taking ours at 12,000,000, if we used 
 the same proportion, it would give 181,818 bales, which is not far 
 from what is allowed to be the actual consumption for 1827, which, 
 however, we think is too large, because we still import about one 
 sixth or seventh of our cotton fabrics. If then, we assume the con- 
 sumption of cotton in Great Britain, at 335,000 bales, and taking 
 her population to be one ninth part of Europe, and imagine that other 
 countries had the same wants and equal means of satisfying them, 
 which that nation enjoys, then the whole consumption of Europe, 
 would at this moment, be 3,015,000 bales per annum. 
 
 But the demand for European cotton goods, extends to 25,000,000 
 of South Americans and Islanders, immediately dependant on Eu- 
 rope, besides an immense population in Asia, who take largely of 
 British manufactured goods, and for which the demand is rapidly in- 
 creasing. For this demand, we may add at least 500,000 bales to 
 the 3,015,000, making 3,515,000, as the quantity of cotton which 
 would now be manufactured, if the various nations we have referred 
 to possessed the same means which the people of this country and
 
 136 
 
 England do, of consuming cotton manufactures. We are far from 
 supposing however, that there will for a long period to come, be the 
 same diffusion of wealth in Europe generally, that there now is in 
 England and in this country ; but the whole world is unquestionably 
 in a more prosperous condition than in any former age,* and may it 
 not therefore be inferred, if the manufacture of cotton, has been near- 
 ly quadrupled since 1800, (during half of which period, the most 
 civilized countries have been distressed and impoverished by wars) 
 that the consumption will be doubled within 15 or 20 years? 
 We are not unmindful how much uncertainty there is in such antici- 
 pations, but we appeal to all men familiar with the subject we are 
 discussing, whether our estimate is not much within the limits of pro- 
 bability ? Among the objects the committee had in going into this de- 
 tail about cotton, one is, to suggest to all prudent and considerate 
 men, the impolicy as regards the general welfare, and the injustice 
 as respects the 2,000,000 persons who depend mainly on it for sup- 
 port, of establishing such restrictions on trade, as will in a great mea- 
 sure deprive us of our principal markets for this valuable staple. 
 The committee had moreover a still more important end in view, 
 which is, to show how dangerous it is to adopt the plans of statesmen, 
 however highly endowed with knowledge and talents, who having 
 once founded a system, at war with every principle of sound policy, 
 and in opposition to the results of experience, as well as to the opin- 
 ions of the wisest men of the age, are willing rather than abandon 
 their schemes, to hazard the wildest conjectures as to the future, and 
 to act upon them, that they may appear to have something on which 
 to rest for their support. Had our opponents succeeded in 1820, in 
 imposing the prohibitory system upon the country, we should of 
 course have deprived the foreign consumers of cotton of the means 
 of purchasing it from us, and compelled them to resort to those coun- 
 tries where it can be had in exchange for such articles of manufac- 
 ture and produce, as constitute their only means of payment. 
 
 It must then be admitted, in justice to Mr. Clay's foresight, that 
 although as events have turned out, his prediction has so lamentably 
 failed, as to the extent of the foreign demand for cotton ; yet had 
 his views been adopted, and the principles of the " American Sys- 
 tem" been carried into full operation, we should not only have reach- 
 ed, but receded from his maximum demand for cotton, and for all our 
 other great staples of trade. We are aware of the answer made by 
 Mr. Clay, to our view of the case, which we give in substance from 
 Mr. Webster's speech in 1824, on the Tariff" Great Britain will 
 buy cotton, where she can find it best and cheapest ; and it would be 
 quite ridiculous in her to do otherwise." This is sound doctrine, 
 but it is not in accordance with the theories which have lately been 
 adopted in this country. Mr. Clay is here again at variance with 
 
 * Many governments have been reformed, civilization has been extended, and both 
 the wants of men and the means of satisfying them, have been increased and are in- 
 creasing.
 
 137 
 
 himself, and advances an opinion in utter contradiction to the gene- 
 ral tenor of his former reasonings, and to the spirit of the system he 
 upholds. The obvious effect of the " American System," as ex- 
 plained by Mr. Clay, and its other most able supporters, is to compel 
 this nation to buy goods where they cost highest. Do we not now 
 pay, according to the statements of our opponents, $27,360,000 
 more for woollens than they can be imported for, and does not Mr. 
 Clay and other supporters of the " American System," recommend 
 that this tax should be doubled f We agree, however, fully with Mr. 
 Clay, that it would be ridiculous in Great Britain to refuse to buy 
 cotton, where it can be procured cheapest j but we answer, that our 
 cotton will no longer be the cheapest, if we refuse to receive from our 
 customers, those articles which we have heretofore received for its pay- 
 ment, and this applies equally to every other article, which we now 
 find a sale for in Great Britain.* There is, however, another rerae- 
 
 * The following is an extract of an able report " of a commilee of merchants andmanu- 
 facturers of Boston," in 1824, upon certain alterations in the Tariff, more especially in 
 the articles of cottons and woollens Let the reader recolject that the duties on woollens 
 were then 29 per cent they are now 38 per cent, and the Harrisburg convention, re- 
 commend them to be raised to 57 1-2 per cent on fine goods, such as are used by the 
 most wealthy, and from that rate up to '281 per cent on the inferior qualities. The du- 
 ties on coarse cotton goods were also considerably lower than they now are, still the 
 Harrisburg Convention, recommend an addition of 2 1-2 cents per yard, or about 15 
 or 20 per cent on all coloured and printed goods, which constituted $4,024,344 out of 
 $5,601,961 the whole amount imported for consumption in 1826. "It appears from 
 the last treasury report, that the exports of domestic produce, for the year ending 30th 
 September, 1823, amounted to $2,718,368 less than the exports of the preceding year. 
 Your committee are not aware of any circumstance to which the diminution in the ex- 
 portS'may be so fairly imputed, as to the prominent one, that the produce of the indus- 
 try of other countries, offered in exchange for domestic produce, has been admitted on- 
 ly on such unequal terms, and subject to such excessive duties, as amount to a prohibi- 
 tion ; for as commerce is but an exchange of equivalents, it is plain to your committee, 
 that little or no trade can exist between places where one refuses to receive the only equiva- 
 lent the other has to give." 
 
 " Happily in the present case, intelligent individuals of both the manufacturing and 
 mercantile classes concur in the opinion, that excessive duties, even on foreign articles, 
 similar to those manufactured in the United States, would materially injure the latter 
 class, as well as other classes connected with, and dependent upon them, without an 
 equivalent benefit to the former." 
 
 " Inconsistent and injudicious as in the opinion of your committee, are most of the de- 
 tails of the bill before us, they are insignificant compared with the principle on which it 
 is founded. This appears to be in substance that in order to bring into existence, and 
 to encourage certain branches of domestic industry, it is expedient to check or destroy 
 certain other branches of that industry, or to embarrass, if not overturn long es- 
 tablished occupations, for the sake of building up and extending new ones. But as na- 
 tional profit is but the aggregate of the profits of individuals, we cheerfully submit the 
 question to every intelligent mind, whether it is possible for any government to be so 
 well acquaiuted with the private concerns of individuals as to determine the direction of 
 individual industry, and to decide which of the varied employments of domestic industry 
 its citizens shall be compelled to choose." 
 
 This report was signed by the following gentlemen who composed the committee. 
 Part of them were woollen and cotton manufacturers, and the majority of them are still 
 very extensively concerned in one or both branches. 
 
 ISRAEL THORNDIKE, WILLIAM GODDARD, 
 
 ISAAC WINSLOW, HENRY WAINWRIGHT, 
 
 SAMEL MAY, WILLIAM STURGIS, 
 
 JOHN TAPPAN, JOSHUA BLAKE, 
 
 GEORGE BOND, THOMAS P. GUSHING, 
 
 AMOS LAWRENCE, JOHN A. LOWELL.
 
 1S8 
 
 dy pointed out by our opponents, for the loss of the foreign markets, 
 viz : that our own country would afford " an ample market" for cot- 
 ton and all our other great staples, were the principles of the " Ame- 
 rican System" once fully acted upon ; and the examination of this 
 assertion will be the subject of the next section of our report. 
 
 SECTION 17th. The object of the last section was to prove, how 
 entirely groundless were the complaints of the advocates of the non- 
 importation and non-exportation policy, against foreign nations, for 
 refusing to take our principal staples, and thus as they declare, " hav- 
 ing reached the maximum of foreign demand," we must hence- 
 forth look to our own consumption for our surplus productions. 
 
 Our intention now is, to examine an other assertion which they 
 make, viz., that our own country will afford " an ample market" for 
 our surplus produce, if the principles of the " American System" are 
 carried into full operation. 
 
 The currency which such a monstrous misrepresentation appears 
 to have obtained, among many intelligent men, who unquestionably 
 have no interest in the schemes of the party we are opposing, or if 
 they have any interests to promote, would be unwilling to impose un- 
 wise and unjust laws on the nation for their promotion shews in a 
 most striking light, the unaccountable inattention or indifference, 
 which prevails in some parts of the country, as to the effects of the 
 " American System," and the means which are resorted to, for its 
 establishment. 
 
 In conformity to the plan on which we commenced, and that our 
 readers may see that we do not mean to impute to our opponents, 
 absurd opinions and incorrect statements, which cannot be found in 
 their writings, we make such extracts from their most respectable 
 publications, as will embrace the points which we are now to discuss.* 
 From Mr. Niles we take the following : " I have no doubt the time 
 is nearly at hand, when every intelligent cotton planter, will hail the 
 Tariff as his last protection, and receive it into favour, as the grain 
 
 * The committee have adhered to this plan through the whole of the report, but there 
 is one writer on the side of our opponents, Professor List, held in great respect by 
 them for the ability with which he has sustained their cause, and from whose essays, 
 they have made fewer extracts than they otherwise should, because they would not un- 
 dertake to answer, what they could not comprehend. To show their impartiality, how- 
 ever, they now present to their readers in addition to the extracts already given, one of 
 the most argumentative and lucid passages in his letters. Although the committee 
 themselves do not pretend to penetrate the meaning of this learned and profound econo- 
 mist, there are others perhaps, who may. It is possible the extract they are about to 
 give, may bear on the very point they are now discussing, in which case, some of their 
 readers may share in that light, which our opponents say, he has thrown upon the "Ameri- 
 can System." " As these theorists confounded cosmopolitical principles, with political 
 principles, so they entirely misapprehend the object of political economy. This object 
 is not to gain matter in exchanging, matter for matter, as it is in individual and cosmo- 
 political economy, and particularly in the trade of a merchant. But it is to gain produc- 
 tive and political power, by restricting that exchange with other nations ; or to prevent 
 the depression of productive and political power, by means of exchange. They treat, 
 therefore, principally of the effects of the exchange of matter, instead of treating of pro- 
 ductive power."
 
 139 
 
 grower has always entertained it, because of the home market, able 
 and willing to balance or regulate the foreign demand, and keep up 
 the price of agricultural produce when without the encouragement 
 to domestic industry they would have declined." From Mr. Davis' 
 speech in Congress last winter, we make the following extract : " It 
 can be demonstrated, that the population engaged in the manufacture 
 of cotton and woollen goods, consumes annually a greater amount of 
 produce, than is sent to foreign markets. The population is estimat- 
 ed at nearly 300,000, but suppose we take them at 230,000." 
 
 From Mr. Tibbits' address, we extract as follows : " Foreign com- 
 merce from causes already noticed, is incapable of providing markets 
 for agricultural produce. We are to look for home markets ; and 
 those like every thing else may be improved, or may be made." 
 Again, from Mr. Niles " But there is consolation in the greater 
 cheapness of our bread-stuffs and meats, or of subsistence in the Uni- 
 ted States, with the moderate amount of taxes paid by our citizens, 
 together with the fact, that spindles and power-looms, will do as 
 much work in America as in Europe, and will enable us to manufac- 
 ture a large portion of our cotton, and meet England with our goods 
 in any part of the world." The last we shall offer, is from a speech 
 made by Mr. Stewart in Congress, last winter. We have referred 
 several times before to this gentleman, as one of the most distinguish- 
 ed supporters of the " American System," and remarkable, as has 
 been observed by one of his followers, for his " research and strength, 
 in matters of fact." Our readers will find in some of the former 
 sections, an examination of several of his " strong facts." "The 
 true policy," says Mr. Stewart, " was to make New England, instead 
 of Old England, the great theatre of our manufactures. They had 
 the capital, and their population had become sufficiently dense to jus- 
 tify its employment in this way. We shall create in our own country, 
 an ample market* for the consumption of the cotton, and sugar of the 
 south, and the wool and flour of the middle and western states, which 
 no longer found a market abroad." 
 
 We have before observed, that great efforts have been made to 
 persuade the growers of wheat and of wool, that they have already 
 been very much benefitted by the prohibitory system, and that they 
 will be still more so, when it shall be carried to its utmost extent, so 
 as to entirely exclude all such foreign articles as can be procured at 
 
 * To shew how entirely the manufacturers themselves difier from legislators who under- 
 take to regulate their interests, we give another extract from the Report referred to, page 
 93, signed by some of the most intelligent manufacturers in the country. 
 
 "The establishment of domestic manufactures would indeed create a demand at 
 home for the materials of which they are composed, but at the same time would lessen 
 the foreign demand to the same extent, because the nation which now supplies us, would 
 cease to want that quantity of the raw material, which it converts into manufactures for 
 our market. And, besides, to increase the price of such manufactures lends to diminish their 
 consumption, and consequently the demand for them and their materials. It is the di- 
 rect interest of the farmer that the raw materials, raised by him should be manufactured 
 as cheaply as possible, in order to increase this consumption and_demand."
 
 140 
 
 home. That is, when they shall pay double prices for some of the 
 most important necessaries of life, instead of the 25 to GO or 70 per 
 cent, additional rates, which are now imposed on them. 
 
 Mr. Davis contends that the cotton and woollen manufacturers 
 alone, consume a greater amount of produce than is sent to foreign 
 markets. Let us apply this to flour. 
 
 The numbers engaged in those branches, Mr. Davis puts at 
 230,000, though he thinks they may amount to nearly 300,000. The 
 consumption of flour, for that number of persons, cannot exceed 
 300,000 barrels. 
 
 Now as three fourths of the woollen manufacturers were employed 
 before the protecting system existed, and under a duty of 5 per cent., 
 and probably half the cotton manufacturers, it reduces the number of 
 consumers depending on the " American System," to 125,000 per- 
 sons, but as we think Mr. Davis may have understated his own case, 
 we call them 200,000, which would give the wheat-growers an addi- 
 tional demand for 200,000 barrels, at 5 dollars per barrel is 1,000,000 
 dollars for the benefit of, perhaps. 3,000,000 persons, mainly depen- 
 dant on that staple. 
 
 The amount exported, of wheat, flour, and biscuit, in 1825, jyas 
 4,446,679 dollars, and in 1826, 4,411,870 dollars. 
 
 This is sufficient to show how utterly unfounded is the statement 
 of Mr. Davis, for even though we should call the numbers 300,000, 
 the amount consumed would only be, 1,500,000 dollars. The ex- 
 port of flour, wheat and biscuit, for 1823, amounted to 5,151,437 
 dollars, and for 1824, 5,977,255 dollars, and in a former year to 
 upwards of three times the amount of this latter sum, and we may 
 look forward to a still greater demand, in years of even moderate 
 scarcity in Great Britain, when the contemplated modifications in 
 their corn laws are made. 
 
 There is, however, another class of customers almost entirely 
 dependant on foreign trade, who consume the flour of the middle 
 states. We mean the cotton, tobacco, and rice-planters of the south, 
 and the navigating, commercial, and mechanic interests of the north, 
 east, and south, which we will take at 4,000,000 persons. 
 
 Here are consumers of 20,000,000 dollars worth of bread, many 
 of whom will be driven to the cultivation of bread-stuffs, even if the 
 existing Tariff of duties is maintained, and a large proportion of 
 them, if the prohibitory system is extended any further. Our oppo- 
 nents argue the question as if the protecting system did not already 
 prevail to a great extent,* but that is so far from being true, that we 
 
 uiHMuiiiu L; i\* a jMuiiimumi. jins was me uimi cider WHICH ivir. VYeusivr gavt: 10 me 
 tariff of 1816. The existing one, imposes higher rates on the most important articles of 
 consumption, and yet our opponents affect to consider Mr. Webster as advocating their
 
 141 
 
 have reduced the importations of the principal staples of trade (man- 
 ufactures we more particularly mean) to almost nothing. 
 
 It appears by the Custom House returns, that our imports of cot- 
 ton and woollen goods for consumption for 1826, do not amount to * 
 more than one-ninth of all we consume. It is then true, beyond all 
 question, that we have made great progress in the establishment of 
 the " American System," and we would now appeal to the wheat- 
 grower, whether his staple is more valuable than from 1814 to 1817, 
 or any other period, prior to the changein our policy, from free trade * 
 to that of restriction^ This is a question which every one of them 
 can answer for himself. That they are not so well off as they were 
 before the year 1816, is notorious, and it is equally certain that their 
 condition will be much worse than it now is, at every advance we 
 make towards that object which our opponents have in view. 
 
 We have still another question to put to the wheat-growers. What 
 annual tax do they pay for the support of the " American System ?" 
 We contend, that if woollens can be imported 38 per cent, cheaper 
 than they can be made at home, (and the manufacturers say thay 
 can SO or even 120 per cent, cheaper) then the nation now pays 
 an annual tax of $23,940,000, and if we allow 3,000,000 for the 
 wheat-growers, their portion of it is $5,985,000. This is the sum 
 they pay on one single article. 
 
 Let the wheat-growers, and all other agriculturists, keep this 
 principle in mind, that if we buy, we must also sell, to provide the 
 means of paying for what we buy. If we import foreign goods, we 
 must export domestic produce to pay for them ; in proportion, there- 
 fore, as we import more foreign goods, we shall create by the impor- 
 tation a new demand for agricultural produce. 
 
 The non-importation system, therefore, not only makes the consumers 
 pay from 25 to 60 or 70 percent, more for some of the leading articles 
 of consumption, but diminishes the value of the whole produce of 
 the farmer, by depriving him of a market for that surplus produce, 
 on which his revenue mainly depends. There is no class of people 
 more interested in resisting the prohibitory or " American System," 
 as it is improperly termed, than the farmers,* 
 
 "It has been asserted, that this new project will be beneficial to agriculture ; that 
 though the farmer will pay a higher price for all he buys, and be taxed more than ever 
 for the support of government, yet that he will be compensated for this, by the creation 
 of another or better market for the produce of the soil. 1$ this true ? That produce 
 consists of articles of food or of the raw materials of manufactures. How is it possible 
 that manufactures should extend the demand for food ? Surely it will not be pretended, 
 in spite of our oivn experience and that of all mankind, that manufacturing countries 
 increase most rapidly in population, or that they require greater means of subsistence 
 than others. The farmer feeds all the inhabitants of the country now, and here he can 
 do no more. Since then tho demand for food cannot be increased, the price can be 
 raised only by diminishing-the supply. If many, now engaged in cultivating the soil, 
 are forced to quit the pursuit, the quantity of food raised may become less, and the 
 price of course greater. Thus farmers are to be driven from their present employment 
 to seek subsistence in another, and fields now under culture and laden with plants, are 
 to be abandoned to desolation ; and all this for ihc extension and encouragement of agri- 
 
 19
 
 142 
 
 Although the agriculturists generally have been, and are now 
 great sufferers by the prohibitory system, perhaps there is no portion 
 of them ivhose interests have been so deeply injured as those of the 
 , wool-growers. Previous to the adoption of the non-importation 
 policy in 1816, that branch of agriculture flourished in common with 
 all others, but owing to the excessive stimulus given to it by the 
 increased duties on wool, and the expectation of still higher rates to 
 be obtained hereafter, an undue amount of capital was forced into 
 that business, and the wool has in consequence fallen so low, as to 
 afford (according to the statements which are published) a very 
 inadequate return for the capital and labour employed in its pro- 
 duction. 
 
 The woollen manufacturers have endeavoured to persuade the 
 wool-grower that he had an interest in common with themselves, in 
 establishing the high duty system, and that he shared equally in its 
 benefits. We have shown in Sections 2d and 3d, how entirely the 
 wool-growers had been deceived in such an expectation, and, indeed, 
 some of the most intelligent of them seem to think it never was the 
 intention of the manufacturers, that they should participate largely 
 in the advantages of the monopoly, and it is extraordinary any of 
 them could have thought otherwise, since their interests and those of 
 the manufacturers are directly in opposition to each other. The 
 wool-grower wants a high price for his staple, while it is indis- 
 pensable that the manufacturer should have it at a low rate. 
 
 To show the opinions entertained of the manufacturers by the 
 wool-growers and their representatives, we extract the following from 
 the speech of Mr. Sheppard, an intelligent wool-grower, (as we are 
 informed) at the Boston Woollens Convention in June : " The 
 flocks of the farmers were not worth preserving during the past 
 winter. Farmers actually let them die." " The delegates who 
 went from this State last winter, did not properly represent the inter- 
 
 cullure. Yet, though the domestic market for food could not be thus increased, the 
 foreign market might, and would be diminished; for we cannot afford to export our pro- 
 ductions to other countries, iinltss ice can take what thty can give us in return. 
 JVow our farmer understands very well, that a foreign demand for his produce benefits 
 him by advancing the price, not only of that which w actually exported, BUT OF THE WHOLE 
 QUANTITY RAISED ; he obtains more money FOR ALL thai he sells, whether it is to be con- 
 sumed at home, or abroad. Again " Some appear to imagine that our soil must always 
 produce the same quantity, and that we have only to determine whether it shall be made 
 use of at home or abroad. But this is not so. The productions of agriculture are crea- 
 ted by the call for them. The existence of more grain and cotton than we actually use, 
 is only the consequence of the demand for exportation. Destroy the cause, as would be 
 done by prohibiting importations, and what will become of the effect?" 
 
 The above are extracts from the report referred to, page 93, approved of unanimously 
 at a meeting of citizens of this town and vi'inity, and signed by a committee of 27 of 
 the principal merchants, mechanics, and citizens, comprising some of the most intel- 
 ligent and extensive manufacturers, and most of whom have since greatly extended 
 their concerns. The duty on woollens at this time was 29 per cent. it is now 38 per 
 cent. Our opponents called, at the last session of Congress, for an average rate of 80 
 per cent. ; but the Harrisbtirg Convention deeming that insufficient, ask for an average 
 of about 120 per cent., and they call also for an increase of duties on coloured and 
 printed goods, which now pay on the average 50 per cent, of 2 1-2 cents per yard, or 
 about 15 or 20 per cent, on the average cost of them in Europe.
 
 143 
 
 ests of the wool-growers. He believed in fact, that they did not act 
 in good faith towards this class of the community." The following 
 is from a speech of Mr. Buchanan, member of Congress, address- 
 ed to his constituents, at a woollens meeting in June, at Lancaster, 
 Pennsylvania: "Did the woollens bill sufficiently protect the grow- 
 ers of wool? I answer confidently, that it did not. In regard to 
 them, it was a mere delusion. Indeed the manufacturers at first did 
 not intend that any additional duty should be imposed upon the im- 
 portation of foreign wool. To the ability and perseverance of a 
 representative of this state, (Mr. Stevenson, of Pittsburg,) we are 
 indebted, that any provision was made in the bill in favour of the 
 growers of wool." This statement has been confirmed by various 
 other gentlemen, and among them by Mr. Stevenson himself referred 
 to by Mr. Buchanan, and who was one of the committee of manu- 
 factures, which originated the Tariff bill, that passed the house of 
 Representatives last winter. Both Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Steven- 
 son were originally in favor of some modifications of the Tariff, for 
 the further promotion of manufactures, but are unwilling to sacrifice 
 all the other interests of the country, to effect that object. They 
 are among the most intelligent and respectable members of the house, 
 representing wool-growers and manufacturers, and their statements 
 may be implicitly relied upon. 
 
 But it is now contended by our opponents, that the Harrisburg 
 Tariff has provided for the wool-growers. We shall be able to as- 
 certain the truth of that assertion, by comparing the rates of duty 
 recommended in the Harrisburg memorial, with the existing duties on 
 wool. All wool costing 10 cents or .under, now pays 15 per cent. 
 If costing above 10 cents, pays 30 per cent. The memorial recom- 
 mends a duty of 15 per cent, on wools costing 8 cents or under, 
 and 20 cents per pound, on wool costing over 8 cents a pound. Now 
 the operation of the new duties as regards the manufacturers, de- 
 pends on the qualities of foreign wool which they chiefly require, 
 and the best mode of ascertaining that point, is to see what kinds 
 they have heretofore imported. If the reader will turn to the 3d 
 Section, he will see that the importation for 1825, was 
 
 669,375 pounds, estimated to cost 8 cents, and paying 15 per 
 cent. duty. 
 
 859,877 pounds, estimated to cost 60 cents, and paying 30 per 
 
 cent. duty. 
 
 1,529,252 
 
 The return for 1826, which was not in our possession when that 
 Section was written, gives 106,704 dollars, which paid 15 per cent, 
 duty, and must therefore have cost 10 cents or under, we estimate it 
 as before at 8 cents, which gives 1,338,800 
 
 paying 15 per cent duty 343,021 dollars estimated 
 at 60 cents cost, paying 30 per cent. duty. 571,701 
 
 pounds 1,910,501
 
 144 
 
 The rate of duty on the low priced wool, which comprises the 
 largest proportion of foreign wool used, is the same in both Tariffs. 
 The duty on the fine wools, under the existing Tariff, at 30 per cent, 
 which is in fact 34 per cent, on the cost of 60 cents a pound, is 21 
 and two-fifths cents a pound, while under the Harrishurg Tariff, the 
 same quality would pay but 20 cents a pound ; but if we extend the 
 comparison to still finer qualities, the advantage of the Harrisburg 
 over the existing Tariff, to the manufacturers, will be still more evi- 
 dent. Fine Saxon wool, costing 100 cents a pound, now pays 34 
 per cent., or 34 cents a pound, but under the new rates, asked for 
 by the convention, which met to promote the interests of the ivool- 
 growers, THE RATE WOULD ONLY BE 20 CENTS A POUND. It is true 
 that the rate on all the qualities subject to the 20 cents duty, goes on 
 increasing gradually till it rises to 50 cents a pound, but that can be 
 of little or no benefit to the wool-growers, because the quantity of 
 fine wool required, is inconsiderable, and within a few years, as we 
 shall presently show, we must have more of this staple than can be 
 consumed. 
 
 But admitting, however, that our views of the Harrisburg Tariff 
 are incorrect, and that if adopted by Congress, it will operate favor- 
 ably to the wool-grower; or going still further, if we suppose that 
 Congress absolutely prohibits the importation, and that not another 
 pound should be introduced into the country, we would ask how the 
 condition of the wool-grower is to be improved ? 
 
 We have already shown by estimates founded on the most approved 
 statements of our opponents, that the consumption of wool, is about 
 40,000,000 pounds, and we have proved by Custom House docu- 
 ments, that the proportion of foreign cannot exceed 2,000,000 Ibs., 
 and consequently a very small addition to the number of sheep owned 
 in the United States in 1826, will carry up the produce beyond the 
 wants of the manufacturers, and when we have reached that state, 
 what is to be done with the surplus ? It cannot be sent abroad, for 
 our opponents have told us, that it is lower in all parts of the world 
 than in this. We say then, whenever the period shall arrive, (and 
 it must come within a year or two,) that there is an excess beyond 
 the consumption of wool, even though it should be only a few per 
 , cent., prices must fall much below what they now are. The wool- 
 growers will be told perhaps, that entire prohibition of foreign wool- 
 lens, (which must be the effect of the Harrisburg Tariff,) will in- 
 crease the demand for wool, which is certainly true, but not however 
 to any great extent. Our consumption of woollens we have taken 
 at 72,000,000 dollars the amount imported for 1826, after allowing 
 for the re-exportation, is, 7,445,444 dollars. Now if those were 
 common staple goods, of equal weight with the domestic, we should 
 allow about 4,500,000 pounds for an increased consumption of wool, 
 but as a large proportion are mixed goods, hosiery, and fine broad- 
 cloths and cassimeres, many of which will not be made here for
 
 145 
 
 some years to come, the utmost addition which can be made to the 
 present consumption of wool, after the Harrisburg Tariff gets into 
 operation, will be 2,000,000 pounds. It will be perceived that in 
 estimating the produce of wool, we have taken the year 1826, but 
 since that time there is reason to believe the number of sheep have 
 been increased ; we have no means of ascertaining to what extent, 
 but shall refer to a source of information which will perhaps be satis- 
 factory to our opponents. It is stated in an address to the people of 
 Kentucky, by the delegates from that state to the Harrisburg Con- 
 vention, that, " the number of sheep in the United States, is estimated 
 at 18,000,000; and their fleeces are estimated at 2 1-2 pounds * 
 each, equal to 45,000,000 Ibs. If this is correct, then the produce 
 of wool is already adequate to the entire consumption of the country, 
 even though we did not import a yard of woollens of any quality. But 
 whether this is true or not at this moment, it is impossible to ascer- 
 tain, but unquestionably the time cannot be far distant, when such will 
 be the unfortunate predicament of the wool-grower. It is thus, that to 
 the wool-grower, the prohibitory or high duty system is productive 
 of double mischief. By preventing a free importation of cheap fa- 
 brics, it compels him to pay 25 to 60 or 70 per cent for taxes on 
 some of the first necessaries of life, which are still to be increased, if 
 our opponents succeed ; and on the other hand, he has been allured 
 by the stimulus of high duties, into too great an extension of a branch 
 of agriculture for the surplus produce of which there can be no sale, 
 as there is no other country to which it can be sent ; he must therefore 
 destroy part of his stock, or within a short period submit to ruinous 
 prices for his staple. We feel pretty confident that the statements 
 offered in support of our view of the wool-grower's case, cannot be 
 controverted, but we do not ask him to rely on them, without such 
 an examination as will satisfy him of their correctness. We tell the 
 wool-growers frankly, that we are as unfriendly to their pretensions 
 as those of the woollen manufacturers, but if they can once be con- 
 vinced, that the whole system of restrictions and prohibitions, is as 
 injurious to them as to all other classes, and we contend it is even 
 more so, we hope they will join with the national party, in resisting it. 
 We now call the attention of our readers to the all important arti- 
 cle of cotton, which notwithstanding what is said by our opponents, 
 we have almost as great an interest in, as the cotton planters. 
 
 For the mere transport alone and the charges connected with it, the 
 Northern States receive about $5,000,000, and we cannot doubt 
 that at least $10,000,000 more of the proceeds of the crop are ex- 
 pended in the northern sections, for manufactures, provisions, &c. We 
 are led to infer then, from the statements of our opponents, that we 
 shall find a home demand for all which foreigners refuse to pur- 
 chase, even though it should be nearly all we produce. 
 
 The quantity exported from the cotton ports this last season, has 
 been about 970,000 bales, to which may be added perhaps, 30,000
 
 146 
 
 more, consumed in the interior of the cotton states, and never sent to 
 > the coast, making the whole crop about 1,000,000 bales. The most 
 exaggerated estimate of the home consumption we have seen, is 
 175,000 bales, which we are willing to admit, though we apprehend 
 - it is too large. Now if the " American System" was in complete 
 operation, so as to exclude all foreign cloths, then we should require 
 an additional quantity of the material, equal to what is used in our 
 imported goods. The import for 1826, of plain and coloured cotton 
 goods was $7,316,749 
 
 Deduct the amount re-exported, - - 1,714,788 
 
 Amount retained for home consumption, $5,601,961 
 
 As the import for consumption had fallen off upwards of three and 
 a half millions, from 1825 to 1826, inconsequence of the excessive 
 duties imposed on cotton goods, it is reasonable to suppose there 
 will be a great decrease this year, but we will call the import 
 $5,000,000, and adding 65 per cent, for charges, the importation will 
 
 , cost the consumers $8,250,000. 
 
 The consumption of white linens and cotton goods, is estimated by 
 Mr. Niles to be $45,000,000 and if we add 15,000,000 for printed and 
 coloured, the whole would be $60,000,000, from which deducting 
 $10,000,000, for linen goods, the consumption of cotton goods would 
 be $50,000,000. We should think this too low an estimate, but we 
 adopt it, as founded on an authority which will be satisfactory to our 
 opponents. If then, we ceased entirely to import cotton goods, and 
 none should be smuggled, (which is, indeed, improbable under such 
 enormous premiums as are offered by our Tariff,* to an active com- 
 mercial people bordering on our almost uninhabited frontier, of some 
 hundreds of miles,) we should add one fifth to the 175,000 bales of 
 cotton now consumed, provided the imported goods were of similar 
 qualities to the domestic, but as they are nearly all fine and light ar- 
 
 * The following extract from a report of Mr. Crawford in 1820, while Secretary of 
 the Treasury, (and who certainly for talents and knowledge as a statesman, ranks high) 
 shews the views he entertained, of one of the worst efiects of high duties, when the rates 
 were much below what they now are. 
 
 " Indeed, there isjust reason to believe, that with the present rates of duly the practice 
 t of smuggling is gradually increasing, considering the facilities which the extent of our 
 coasts and frontiers, and the numerous harbours, bays, inlets, and rivers, by which they^.are 
 indented, furnish for the illicit introduction of foreign merchandise. The settled policy 
 of the government has been to diminish as far as practicable, the temptation which hiph 
 duties would furnish to take advantage of these facilities." Every reflecting man will 
 assent to this opinion, our opponents themselves assert that even under a duty of 38 per 
 cent, the most extensive frauds are practised bv the importing merchants, and foreign- 
 ers. Yet they advocate duties 57 1-2 percent, to 281 percent, and some of them too, un- 
 der the pretence of promoting and guarding the revenue!!! But is there any man so 
 simple, as to believe such rates can be collected, or that the most extensive smuggling 
 is riot now carried on, not however, in our cities, (and we hope not by our citizens.) but 
 on those extensive frontiers, to which Mr. C. refers. What becomes of the 6<M>0 tons 
 of teas imported into Canada and Nova Scotia, where not half the quantity can be con- 
 sumed ? The China merchants can tell the high duty party, that one half at least are 
 * introduced into this country, to their manifest injury, and to the great loss of revenue to 
 the nation.
 
 147 
 
 tides, or coloured goods, in which the material forms only a very 
 small portion of their value, it will be nearer the truth to add one 
 seventh, and this would bring the home consumption of cotton to 
 200,000 bales. That this is too high we have before observed, and 
 it will appear more evidently so, by a comparison with the consump- 
 tion of Great Britain and France. If we take the population of the 
 former country at 22,000,000, and ours at 12,000,000, an allowance 
 of 200,000 bales for the United States, would carry her consumption 
 up to 360,666 bales, whereas we have estimated it at 335,000 bales; 
 and if we allow the population of France and Switzerland, (furnished 
 with cotton by France) to be 34,000,000, if they consumed in pro- 
 portion to us, they would require 578,000 bales, which is more than 
 double of what they actually consumed in 1825. It would appear, 
 then, that if we did not import a dollar's worth of cotton cloths, and 
 that none were introduced clandestinely, the utmost extent of the 
 home consumption, according to the most extravagant conjectures of 
 our opponents, would be 200,000 bales, leaving a balance of 800, 000 
 bales, to be disposed of by the supporters of the " American System." 
 But we ask our opponents how this surplus is to be disposed of? what , 
 are we to do with these 800,000 bales of cotton, (and still more with 
 the 1,200,000 bales excess, which we may perhaps have within a few 
 years) when by our non-importation laws, we shall have disabled 
 Europeans from trading with us, by refusing the only articles which 
 they can offer in exchange for our produce? 
 
 The advocates for non-importation and non-exportation, tell us in 
 the extracts we have given, that a great part of this material, can be 
 worked up into goods, for the supply of those nations who now de- 
 pend on Great Britain, and they assert this too, at the same moment, 
 when these very men are calling for, additions to 30, 40, and 
 even 90 per cent duties, to enable our manufacturers to compete with 
 the foreign manufacturers, in our own market ! ! " But what," says 
 Mr. Niles, " are the effects of the Tariff ? The best market for Vir- 
 ginia cotton is at home. Virginia obtains cotton goods cheaper than 
 she ever did, and* the nabobs of Waltham, are rivalled in many places, 
 so that the whole manufacture is reduced to the lowest point of profit 
 that it will bear, so low, that we undersell the British in every foreign 
 
 * There is no class of men, who have been assailed in more reproachful terms, by the 
 party against which we are contending-, than the " Nabobs of fValtham ;" by whom we 
 understand our opponents to mean, not only the proprietors of that particular establish- 
 ment, but generally those enlightened and high minded manufacturers in this town and ri- 
 cinily, who although having a deep interest involved in the business, hare always refused to 
 join in applications to government for additional duties. Yet these are the men, who by 
 their talents and enterprise, have been more instrumental than any others, in extending 
 and improving this valuable and important branch of industry, and who arc constantly 
 making advances to still greater perfection. They were satisfied with the rates granted 
 in 1816, and have disapproved of, and some of them joined in resisting the additions, 
 which have since been made to them. Such indeed are the opinions still entertained in 
 this quarter, we will not say by all, but certainly by many of the most intelligent cotton 
 manufacturers ; and they will never, we think, give their sanction to the system we are 
 resisting.
 
 148 
 
 market at which our goods are received on the same terms as their own. 
 These unquestionable facts, are worth a whole library of specula- 
 tions, apply them as you will." " These unquestionable facts" are 
 repeated by Mr. Tibbits and others. " Cotton goods," remarks Mr. 
 Tibbits, " have become at this time a great, if not the surest article 
 
 t for exportation, which we have. The coarse cotton cloths of this 
 country, now have the preference in the South American markets over 
 the cloths of England, made for like purposes; and they bid fair to 
 supplant them in all foreign markets, where cloths of both countries 
 find admittance and a market." 
 
 With regard to our export of domestic cotton goods, we have al- 
 ready shown by Custom House documents, that the amount export- 
 ed in 1826, being more than in any preceding year, was only 
 1,138,125 dollars, which compared with British export of the same 
 article for 1825, ($150,985,000) was only two thirds of one per 
 cent. Mr. Tibbits observes, " that it is said, the United States ex- 
 ported 4,000,000 dollars, cotton goods in 1S25." On turning to the 
 official list of articles exported in 1825, we find the " non-enume- 
 rated" item, (under which cotton goods were included till the last 
 year) was but 2,560,682 dollars, of which cottons may have made up 
 a third. But it is in South America more particularly, where we 
 are to find markets, by underselling the British with cotton goods, 
 and the exaggerated statements of the extent of our shipments to that 
 quarter, have imposed such a belief on the minds of many intelligent 
 rnen, especially among the cotton manufacturers. On referring to 
 the export list of 1825, we find as we have just observed, no sepa- 
 rate return of domestic cotton goods, but if we take one third of the 
 amount of the non-enumerated articles of manufactures, it would 
 give us for the whole amount of export of domestic cotton goods, 
 only 853,621 dollars, of which, perhaps, two thirds, or 569,081 dol- 
 lars, went to Mexico and South America. 
 
 In the same year, our export of foreign cotton goods, plain and 
 printed, amounted to 1,810,591 dollars, of which 1,106,214 dollars, 
 or about double the amount of our domestic, went to Mexico and 
 South America. In 1826, our whole export of cotton goods, was 
 $1,138,125, of which $711,959 went to Mexico and South Ameri- 
 ca, while of foreign cotton goods, to all quarters, we exported 
 
 , $1,714,788, of which $901,849 were shipped to Mexico and 
 South America. 
 
 It appears, then, from indisputable evidence, that we import cotton 
 goods from Europe at an expense of 20 per cent, and re-export 
 them in larger quantities than we do our own fabrics, to those very 
 markets, where our opponents say, " we can undersell British manu- 
 factures ! .'" To this re-exportation of foreign cotton goods from our 
 own country, may be added, perhaps, nearly as large an amount ex- 
 ported on American account, direct from Europe to various quarters 
 of the world, other than the United States.
 
 149 
 
 The committee beg leave to invite the attention of the reader to a 
 comparison of this statement, with the assertions of our opponents, 
 and which they term " unquestionable facts." They assert, that the 
 home market, if we exclude foreign cotton goods, will afford an am- 
 ple market for all our surplus produce ; and one of them says, 
 " the cotton and woollen manufacturers alone, consume a greater 
 amount of produce than is sent to foreign markets." 
 
 We prove, and chiefly from their own data, that 800,000 bales of 
 cotton, were we to rely on our country for consumption, would be 
 unconsurned, if we did not import ayard of cotton cloth. They assert, 
 " that we undersell the British in every foreign market, at which our 
 goods are received on the same terms as their own." We prove, 
 from the most authentic documents, that the British exported in 1825, 
 cotton manufactures to the amount of $150,895,000, while our 
 export of that article in 1825 did not probably exceed $853,621, 
 and that to those very markets where our manufactures are said to 
 have such a preference as to " bid fair to supplant those of England." 
 We sent nearly double as many British manufactures, as of our own. 
 
 Let us now see what was the export of cotton goods from Great 
 Britain to South America. On reference to the official list of exports 
 from Great Britain for the year ending 5th January, 1826, we find 
 the export of British produce and manufactures (nearly all the lat- 
 ter) was upwards of $40,000,000. The amount of each particular 
 article we have no means of ascertaining, but as cotton goods made 
 up two-thirds of the amount of the whole export of produce and 
 manufactures from England, there can be no doubt that at least 
 $25,000,000 of the $40,000,000, were in cotton goods, to which 
 may be added a considerable amount shipped indirectly through their 
 own colonies and other West India Islands, to which were sent in the 
 same year, $38,000,000 of British produce and manufactures. The 
 exports to the British West India Islands, and their colonies adjoining 
 this country, amounted to upwards of $30,000,000, no inconsid- 
 erable portion of which were either introduced into the United States, 
 or re-shipped to South America. The probability is, that the direct 
 and indirect shipments of British cotton goods for 1825 to Mexico 
 and South America, did not fall short of $35,000,000, which would 
 not allow above two-fifths the consumption for those countries, which 
 is estimated to be consumed in the United States, nor one quarter of 
 what is consumed in Great Britain. 
 
 The committee have gone into this minute examination of the 
 consumption of cotton and cotton manufactures, to show how entirely 
 delusive the notion is, that when we have compelled the manufac- 
 turers of Europe to buy their cotton elsewhere than in this country, 
 that we can find a vent for it in the manufactured state, in this 
 country and South America. If, indeed, it should be proved that we 
 could expel the British manufacturers from this continent, and have all 
 the markets entirely to ourselves, we could only get rid of one-sixth 
 20
 
 150 
 
 of our present surplus, to say nothing of the increasing excess, which 
 we may every year anticipate. 
 
 It may be well to remark, that among those South Americans, we 
 propose to supply with manufactures, there are twice as many culti- 
 vators of cotton as in this country, ivho depend on Great Britain for 
 the purchase of that staple, and are willing and desirous of taking 
 manufactures in exchange. But we shall again be met by Mr. 
 Clay's declaration, that do what we will in excluding British manu- 
 factures, " she must take our cotton because it is cheapest, and it 
 would be ridiculous in her to do otherwise." We answer a second 
 time, that this is reasoning against his own system, which is, to buy 
 goods where they will cost the most, provided we employ domestic 
 labour and capital, although the obvious effect of his principles, 
 as we have shown, is to diminish the demand for labour, by destroy- 
 ing the capital on which labour must depend. 
 
 It is unquestionably the interest of Great Britain, to buy her cot- 
 ton of us, as long as we are willing to exchange it for such articles 
 as she can supply, and thus furnish that employment for her capital and 
 labour, which she does to our capital and labour, in taking the produc- 
 tions of our soil ;but when we cease to admit her staples of trade, she 
 must necessarily resort to the Brazils, Egypt, and the East Indies, where 
 . this staple can be had in exchange for her produce and manufactures.* 
 
 The non-importation system will have the same operation upon 
 our trade with France, Holland, and all other countries, as upon the 
 trade with Great Britain. It is of no importance what may be their 
 disposition towards us, or how low our productions are, they cannot 
 buy of us, unless ive buy of them. This is the essence of commerce, 
 and it cannot exist on any other terms. 
 
 Some of our opponents contend that Great Britain is about to 
 abandon her system of free trade, and return to her former one of 
 restrictions and monopolies, and assert this as a reason why we should 
 adhere to, and extend our restrictive policy. But there are no indi- 
 cations that Great Britain will change her policy. She has already 
 experienced too many benefits from its abandonment, to envy us any 
 of the advantages we may derive from the adoption of her rejected 
 policy. It would be doing great injustice to the wise and experienced 
 men who are now at the head of affairs in Great Britain, to imagine 
 they will not proceed still further in the course of reform, and make 
 such other changes as the national interest requires. The individual 
 
 * Extract from Mr. Webster's Speech on the Tariffof 1824: "Protection, when carried 
 to the point which is now recommended, that is, to entire prohibition, seems to me, de- 
 structive of all commercial intercourse between nations. We are urged to adopt the sys- 
 tem upon general principles ; and what would be the consequence of the universal appli- 
 cation of such a general principle, but that nations would abstain entirely from all inter- 
 course with one another ? / do not admit the general principle ; on the contrary, [think 
 freedom of trade to be the general principle, and restriction the exception." It should be 
 ' recollected by our readers, that at this time the duties on cottons and woollens were 
 lower than they now are.
 
 151 
 
 (Mr. Huskisson) who more immediately presides over their com- 
 mercial regulations and policy, has been pronounced by Mr. Web- 
 ster, "one of the most clear and sensible writers and speakers of the 
 age, on subjects of this nature," and by the late Mr. Canning, " the 
 ablest and most efficient man of business in the Kingdom." 
 
 To the praises of these eminent men, (no mean judges, as all will 
 allow, of talents and of merit,) it may with equal truth be added, 
 that Mr. Huskisson is also one of the most virtuous men, and suc- 
 cessful statesmen, his country ever produced. 
 
 That the restrictive system is a vicious one, has for a long time 
 been acknowledged in all the most enlightened parts of the world, 
 and more especially in England. No statesman or economist of any 
 eminence, no writers, practical or theoretic, whom it would not be 
 discreditable for a legislator to quote, has, for many years, pretended 
 to defend the principles on which it is founded. Mr. Huskisson, 
 therefore, only maintained, in common with other intelligent men, 
 the principles of free trade, but his peculiar merit, lies in reducing 
 those principles to practice ; in the skill and address he has displayed 
 in breaking down most of those monopolies and restraints, which, 
 from having grown out of many centuries of bad legislation, had 
 become incorporated with all the great interests of the country, and 
 were, therefore, difficult and dangerous to be removed. But what 
 is still more to be admired in the character of Mr. Huskisson, is that 
 firmness of principle, and that moral courage, with which (during a 
 long political life) he has borne and resisted the clamours of the 
 ignorant and the sneers of the malignant, who were too dull to com- 
 prehend the scope of his plans, or to grasp their results or too 
 selfish to tolerate a man whose measures they imagined might be 
 injurious to their personal views, though it must have been obvious to 
 them, that he could be actuated by no other than the most disinter- 
 ested and patriotic motives. 
 
 Nothing, however, could drive this upright and inflexible minister 
 from that bold, but well defined course, which his own good sense 
 and the lasting welfare of his country, had pointed out to him 
 as the path of usefulness and of fame ; and he has lived to see the 
 day, when those who formerly made the most strenuous efforts to 
 obstruct his measures, are now anxious to be numbered among his 
 warmest eulogists. 
 
 They have at last realized, what his superior sagacity enabled him 
 always to foresee, that his system, when fairly in operation, would 
 not only disappoint all their fears, but would promote those very inter- 
 ests, which his opponents imagined were in the greatest danger from 
 his reforms. That there are men of some distinction in England, 
 who, lingering behind the age, still cling to the fallacious and explod- 
 ed notions of their ancestors, is not to be denied, but it is equally 
 true, that they have lost both their power and influence, as has 
 been most clearly and most happily demonstrated, by the events
 
 152 
 
 of the past year, when they were so signally defeated, in the last 
 struggle, it is to be hoped, they will ever make, in favour of those 
 restraints upon the occupations and interests of men, which our op- 
 ponents are now attempting to impose upon this nation. 
 
 * Since, then, Mr. Huskisson has so well succeeded in all his 
 experiments, as to win the entire approbation and confidence of the 
 most active and intelligent portion of the British nation, what rea- 
 sons have our opponents to believe, as they sometimes affect to, that 
 he will retrace his steps, and lake back a worthless system, which 
 he has taken so much pains to destroy ? 
 
 That they should earnestly desire to witness a failure of Mr. Hus- 
 kisson's plans and all other plans for the promotion of free trade ; to 
 see him renouncing those liberal and just principles by which he has 
 been governed all his life, that they may have his example and au- 
 thority to sustain the narrow and selfish schemes they have in view, 
 is most natural ; but we think, nothing can be more desperate than 
 such an expectation. 
 
 Although Mr. Huskisson and his associates, f who all cordially 
 
 * We give the following extract from a speech of Mr. Gladstone, an eminent mer- 
 chant and member of Parliament, addressed to the constituents of Mr. Htiskisson, at 
 Liverpool, on the occasion of Mr. Huskisson's offering himself as a candidate for re- 
 election, as their representative in Parliament, in September. It shows the estimation 
 in which Mr. Huskisson is held, and at the same time, the views entertained by intelli- 
 gent men in England, of the practical benefits experienced from the free trade system, 
 which our opponents affect to believe, is about to be abandoned by Great Britain. 
 " They had all experienced and admired the skill and perseverance with which he had 
 applied the powers of his great mind to the advancement of the trade of the country in 
 all its branches. But it was also known to them, that he had not escaped the attacks 
 of the most envenomed rancour and calumny, and that his measures had been assailed 
 as pregnant with mischief and destruction to the best interests of the country. They 
 would remember the violent opposition that was raised against his first attempts to relax 
 the restrictive regulations, by which the silk manufacture in this country was supposed 
 to be upheld ; the predictions of distress and ruin to all engaged in it ; the loss of prop- 
 erty to the manufacturer; the cessation of employment to the workmen ; the throwing 
 of thousands of people out of work, and consequently an enormous increase of the 
 charge upon the poor rates, all which were denounced as the natural effects of his mea- 
 sures. But look at the result ! ! That branch of manufacture, the destruction of w hich 
 was foretold, was now in a state of prosperity, which it had never before known." 
 " There was another question, in which he (Mr. Gladstone) had formerly taken part 
 himself; he meant the change which had taken place in connexion with our navigation 
 laws. He had certainly looked with considerable jealousj' at the concessions which 
 were made in furtherance of thereciprocal system, particularly to Prussia. He was free 
 to confess he had been in error upon that point." " In all his measures affecting the 
 trade and navigation of the country, he was convinced that Mr. Huskisson had always 
 been desirous of promoting the interests of the ship owner, wherever he was able to do 
 eo, consistently with the other great interests of the country." 
 
 t Since the death of Mr. Canning, Mr. Huskisson has been transferred from the 
 Board of Trade to another department of the Government, but his successor, Mr. 
 Charles Grant, (formerly Vice President of the Board) possesses the same liberal and 
 just views, with regard to commerce, that Mr. Huskisson does and always has done, 
 and he would not have been elevated to his present situation, had he held any other 
 opinions. Lord Goderich, the Prime Minister, who, while Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 gave Mr. H. a most able and cordial support, unites in the same views ; while on the 
 other hand, the Marquis of Landsdowne, at the head of the Whig interest, and one of 
 the most enlightened and popular noblemen in England, is equally favourable to the 
 free trade system, and has never been otherwise. In fact, not only are these leading 
 men in the Cabinet, as well as all the other members of it, agreed upon this point, but they
 
 153 
 
 participate in his views, will not abandon their principles of free trade, 
 yet may they not deem it incumbent on them, on the score of policy, 
 to meet the restrictions and prohibitions of this country, by similar 
 measures, in the hopes of removing those obstructions which are so 
 injurious to their trade as well as our own ? 
 
 This is the course which England has been forced to adopt 
 towards France, because the latter country from being hampered by 
 those restraints which descended to them from their barbarous and 
 ignorant ancestors, would not come into the free trade system ; 
 and the consequence has been, an almost entire commercial non- 
 intercourse. 
 
 It appears from official statements, as we noticed in a former 
 section, that the whole import and export trade between France 
 and England for 1825, amounted only to $14,574,692, exceeding 
 by only $783,501, our direct trade with Cuba last year, and far 
 less than the aggregate of our transactions with that Island. 
 
 Here, then, is another instance to show the different results of a 
 free, unrestricted trade, and one which is hampered by "protecting 
 systems.'" The United States with 12,000,000 of inhabitants, carry 
 on a more extensive and valuable trade with a population of 7 or 
 800,000 persons, half of whom at least are slaves, than the total 
 amount of the transactions between two neighbouring kingdoms, pos- 
 sessing a population of 54,000,000 of the most industrious and rich- 
 est subjects in the world. 
 
 Can any thing be more discouraging than such a contrast? Can 
 any thing be more alarming, or more hopeless, to those who are to be 
 the objects of this policy, than the prospect such a comparison presents? 
 Yet it appears to this committee inevitable, that should the principles 
 we are contending against prevail, the great exchanges of 60 to 
 80,000,000 dollars, which we now annually make with Great Britain, 
 and her colonies, and which would be much greater if our tariff had 
 not been altered in 1816, will at no very distant day, be reduced to 
 the same insignificant sum, as the annual amount of the trade be- 
 tween France and England. 
 
 The existing rates of duty are so high as to have had a very sen- 
 sible effect in diminishing our foreign trade, as we have already de- 
 monstrated by the reduced importations of cotton and woollen goods 
 in 1826, as compared with a former year, but it will be much more 
 striking, if we contrast the amount of our transactions with Great Bri- 
 tain for those two years. In 1825, the amount of our export and im- 
 port trade with Great Britain and her colonies, was 86,612,337 dol- 
 lars ; in 1826, the amount fell off to $61,192,375, making the former 
 year upwards of 40 per cent more than the latter. We confess, that 
 
 are supported by nearly every member of the House of Commons of any reputation 
 for talents, and by the most distinguished men in the other branch, as well as the most 
 influential part of the nation. It is, therefore, without the least loundation in truth, as 
 our opponents represent, that the British Government arc disposed to abandon the free 
 trade policy.
 
 154 
 
 a part of the excess of 1825, arose from what Mr. Niles terms, 
 those " ruinous irregular prices" paid by the British manufacturers 
 and merchants, for our cotton, but the principal cause of the de- 
 cline in this trade, grows out of the system of high duties, which di- 
 minishes the means of Europeans of purchasing our produce. It is 
 no answer to this, to say that all our surplus produce has been dis- 
 posed of, as the argument might be urged if our exports were re- 
 duced to a million. What we maintain is this; if we were to receive 
 from foreign nations their staples of trade, at such moderate duties as 
 existed previous to the establishment of the protective system, we 
 should afford them the means of consuming an increased quantity of 
 our produce ; and, as much of the capital, which we are told is now 
 unprofitably employed in manufactures, would be turned to agricul- 
 tural pursuits, we should have more produce to export, and cheaper 
 fabrics in exchange for our productions. 
 
 But still say our opponents, Great Britain must take our cotton, 
 because it is not only the cheapest, but the article cannot be had in 
 sufficient abundance elsewhere. To the first we answer again, that 
 our cotton will cease to be the cheapest, from the moment we refuse to 
 receive in return for it the products of British labour. The cotton of 
 India, Egypt and the Brazils, may be nominally higher, but the lit- 
 tle advance in price, will be compensated by a like advance on the 
 goods given in exchange, so that the same quantity of British labour 
 will procure an equal quantity of cotton in those countries, that a like 
 quantity of labour will procure in the United States. As to the 
 quantity of this material which those countries can afford, there is no 
 question of their ability to supply the whole wants of Europe, at a 
 very small advance on the existing rates, and possibly still lower. 
 
 The trade of India is wholly under the controul of the British, and 
 the imports into England from that quarter have been as high as 
 242,000 bales a year, and as the article is cultivated by at least 
 20,000,000 of people, and in a climate and soil suited to its growth, 
 it will be perceived that a very slight stimulus, would carry up their 
 surplus to four times the quantity they have ever exported, added to 
 which, the natives of India are great consumers of British manufac- 
 tures and more especially cotton goods, and they will extend their 
 purchases as fast as they can find staples to pay for them. With the 
 Brazils, the British are on a more favoured footing than any other 
 nation, and their cotton goods, are admitted in that country at 8 per 
 cent, lower dulies than ours ; while Portugal is so closely allied and 
 so dependant on England, that the latter can hardly fail to maintain 
 her ascendancy, more especially if in consequence of being driven 
 from our markets, she should offer additional encouragement for the 
 cultivation of her cotton. From the Brazils, there were imported into 
 England in 1825, 193,000 bales of cotton, and as she has a larger 
 population than our cotton states, no one will doubt she can easily 
 supply double the quantity she now exports. The cultivation in
 
 155 
 
 Egypt, was only commenced a few years ago, and yet in 1825, she 
 exported to England 103,000 bales. 
 
 It will be seen, then, that these countries are capable of furnishing 
 a quantity of cotton, nearly equal to the largest consumption of Great 
 Britain, previous to this year. The freight from India to England, 
 while the trade was a close monopoly, averaged 25 a ton, but under 
 a free trade system, it has fallen to an average of 6 for a ton of 50 
 feet, into which 1500 pounds of cotton are pressed; thus lowering 
 the principal charge, which is that of conveyance, from four pence 
 to four fifths of a penny a pound. At the last price of cotton in In- 
 dia, it can be afforded at a fraction under five pence a pound.* 
 
 The quality of Bengal cotton is poor, compared with good Up- 
 lands, but it has been used to a great extent, and would be again, if 
 our non-importation system prevails. The cotton from the western 
 parts of India, is quite equal to the worst half of the United States 
 crop. We have very little doubt that at the present prices of our 
 cotton, we can undersell that of all other countries, while we are wil- 
 ling to exchange it for the productions of those nations who are in 
 ^vant of it, but when we cease to do so, our cotton will no longer be 
 the cheapest. 
 
 As to great Britain being any more dependant upon us for that 
 staple, than we are for what she now gives us, in exchange for it, 
 there cannot be a greater mistake, and it will be impolitic for us to 
 legislate against her commerce, upon that erroneous notion. 
 
 It has been contended, however, upon another ground, that Great 
 Britain must take our cotton, viz. to enable her to meet her manu- 
 facturing competitors, France and Germany, in supplying those na- 
 tions with cotton fabrics, who do not manufacture for themselves. 
 At the woollens convention held in Boston in June, Mr. Lawrence 
 remarked, " It has been said that if we do not take British woollens, 
 she will not take our cottons. Sir, she must take our cottons ; and 
 if you ask the reason why, it is because she has competitors who 
 take them. France and Germany take American cottons, and they 
 are, and are to be, sharp competitors with Great Britain. If you 
 ask why they take American cottons, it is because they are better 
 and cheaper than any other. France and Germany have found the 
 secret spring, by which Great Britain subsidised half the crowned 
 heads in Europe ; it was her manufactures. They now have set 
 up for themselves, and have already exported to this country, prints 
 and other goods which have sold for a profit in the New York mar- 
 ket, in competition with British manufactures. If American cottons 
 are cheaper and better, and she must take them, you will ask how 
 Great Britain will pay for them. Sir, she will pay in the coin of 
 
 * As a confirmation of this, the committee give the following extract of a letter from a 
 respectable house in London, which receives consignments of the article from India, 
 dated April, 1827. " We(are selling 1000 bales of Bengal cotton, arrived the other day 
 from India, at four and a half pence per pound, which it a trifle under cost and chargct."
 
 156 
 
 our country, that coin which bears the impress of the American 
 arms ; that coin she has received for her woollens, and Sir, it will 
 make good payment for our cottons." 
 
 Before we proceed to an examination of the assertions of Mr. 
 Lawrence, we would call the attention of our readers, to the char- 
 acter in which he appeared in this assembly. He went to that con- 
 vention, to advocate the claims of the woollen manufacturers, who 
 already enjoy a duty of 38 per cent., to which if we add the usual 
 expenses of importing, not less than 19 per cent., makes the whole 
 amount of protecting charges 57 per cent., equal to $41,040,000 on 
 the whole consumption of woollens in the United States, which must 
 be paid on the foreign fabrics, before the importer can meet ihe do- 
 mestic manufacturer in his own market. Not satisfied however with 
 this excessive protection, the object of Mr. Lawrence, in his speech, 
 was to promotethe assembling of a more general woollens conven- 
 tion, to which he was himself a delegate. The result of their pro- 
 ceedings, (which have been frequently praised for their moderation] 
 was, as is well known, a memorial to Congress, recommending such 
 alterations in the Tariff, as will carry up the duties on the finest 
 cloths to 57 1-2 per cent., and on the inferior cloths to 281 per cent. 
 Those rates are the extremes. The mode we have adopted of es- 
 timating the duties has been pronounced incorrect, and according to 
 the other mode of calculating them, the minimum rate would be 
 57 1-2 per cent, and the maximum rate only 245, instead of 281 
 per cent. Now this proceeding is in perfect accordance with the 
 spirit of the "American System," and the former views of the wool- 
 len manufacturers, although heretofore they had not so openly dis- 
 closed the full extent of their demands. But, mark the unreasona- 
 bleness of this advocate of the prohibitory system ! "England," 
 says Mr. Lawrence, "must take our cottons." Why must she? 
 "Because they are cheaper and better than any other." We agree 
 with Mr. Lawrence, that it will be wise in England, to buy her cot- 
 tons where she can get them cheapest, and she will no doubt act upon 
 that principle, but we contend they will not be the cheapest, when the 
 "American System" prevails. But if Mr. Lawrence was sincere in 
 his opinion, and really believes it to be politic in England to take 
 American cottons because are they cheapest, why, we would ask, 
 are the people of this country to be prevented from taking the 
 cheaper fabrics of Europe, and why are they compelled to consume 
 our own at an annual expense (beyond what the manufacturers say 
 the foreign ones would cost) of $23,940,000, and which the Harris- 
 burg convention recommends to be more than doubled ! ! Such are 
 the inconsistencies to which men are driven, who undertake to estab- 
 lish systems, which cannot be supported upon principles of sound 
 policy or justice. 
 
 With regard to the remittances of gold and silver to England in 
 payment for our imports ; if the assertion of Mr. L. was correct, and
 
 157 
 
 he had proved that we sent $20,000,000 a year to that country, no 
 argument could be derived from that circumstance, to support his 
 views. We have already shown from Custom House reports, that 
 in 1825 we received from Great Britain, $2,772 in gold, hut did not 
 export an ounce to that country. In 1826 we exported $17,271 in 
 gold, and received in return $4,360. But the aggregate of our ex- 
 portations of all the precious metals to Great Britain from 1823 to 
 1826, four years, after deducting the imports, amounted to only 
 $908,076. And yet we are told in hundreds of the speeches and 
 essays of the most influential advocates of the "American System," 
 that the country is almost ruined by the drain of specie, caused by our 
 imports from Great Britain. "Great Britain" says Mr. L. "will 
 pay for our cotton, in the coin of our country!" If England pos- 
 sessed every particle of silver and gold, which was ever coined at our 
 mint, the sum would be insufficient to pay for one crop of cotton. 
 
 We come now to the competition which England has to fear from 
 Germany and France, in supplying other nations with cotton fabrics, 
 and from the terms Mr. Lawrence uses, the reader might infer that 
 those two nations shared in some considerable degree our market 
 with the British. On examining the statement of imports for 1825 
 and 1826, we find the aggregate importation of printed and plain 
 cotton goods from France and Germany, including the Hanse towns, 
 amounted to $801,938, while from Great Britain the import of sim- 
 ilar goods was $16,168,041, and $611,212 from the East Indies. 
 It appears, then, on investigation, that France, Switzerland, and Ger- 
 many, containing a population of upwards of 50,000,000 sent to the 
 United States in two years, $801,938 in cotton goods, against an 
 importation from England of $16,168,041 ; during which period our 
 consumption could not have been less than $100,000,000. This to 
 our minds does not indicate a " sharp competition," nor any compe- 
 tition at all. In truth, the few cotton goods we have received from 
 France and Germany, are principally fancy articles, fine prints, and 
 muslins, &c. and purchased almost entirely by the wealthy and 
 fashionable, because of their scarcity and dearness, and no sooner are 
 they received, than patterns of most of the articles are sent to Eng- 
 land, and imitations returned to three times the amount we receive 
 from the former countries, and at much lower prices. It is idle to 
 talk of France or Germany holding any competition with Great 
 Britain in the cheapness of their cotton fabrics, in the present con- 
 dition of those countries, and they are equally behind England in 
 various other manufactures, such as glass, hardware, Sic. and nearly 
 as much so in the cheapness of their woollens, as is evinced by our 
 purchasing in that country, more than eleven-twelfths of all we import. 
 All we have received from the rest of Europe, in our greatest years of 
 importation, does not exceed the amount of woollens consumed in this 
 city, it is this cheapness of manufactures in England, and her 
 readiness to receive in payment for them the productions of our coun- 
 21
 
 try, which renders it important that we should sustain and extend 
 this branch of commerce; while on the other hand, it is equally im- 
 portant to the views of the party we are opposing, to embarrass and 
 destroy this trade, as interfering with the high dutied fabrics they 
 wish to force upon the consumers. The interests of the party con- 
 lending for restrictions, monopolies, and prohibitions, ore and must be, 
 opposed to the national interests. Let every consumer hear in mind 
 when he is purchasing a high taxed domestic fabric,*that he not only 
 pays a bounty to the manufacturer equal to the duty levied to keep 
 out the foreign article, but that this tax is just so much loss to him, 
 without affording any compensation to the nation, since the foreign 
 fabric for which the domestic is a substitute, would have been pur- 
 chased with the produce of American labour and capital, and the ac- 
 cumulation of national wealth would be just so much more than it 
 now is, as the amount paid for the protection of domestic manufac- 
 tures. We are aware of the answer which is constantly made to this 
 statement, viz. that foreign nations will not buy our surplus produce. 
 Our reply is, that any diminution of demand we have as yel ex- 
 perienced for our produce, has been caused almost entirely by the 
 operation of the high duty system, which has cut off part of the 
 means foreign nations would otherwise have had to purchase from 
 us. If it was true, however, that foreign nations did refuse our pro- 
 duce, it would only be a proof that we no longer had the means of 
 purchasing those fabrics which interfere with our domestic goods, 
 and thus, instead of raising the duties, ive might venture to lower 
 them, without injuring the domestic manufacturers. 
 
 To return, however, more immediately to our subject, we say it is 
 so far from being true that Germany, or any of the continental na- 
 tions can be considered as competitors with England, in supplying 
 other nations with cotton fabrics, that they all depend very much 
 (France and Switzerland excepted) on her for their own supplies. 
 The whole European consumption of cotton, out of France, Switzer- 
 land and England, among a population of at least 120,000,000, is 
 not estimated by the best judges to exceed 150 to 175,000 bales. 
 The importation of British produce and manufactures, chiefly the 
 latter, into the Netherlands and Germany, exclusive of Prussia, dur- 
 ing the year 1825, was-upvvardsof $43,000,000, and into Italy the 
 same year, upwards of $13,000,000 ; and as the article of cotton 
 fabrics, made up two thirds of the amount of British exports of that 
 year, there can be little or no doubt, that two thirds at least of these 
 exportations were cotton manufactures. If there are any manufac- 
 turers who could rival the British, those of Germany and Italy must 
 come next in skill and capital to the French. The trade between 
 France and Great Britain, being regulated upon the principles of the 
 " American System," no British cotton goods could go in the usual 
 way to that quarter, but it is well known that an immense amount are 
 clandestinely introduced, and such will ever be the case, where
 
 159 
 
 governments hold out temptations to smuggling, by high duties ; nnd 
 such indeed, we are told by Mr. Davis and other supporters of the 
 " American System," is the case in this country, not however among 
 that class of respectable men referred to by woollen manufacturers 
 and their partisans, but on those extensive and uninhabited frontiers 
 of our country, which all the militia of the United States, if convert- 
 ed into revenue officers, could not guard, while there are such in- 
 ducements offered to evade our laws. 
 
 That France can have no cotton manufactures to export, is evi- 
 dent from the small quantity of cotton she consumes, which, includ- 
 ing Switzerland, and possessing together 34,000,000 people, does 
 not exceed our estimated consumption more than 50 per cent. 
 
 France though in advance of all the continental nations in the 
 manufacture of cottons, is probably behind this country in the cheap- 
 ness of all such heavy goods as our manufacturers have attempted. 
 She excels us in nothing but the lighter fabrics, the cost of which de- 
 pends principally on manual labour, but in the staple fabrics, which 
 constitute nine-tenths of our consumption, there can hardly be a 
 question of our superiority. 
 
 What the particular causes are*, of the inferiority of the French to 
 the British manufacturers, it is not our business to discuss ; one of 
 the most obvious of them, however, is the continuance of those 
 monopolies and restrictions, which, while they existed in England, 
 retarded her progress toivards that perfection which she has now 
 attained. Our opponents argue the case as if it was a want of expe- 
 rience which had prevented the continental nations from rivalling the 
 British, but cotton manufacturing is not a new business in France. 
 In 1800, the consumption of that country was 17,000,000 pounds of 
 cotton, against 56,000,000 in Great Britain ; while the consumption 
 of both France and Switzerland for this year will not exceed 300,000 
 bales, against 670,000 bales for the former country. This certainly 
 does not prove on the part of France, a very rapid advance upon her 
 competitor, in the art of manufacturing cotton goods. 
 
 Now if it is true that the continental manufacturers cannot make 
 cotton goods so cheap as we do, and if we admit that the duties im- 
 posed by our Tariff, are necessary to protect them against importa- 
 tions of British fabrics, then it is certain that the continental manu- 
 facturers, cannot undersell the British, if the material or a bounty 
 equal to its value, was given them. To ascertain the correctness of 
 this position, we must compare the cost of the material of cotton 
 goods, with the duties now paid upon them. The heaviest cotton 
 goods used among us or manufactured in any country, require a 
 pound of cotton to three square yards. The price of good Upland 
 in England to the manufacturer, does not exceed 7 to 7 1-2 pence 
 per pound, or 13 to 14 cents, which would make the material in a 
 yard cost 4 1-2 cents ; the duty on which under our Tariff, is 7 1-2 
 cents. If, then, it requires 7 1-2 cents a yard to protect our manu-
 
 160 
 
 facturers against a yard of British cloth, of which the material only 
 costs 4 1-2 cents, is it not evident, that if our manufacturers had the 
 material given them, they would still be very much undersold by the 
 British manufacturers in our own market? It is contended, however, 
 by our opponents, that 7 1-2 cents is not necessary to enable the do- 
 mestic manufacturers to sustain a competition with the British manu- 
 facturers. We answer then, that it was extremely unreasonable, not 
 to say absurd, for cotton manufacturers to ask and obtain an addition 
 of 1 1-4 cent per yard, to the 6 1-4 cent duty, in 1824, at the pe- 
 riwt when that branch of business was at the height of its prosperity ; 
 and still more inconsistent in their representatives at the Harrisburg 
 convention, to recommend a further increase on printed and coloured 
 goods, which now constitute five sevenths of our importation, of 2 1-2 
 cents per yard, making the duty 10 cents per yard, on goods which 
 do not cost on the average 12 to 15 cents per yard, while the same 
 persons who recommend this measure persist in telling us, that the 
 effect of the Tariff of 1816, has been, " to make goods come cheap- 
 er to consumers" and that England, can no longer contend with us, 
 even in foreign markets, in coarse cotton goods ! ! ! But even on 
 the supposition that it required half the existing duty to keep Bri- 
 tish goods out of our markets, added to the other charges on them, 
 it would still prove as matters now stand, that the English manufactu- 
 rer can afford to pay 50 per cent more for the material than ours, 
 and still undersell them, even in those heavy goods which we make 
 to greater advantage than any others ; and of course that the British 
 manufacturers have a still greater superiority over their continental 
 competitors, who are below us in the art of making cheap cotton 
 goods. When we come to the finer and lighter goods, the British 
 manufacturers undersell our's still more than in the coarse ones. In 
 the cost of the material we are nearly upon an equal footing, the ad- 
 vantage being of course somewhat in our favour, but here the prin- 
 cipal items of cost are skill, capital and labour. A colton shirting 
 costing perhaps 8 pence sterling a square yard, or 15 cents, would not 
 contain more than one fifth of a pound of cotton, which would cost if 
 made of finer sorts 8 pence per pound, or 3 cents for the material in 
 a yard. This description of goods has continued to be imported very 
 largely and till of late, and even now may perhaps, pay some profit, 
 though it will be entirely excluded, as soon as our manufacturers go 
 more into the finer qualities. Here the cost of the cotton is 3 
 cents per yard, and the duty 7 1-2 cents. There is another class 
 of goods, which now constitutes the bulk of our importations, which 
 shows better than any other, the comparative cheapness of British 
 manufactures. We mean prints, costing 5 to G pence per square 
 yard, coloured cambrics, and other still coarser goods costing from 3 
 to 8 pence a yard, and which pay under the existing Tariff 50 and 120 
 per cent. We find on reference to the imports of 1826, that the 
 quantity of plain, printed and coloured cotton goods, retained in the
 
 1G1 
 
 United States for consumption, amounted to $5,601,961 ; of which 
 $4,024,344 were coloured and printed, and by far the largest por- 
 tion of which we understand, now pay 50, many articles 60 to 75 and 
 some 120 per cent duty. Notwithstanding the importation of this 
 staple manufacture is reduced to such a miserable remnant, and the 
 existing duties are so enormous, still, the Harrisburg convention, 
 which has been so often praised for its practical wisdom and modera- 
 tion, recommends an addition of 2 1-2 cents a yard, making an in- 
 crease of 20 or 30 per cent. We would not have it inferred however, 
 that we view this proceeding of that assembly on behalf of the cotton 
 manufacturers, as emanating generally from that class, for we believe 
 by many of them it is disapproved of. We know it is by some of 
 them in this quarter. 
 
 We have already attempted to show, that Great Britain was not so 
 dependant on this country for cotton, as our opponents represent ; and 
 that if we exclude her produce and manufactures by prohibitory du- 
 ties, it would be for her interest to procure it elsewhere. We shall 
 now show from correct sources of information, that in the disposal of 
 her immensely valuable cotton fabrics, Great Britain relies mainly on 
 her own subjects and colonies, or on such nations as will continue to 
 find it for their interest to receive British manufactures in preference 
 to any others. 
 
 We have before stated that the official value of cotton goods ex- 
 ported from Great Britain for 1824, was 30,154,436, and that Mr. 
 Huskisson in the same year, estimated the home consumption to be 
 32,000,000. The export for 1825, was 30,795,000 as stated in 
 parliamentary debates, but from the tables of exports since published, 
 we find it stated at 29,495,280, which we will take to be the correct 
 sum, and calling the home consumption under that of 1824, reckon 
 the whole amount manufactured at 60,000,000. Of this um, we 
 will take 30,000,000 for consumption of the United Kingdom, 
 which leaves 30,000.000 to be disposed of in foreign countries. 
 We find in the official statement of exports from Great Britain for 
 1825, that 12,138,872 of British produce and manufactures, went 
 to the East Indies, Gibraltar, Jersey, and to different parts of Asia, Afri- 
 ca, and to the British colonies in the West Indies and North America ; 
 of which we have reason to believe that three quarters 9,000,000 
 were cotton goods. Here then is 39,000,000 out of 60,000,000 
 disposed of among the subjects of Great Britain, and in a trade which 
 cannot be interrupted, if the whole world was at war with England. 
 The exports of British manufactures and produce to Brazil and Por- 
 tugal, in the same year amounted to 6,262,209, of which no doubt 
 4,000,000 were in cotton goods. Both of these nations are con- 
 nected by such strong commercial and political ties with Great Bri- 
 tain, that she will always have their trade as she now has, on a more 
 favoured footing than any other nation. The remaining 17,000,000 
 went chiefly to Germany, Holland, Italy, Turkey and Russia, in ex-
 
 162 
 
 change for such produce of those countries, as could not be disposed 
 of to any other nation ; or else to South America and Mexico, states 
 who are also on the .most friendly terras with England, and will 
 naturally prefer her trade to ours, because that country will continue 
 to exchange her cheap manufactures for their commodities to the full 
 extent they may desire, whereas, under the system we are about to 
 establish, of excluding all articles which can be procured at home, our 
 trade with South America will be hampered, though perhaps not to 
 the same extent it is with the nations of Europe. 
 
 The importation of British cotton goods into this country, must 
 necessarily be very limited under the enormous duties imposed on 
 them, and we shall soon cease to import any, except some few fancy 
 articles, which our manufacturers have not yet introduced. In 1S25, 
 we imported $11,035,028. In 1826 our imports declined to 
 $7,316,749, of which we re-exported $1,714,788, leaving for our 
 consumption only $5,601,961, in a nation consuming, as we have 
 shown chiefly from the calculations of our opponents, $50,000,000, 
 but as we apprehend a much larger amount. Yet the Harrisburg 
 convention say there must be more duties imposed on cottons. 
 
 The disposition we have made of the cotton manufactures of Eng- 
 land, does not accord with the statements of our opponents, who 
 have often contended, that Great Britain was almost as dependant on 
 us for the sale of her manufactures, as we were on her for the sale of 
 our cotton, and that in sending the material to that country, we lost 
 the benefit which we might otherwise have enjoyed of manufacturing; 
 it. It appears, however, from official statements, that of 60,000,000 
 of her cotton fabrics, about two thirds are consumed by the subjects 
 of Great Britain, and nearly the whole of the residue, either in coun- 
 tries very dependant on Great Britain, or having such relations with 
 her, as renders it almost impossible for any of her competitors to 
 drive her from those markets. 
 
 Of our cotton crop of 970,000 bales, it appears that of the surplus 
 which we have to export, 646,139 bales have been shipped to Great 
 Britain from the 30th Sept. 1826, to the same period this year, while 
 of cotton fabrics imported from all countries, we only consumed in 
 1626, a little over one sixtieth part of that branch of her industry, 
 which constitutes about two thirds of her export of produce and 
 manufactures. 
 
 The dependance of Great Britain upon this country for the sale 
 of woollens, is also very slight. The import of all sorts of woollens, 
 including hosiery and stuff goods, from England and else- 
 where, for 1826, amounted to $7,886,826, of which, deducting 
 the export of $441,382 left for consumption, only $7,445,444, 
 while the whole manufacture in Great Britain is estimated at 
 $220,500,000, of which the export may vary from 5 to 7,000,000 
 per annum. Our whole importation of cotton and woollen goods for 
 IS26, after deducting the amount re-exported, is $13,597,704, to
 
 163 
 
 which add for cotton hosier)', thread, and twist, $551,298, makes 
 $13,597,704 ; from this deduct about $2,300,000 importations from 
 other countries than Great Britain, leaves $11,297,704 for the con- 
 sumption of the two staples, which form three quarters of the 
 whole value of exports of British produce and manufactures. Here 
 then is the most indisputable evidence of the extreme unreasonable- 
 ness of our opponents in their complaints, that this country "is inun- 
 dated with British manufactures," to the ruin of our own manufac- 
 tures, and to the great injury of the nation, in trading with a coun- 
 try which, as they say, " takes nothing almost which our soil produ- 
 ces, while she enjoys the prescriptive right of supplying us with all we 
 want, from the greatest to the most inconsiderable manufacture we 
 consume." 
 
 We have again extended our remarks upon cotton and the trade 
 on which it is dependant, to impress on the minds of our readers the 
 danger we incur of losing our principal markets for that important 
 staple, unless the principles against which we are contending are 
 resisted. It does appear to this committee, that the worth of this 
 most valuable of all the articles of commerce is not duly estimated. 
 Spain expended a vast treasure, the lives of thousands of her sub- 
 jects and destroyed or enslaved millions of Americans, to gain pos- 
 session of the gold and silver mines of this continent, and was envi- 
 ed in the enjoyment of them by all the rest of the world. But the 
 produce of our cotton, throwing out of the case all other considera- 
 tions, is of a greater pecuniary value than the produce of (he mines 
 of South America in their most prosperous days, and will, within 20 
 years, be worth double what it now is, if we can maintain a system of free 
 trade. It is true, as our opponents say, that this product is not to be 
 found in the " manufacturing states," but it is just as absurd to con- 
 tend that we do not participate, and very largely too, in the benefits 
 of its culture, as it would be for the people of this city to deny the 
 advantages they derive from the agriculture of our interior, or for the 
 inhabitants of New York state, to assert that they did not profit by a 
 commerce with New England. If this government is to be adminis- 
 tered upon the principles of woollens conventions, and with a view to 
 sectional interests, there will be an end to our national union and to 
 our national prosperity. 
 
 We think, that by the investigation we have just terminated, we 
 have established the following points : 
 
 1. That although Great Britain finds it for her interest to buy 
 most of the cotton she manufactures, from us, while we take her 
 produce and manufactures, yet there is satisfactory evidence, that 
 she is not dependant on us for that article, since in some years she 
 has received the principal part of her consumption from her own 
 colonies, or countries which she can resort to for trade on more fa- 
 vourable terms than any other nations ; and that the cultivation may 
 easily be extended in those countries, ton degree sufficient to supply 
 all her wants*
 
 164 
 
 2. That she finds a sale of two-thirds of her cotton fabrics 
 among her own subjects, and the principal part of the residue in 
 countries to which she can have free access, on more advantageous 
 terms than any of her manufacturing competitors. 
 
 3. That such are the advantages of British manufacturers over 
 those of the continent of Europe, that they can undersell those 
 which are in the most advanced state of manufacturing, even if the 
 latter had a bounty on their goods, equal to the present value of the 
 material. 
 
 4. That admitting France and Germany could manufacture as 
 cheap or cheaper than Great Britain, we should still be without a 
 sale for our cotton, since in that case, France and Germany would 
 stand in the same relation to us as Great Britain now does, and would 
 be disabled from taking our produce by our refusal to receive their 
 manufactures. 
 
 5. That so far from its being true as affirmed by Mr. Clay in 
 1820, that the maximum of demand for cotton was limited to 453, 000 
 bales, it is a fact, that we have disposed of a crop of 970,000 bales 
 the past season, and the consumption is now increasing at such a rate, 
 as affords reasonable hope, that within 15 or 20 years, there will be 
 a demand for double the quantity we now produce, unless the inter- 
 course with those nations on whom ive must depend for its consump- 
 tion is interrupted by our prohibitory laws; on the other hand, we 
 deem it a certain consequence of a non-importation system, that we 
 shall eventually lose the sale of the largest portion of what we now 
 dispose of in Europe, and that the consumption may in the end be 
 nearly confined to what can be used forour own manufactures, which 
 could not at present exceed 200,000 bales, if we did not import a 
 dollar's worth of cloth from any quarter. 
 
 6. That rice, tobacco, naval stores, ashes, flax-seed, and gener- 
 ally our domestic exports would suffer a diminution of demand from 
 the same causes, though perhaps not to the same extent as cotton. 
 
 7. That tiie existing duties having reduced the importation of the 
 principal staple manufactures, which England has to give in exchange 
 forour produce, (and which so late as 1825, amounted to 2 1,000, 000 
 dollars) down to 1 1,297,704 dollars, there is reason to believe that 
 our imports from England will soon fall very much below that sum, 
 although the Harrisburg Tariff should not be accepted by Congress. 
 
 SECTION 19th. The extracts the committee have already furnish- 
 ed from the speeches, essays, memorials, and other publications of 
 the leading and most influential advocates of the non-importation and 
 anti-commercial policy, will, we think, satisfy every impartial mind, 
 of a settled hostility on their part, to commerce and commercial 
 men, as standing in the way of the accomplishment of their schemes, 
 and of the expediency, therefore, of representing their pursuits, 
 sometimes as of very little advantage to the country, at others, as even 
 injurious to the national welfare.
 
 165 
 
 From Mr. Everett's speech, at the Boston Woollens Convention, we 
 extract the following, " advantages from commerce we have, but 
 these are mostly confined in their operation to the strip along the 
 coast. And what is commerce at best, depending as i.t does on the 
 condition of foreign politics ? One year the merchant is tempted into 
 the most gigantic speculations by the carrying trade of half the world, 
 and the next, the grass springs up between the paving stones, at the 
 counting house door." Again ; " Our statesmen, patriots and citi- 
 zens, must now look to the great source of wealth, the soil. We 
 must follow the sun and look westward. We want some new spring 
 of prosperity, whose action will be backward from the coast." From 
 one of Mr. Tibbits' essays, we select the following, from many pas- 
 sages, exhibiting similar feelings towards commercial men. "The 
 land is willing to spend and be spent for the general good ; but ought 
 not to submit to the dictation of any of its children, to their own pre- 
 judice, and to the utter prostration of other and equally important 
 appendages and branches of the same family. No, the land must not 
 be given to this spoiled child, the shipping interest therein, and allow 
 it to gorge its false appetites, and thereby destroy itself and the whole 
 family" 
 
 The last extract we shall give, is from the address of the Harrisburg 
 Convention, collected as it is well known, to decide upon a tariff for 
 the Congress, now about to assemble, and whose proceedings, we are 
 told by its friends and promoters, furnished some remarkable in- 
 stances of their wisdom, disinterestedness, and moderation. Of the 
 two latter virtues, we have already exhibited a striking proof in the 
 reasonable demands they make for duties of 57 1-2 to 281 per cent, 
 on woollens, and we will now give another instance, which we think 
 will do equal credit, to their mildness and moderation. " The con- 
 stitution of the United States" say these delegates, "was made for 
 the farmers, manufacturers and mechanics, not for the merchants ; the 
 last being only a small portion of the whole." We here have the 
 sentiments, not only of a body of men, selected as the representa- 
 tives of the party we are opposing, but of two* of the most influential 
 and active delegates, delivered previous to the meeting of that con- 
 vention. The reader cannot fail to perceive in each of the quota- 
 tions, a manifestation of the same temper, though somewhat differ- 
 ently expressed. Mr. Tibbits aims more immediately at the ship- 
 ping interest, which has indeed always been considered a great 
 obstacle to the views of the manufacturers, from the business in which 
 they are engaged, of transporting foreign goods, which interfere with 
 the domestic. The convention, taking a still more extended view of 
 the subject, would exclude the whole profession of merchants from 
 the rights of the constitution, because they are " a small portion of 
 
 * Mr. Everett was elected a delegate to the Harrisburc: Convention, but as wo do not 
 perceive his name among the signatures, we presume from some cause or other he did 
 not attend that meeting:.
 
 166 
 
 the whole ;" while Mr. Everett would send them all westward of the 
 Rocky mountains, that they may import no more woollens. This is 
 indeed going beyond Mr. C. J. Ingersoll and Mr. Carey, delegates 
 also of the same convention, and of other conventions formerly assem- 
 bled for similar disinterested purposes. They only contended, that 
 as Congress had an unquestionable right to protect commerce, and 
 impose taxes for the creation of revenue, that it of course followed, 
 that they had a right to prohibit trade and annihilate revenue, which 
 they proved, as we have before shown, by the writings and acts of 
 Jefferson and Hamilton. Our readers may perhaps be somewhat 
 surprized to hear any class of men pursuing an honest and useful oc- 
 cupation, spoken of in the terms which these gentlemen have thought 
 proper to use, but we can assure them, we could select numerous 
 passages equally extravagant and improper. 
 
 We now appeal, not to the merchants, but to the reader general- 
 ly, whether there is the semblance of the reality, in Mr. Everett's 
 description of commerce and the effects of commerce ? We are 
 ready to make due allowance for that licence which public men often 
 take, to produce a strong effect, by the introduction of metaphors to 
 illustrate and enforce their meaning, but, here, these rhetorical flour- 
 ishes are awkwardly forced into a grave discussion, where they do not 
 belong, not to enlighten, but mislead the mind. We are called upon 
 to support a system, which a vast majority of the nation think unjust, 
 and injurious to their welfare. The meeting which Mr. Everett at- 
 tended, was assembled to enlighten us upon the subject. We wanted 
 facts and arguments, and not idle, and worse than idle, declamation. 
 
 We would ask how it was possible for the orator himself, who by 
 extending his eye from the place where he stood, could look down 
 upon a city worth at least 150,000,000 dollars, the largest portion of 
 it acquired within his"own age, by that commerce he so much under- 
 values, and at a period when most exposed to those jluctuations he 
 describes, and still declaim against commerce, and urge the expedien- 
 cy of abandoning it ? 
 
 We appeal then to the National party, whether these denunciations 
 of conventions, and delegates to conventions, against commerce and 
 commercial men, are not proofs of the existence of that bad spirit 
 which we referred to, not on the part of manufacturers generally, 
 but of that combination of various interests, who affect to take the 
 concerns of manufacturers under their special guidance and control? 
 That commerce is liable to fluctuations and uncertainties, we all 
 know, but are not the pursuits of agriculture and the occupations of 
 the mechanic, subject to the same evils? Is not the business of the 
 woollen manufacturers subject to fluctuation and uncertainty, or are 
 all those accounts we have seen published of their depression and 
 ruin, exaggerated and false, and only intended to work upon the pub- 
 lic compassion ? Why then declaim against those evils as attendant 
 upon commerce more than any other pursuit, unless it was intended
 
 167 
 
 to excite a prejudice against a business, which our opponents consider 
 as opposed to their views and interests ? To know whether com- 
 merce is injurious or beneficial to the nation, look at the results, and 
 not to the speeches and addresses of conventions and delegates 
 to conventions ! Look at those masses of wealth which exhibit them- 
 selves in all quarters of the country, and more especially in New- 
 England, acquired almost entirely by commerce, and above all to 
 those wealthy manufacturing establishments, (so advantageous to the 
 country, while depending on their own skill and industry, and so inju- 
 rious when relying on taxation for their support,) which are founded 
 mainly on commercial wealth! We are not however going into an 
 argument to prove the benefits of commerce, and to a community 
 like this, we should deem it quite as superfluous as a discussion to 
 the farmers of New England, upon the advantages of sunshine and 
 rain, to the soil which they cultivate. As there does however appear 
 at this moment, such an indifference to the ruinous effects which this 
 prohibitory policy must have on commerce, as to lead one to believe, 
 that it is no longer regarded with that consideration and favour it 
 once enjoyed, and which it still merits, we will give our readers the 
 opinions of two men, quite as well able, we imagine, to comprehend 
 the nature and effects of commerce, as the most ambitious members 
 of the Harrisburg Convention, and both of whom, our opponents 
 affect to rank as among the supporters of their principles. The first 
 is from Mr. Webster's speech on the Tariff. " With me, it is a fun- 
 damental axiom, interwoven with all my opinions, that the great in- 
 terests of the country are united and inseparable; that agriculture, 
 commerce and manufactures, will prosper together, or languish to- 
 gether ; and that all legislation is dangerous which proposes to ben- 
 efit one of these, without looking to consequences which may fall on 
 the others" The following is from one of the numbers of the 
 Federalist, written by Hamilton.* " A prosperous commerce, is 
 now perceived and acknowledged, by all enlightened statesmen, to be 
 the most useful, as ivell as the most productive source of national 
 wealth; and has accordingly become a primary object of their polit- 
 ical cares. By multiplying the means of gratification, by promoting 
 the introduction and circulation of the precious metals, those darling 
 objects of human avarice and enterprise, it serves to vivify and in- 
 
 * We have already furnished irresistible evidence, from both the writings and acts of 
 Hamilton, that he was entirely opposed to a system of forcing manufactures by high 
 duties. The following- extract from the Federalist, affords a most clear and satisfactory 
 proof of his views on that subject, and we could give other quotations, had we room, 
 equally decisive of them. " Exorbitant duties on imported articles, serve to beget a 
 general spirit of smuggling ; which is always prejudicial to the fair trader, and eventu- 
 ally to the revenue itself. They tend to render other classes of the community tributary, 
 in an improper degree, to the, manufacturing classes, to whom they give a premature mo- 
 nopoly of the markets. They sometimes force industry out of its most natural channels, 
 into others, in which it flou:s icith less advantage. And in the last place, they oppress the. 
 merchant, who is often obliged to pay them himself, without any retribution from the cou-
 
 168 
 
 vigorate all the channels of industry, and to make them flow with 
 greater activity, and copiousness. The assiduous merchant, the la- 
 borious husbandman, the active mechanic, and the industrious manu- 
 facturer, all orders of men, look forward with eager expectation and 
 growing alacrity to this pleasing reward of their toil. The often agi- 
 tated question between agriculture and commerce, has from indubit- 
 able experience, received a decision, which has silenced the rivalship 
 that once subsisted between them, and has proved to the entire sat- 
 isfaction of their friends, that their interests are intimately interwoven. 
 It has been found in various countries, that in proportion as commerce 
 has flourished, land has risen in value. And, how could it have happen- 
 ed otherwise ? Could that which procures a freeer vent for the prod- 
 ucts of the earth, which furnishes new enticements to the cultivator of 
 land ; which is the most powerful instrument in increasing the quantity 
 of money in a state could that in fine, ivhich is the faithful handmaid 
 of labour and industry in every shape, fail to augment the value of that 
 article, which is the prolific parent of far the greatest part of the objects 
 upon which they are exerted ? It is astonishing that so simple a truth, 
 should ever have had an adversary, and it is one, among a multitude of 
 proofs, how apt a spirit of ill-informed jealousy, or of too great abstrac- 
 tion and refinement, is to lead men astray from the plainest paths of 
 reason and conviction." 
 
 These were the sentiments of Hamilton, and that they had the 
 entire concurrence of his illustrious coadjutors, Madison and Jay, 
 we have ample proofs from their writings, nor has any evidence been 
 offered, beyond the assertions of our opponents, that either of them 
 have changed their opinions. 
 
 What a contrast is here presented between the extended, liberal, 
 and just views of these eminent statesmen, and the narrow, selfish 
 and unjust notions, of woollens conventions, their contrivers and pro- 
 moters, who in their mistaken and blind zeal to forward their own 
 interests, would not only trample on the rights and interests of all 
 others, but build up a system so burdensome and so odious to the na- 
 tion, that it cannot fail eventually to prove destructive even of those 
 objects which they themselves desire to promote. 
 
 We hope it will not be imagined that this committee mean to arro- 
 gate on behalf of the merchants, any superiority over any other 
 order of the community. They assume no pre-eminence in point of 
 merit or usefulness, over the farmer, planter, mechanic or manufac- 
 turer, but consider themselves as standing on a level, in those particu- 
 lars, with them, and all other citizens engaged in the various occupa- 
 tions of life. They claim no other advantages than what is enjoyed 
 in common by all other classes, and although they employ perhaps 
 twenty or thirty times the capital and labour (we do not pretend to 
 be able to estimate the amount) which the woollen manufacturers do, 
 they call for no protecting taxes, no bounties to repair their losses or 
 swell their profits, nor have taxes ever been levied for their protection
 
 169 
 
 and encouragement, beyond what the national security and national 
 welfare demanded. They are willing, like the farmers, mechanics, 
 and all other manufacturers, (but the small portion whose preten- 
 sions we are resisting) to stand upon their economy, skill, and 
 industry, and do not consider themselves as having the right, (in or- 
 der to promote their particular interests) to demand special privileges, 
 which not only impose heavy pecuniary burdens on our citizens, but 
 would destroy the principal sources of the national prosperity. 
 
 But what, says Mr. Everett, is this commerce " confined in its 
 operations, to the strip along the coast ?" It does not, as we have 
 before remarked, come within the scope of our design or the object 
 for which this committee was appointed, to go into a discussion to 
 prove the advantages of commerce, but rather to show the evils 
 which will arise to it, in common with all the other leading inter- 
 ests of the country, from the establishment of the prohibitory system. 
 It is true, that the worst effects of this anti-commercial and anti- 
 national policy, by closing against us the best markets for our sur- 
 plus produce, will fall upon the planters and farmers, still, all other 
 orders will share in its evils, and among them the mercantile class. 
 It is impossible for us to go into such a detail as will show the effects 
 of this system upon every branch of trade to which it will be injuri- 
 ous, but we will select one interest, on which its bearings may be 
 seen more clearly than any other. We will, then, examine into the 
 effects which have already arisen, or may hereafter arise, from this 
 non-importation and non-exportation system, to that branch of busi- 
 ness carried on " upon this strip of coast," called the navigating 
 interest. 
 
 There are, then, owned in this state, and the state of Maine, 
 505,310 tons of shipping, licenced, enrolled and registered, which 
 in a sailing condition, may be fairly estimated at 45 dollars a ton, or 
 22,738,950 dollars, and to this sum should be added about one- 
 third, for stores, wharves, ship-yards, and other establishments imme- 
 diately and entirely dependant on, and supported by ships, making 
 in all, something over 30,000,000 dollars. This tonnage gives em- 
 ployment and subsistence to 25,000 seamen and their families, and 
 at least 150,000 mechanics, labourers, traders, agents, &c. &c., in 
 the aggregate, perhaps 200,000 persons, who are wholly dependant 
 upon the shipping interest. Here, then, upon this miserable " strip 
 of coast," which we are advised to abandon, and which we shall 
 certainly be compelled to abandon, if our opponents succeed, is one 
 branch of commerce, which employs, in two states only, three-fourths 
 of the capital, and double the number of persons, that are said to be 
 engaged in the manufacturing of woollens, throughout the whole of 
 the United States. 
 
 But we have only given the tonnage of Massachusetts and Maine. 
 The whole quantity in the United States is 1,423,111 tons, which on 
 the same valuation, would carry the amount to upwards 85,000,000
 
 170 
 
 dollars, seven-eighths of which is owned north of Virginia, and 
 957,046 tons, or something over two-thirds the whole, in New 
 Yprk and New England, worth upwards of 57,000,000 dollars. 
 The whole of this tonnage employs 70,000 seamen, and supports 
 at least 600,000 persons of all descriptions, of which more than 
 two-thirds are inhabitants of Neiu England and New York. Thus 
 it appears, that in those states, where the prohibitory and anti- 
 commercial policy has its greatest support, this single branch of busi- 
 ness employs nearly 50 per cent, more capital, and supports six 
 times as many individuals as the woollen manufacturers of the whole 
 country. But we are told by our opponents that this very interest 
 owes its existence and extension, in a very considerable degree, to 
 this " protecting policy," which we are resisting.* Now, what is 
 the extent of the protection and encouragement which the shipping 
 interest has received ? The only steps taken by our government in 
 favour of the navigating interest, have been some countervailing mea- 
 sures, against the acts of other governments, to induce them to place 
 our shipping on a footing with their own, and the object and effect of 
 these measures has been to lower freights, by increasing competi- 
 tion. Now this is precisely the reverse of what our opponents have 
 in view, since it is their object to diminish and to destroy foreign com- 
 petition, and thus make the nation pay an immense addition upon the 
 prices of some of the first necessaries of life. 
 
 We are told, however, very gravely, in the address of the Harris- 
 burg Convention, that the " coasting trade is prohibited to foreigners," 
 as an evidence of the great benefit derived by the shipping interests, 
 from the protecting system I /" We believe it is true that such a law 
 exists, and it is equally true, that the merchants have derived as much 
 advantage from it, as the southern states do, or have done, from the 
 protecting duties on cotton-^ and tobacco, or that the planters of Cuba 
 
 * Extract from Mr. Webster's Speccli upon the Tariff in 1820 : " Let it be renum- 
 bered that our shipping employed in foreign commerce, has, at this moment, not ike. 
 shadow of government protection. It goes abroad upon the wide sea to make its own 
 way. and earn its own bread, in a professed competition with the whole world. Us re- 
 sources are its own frugality, its own skill, its oicn enterprise. It hopes to succeed, if it 
 shall succeed at all, not by extraordinary aid of government, but by patience, vigilance, 
 and toil. This right arm of the nation's safety, strengthens its own muscle by its own ef- 
 forts, and by unwearied exertion in its own defence, becomes strong for the defence of 
 the country. JNo one acquainted with this interest, can deny that its situation, at (his 
 moment, is extremely critical. We have left it hitherto to maintain itself or perish, to 
 swim if it can, and to sink if it cannot." 
 
 t Extract from Mr. Lawrence's Speech at the Boston Woollens Convention : " He 
 would ask the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, who was using his influence 
 against the American System, in his own State, if it was deemed unconstitutional to put 
 a protecting duty on cotton, amounting to a prohibition?" We answer, that the duty 
 on cotton was imposed before the cultivation commenced, and was not considered as a 
 duty of protection. If, however, it is to be drawn into a precedent, and considered as 
 a protecting duty, we presume to say, the planters of the south will cheerfully agree to 
 the same protecting duty on woollens. Jn 1790, cotton was worth upwards of 30 
 cents, and the duty was 3 cents a pound, amounting at the utmost, to 10 per cent. This 
 then is the protection granted to a staple, which adds more to our national wealth, than 
 any other product of cur soil.
 
 171 
 
 would from protecting duties imposed on the importation of sugar 
 and coffee, from Great Britain, into that island. That such argu- 
 ments should ever be urged, to reconcile southern planters or north- 
 ern shipping merchants to an enormous taxation and an eventual loss 
 of their business, may, to some of our readers, appear extraordinary, 
 not to say absurd, but we can assure them, that they have been re- 
 peatedly dwelt upon by some of the most zealous and ingenious of 
 our opponents, and we must confess we have, as yet, met with no 
 stronger ones in favour of the "American System." 
 
 Every man of common information will acknowledge, that there 
 never was a period when our coasting trade could be carried on by 
 foreigners in competition with our own people ; and as to the ship- 
 ping in the foreign trade, our government has always been ready to 
 admit foreign ships on equal terms with our own, when foreign na- 
 tions would admit our shipping on the like footing. Such in fact are 
 the terms we are now upon with all the commercial nations of 
 Europe, who can interfere with us. The competition between for- 
 eign ships and ours, particularly the British, has now an unfavourable 
 effect on the business of our ship owners ; and within ten years, 
 freights have, at particular moments, been reduced 25 to 33 and one- 
 third per cent., in consequence of the resort of foreign ships to the 
 middle and southern states. But what, under those circumstances, 
 was the conduct of the ship owners? Did they call for 20 or 
 30,000,000 dollars bounties to enable them to sustain this competi- 
 tion ? No ; they suffered immensely by the reduced rates of freights, 
 for several years, till by the practice of more economy in the sailing 
 of their ships, and more skill in their construction, they overcame 
 the difficulties in which they were involved. They have, now, in a 
 considerable degree, driven away their competitors, not however, by 
 legislation, or by taxes imposed upon their fellow citizens, but by 
 good management, and though their profits have been, and are now, 
 much less than the dividends of well managed manufacturing incor- 
 porations, they are content with them. How, then, will this naviga- 
 ting interest, which is only one branch of that commerce which the 
 supporters of the exclusive and non-importation policy speak so 
 contemptuously of, be injured by the "American System?" We 
 maintain, that it will suffer in common with the whole country, from 
 that heavy taxation imposed upon some of the leading articles of 
 consumption, as well as from the other evils incident to such an un- 
 wise policy; but the greatest injury it must sustain, will be, 1st, from 
 a diminution of our export and import trade, in consequence of our 
 refusing to take in exchange for our produqtions, the manufactures 
 
 kand productions of other countries ; and, 2nd, from those counter- 
 vailing measures foreign nations may adopt, in retaliation of our non- 
 importation laws. 
 
 1st. With regard to a diminution of exports, we have already 
 proved in Section 16th the average exports from 1796 to 1811, ex-
 
 172 
 
 eluding two years of embargo, with a population of 4 1-2 to 7 1-2 
 millions, exceeded the average of the last six years (excluding the 
 speculative one of 1825) by 3,252,402 dollars, although we now 
 have more than double the population and wealth we had at the for- 
 mer period. But if we compare our present exports with some 
 other years, the difference is still greater. 
 
 The average amount of exports from 1805 to 1807, three years, 
 was 101,815,378 dollars, against the average of the last six years, 
 excluding 1825, of 73,083,137 dollars. It is true that much of the 
 trade we formerly possessed, arose from the wars in Europe, which 
 threw the commerce of some of the belligerents into our hands, but 
 on the other hand, when it is considered what an immensely valuable 
 staple we have added to our exports, principally within the last 20 
 years that South America has opened to us a very extensive trade, 
 and that we have more than doubled our population and wealth, it may 
 be reasonably inferred, had we kept to the moderate duties established 
 soon after the organization of our present government, that our 
 exports would have been at least one half more than they now are. 
 
 Under a system of high duties, all branches of commerce have 
 been kept within much narrower limits, than they would have been 
 under more moderate rates ; and with some countries, owing to that 
 cause principally, our commercial intercourse has almost entirely 
 ceased. 
 
 Let us take for instance the trade with Spain, Portugal, and their 
 European colonies. The imports from Spain from 1795 to 1801, 
 averaged $1,988,671, and the exports to that country averaged 
 $2,787,189. When we come down to a later period 1809 to 1S13, 
 our exports, some years, were 8,000,000 to $9,000,000, but as a 
 considerable portion of them were for the consumption of the Bri- 
 tish armies, we do not take those years into our account. What is 
 the state of our trade with Spain, at this moment ? The whole 
 amount of exports to Spain and her colonies, Teneriffe and the 
 Canaries in 1825, was only $273,091, and in 1826, $259,051, 
 and the imports $743,361, in the former year, and $838,516, 
 in the latter. To Portugal and her European colonies, Madeira, 
 Fayal, and the Cape de Verds, our exports from 1795 to 1801, 
 amounted some years to more than a million of dollars, while in 
 1826, they had fallen to 313,553 dollars. It should be observed, that 
 during most of the time we have taken to shew the extent of our ex- 
 port trade to these countries, they were in a state of peace, and it 
 cannot therefore be alleged, that the decline in this commerce, has 
 been caused by a change from war to peace. At the time those na- 
 tions were under the dominion of France, our exports were more 
 than three times the average we have taken. What then are the 
 chief causes of this almost annihilation of trade, with 14,000.000 of 
 people, who produce various articles suited to our wants, and in re- 
 turn require the productions of this country for their consumption ?
 
 173 
 
 We admit, that the poverty and unsettled state of those countries, has 
 had something to do with this diminution of demand for our produce; 
 but as they must still consume 150,000,000 or $200,000,000 worth 
 of provisions, and as what we exported were mostly articles of the first 
 necessity, they would be less affected in their consumption, than the 
 luxuries and superfluities of life. We say, then, the loss of this 
 trade, is to be imputed principally to the excessive duties imposed 
 on the staples of those countries, which by lessening their consump- 
 tion among us, deprives them of the means of purchasing our staple 
 productions. We shall, however, have a better understanding upon 
 this point, by comparing the duties imposed in the tariff of 1792 and 
 the existing one. 
 
 In 1792, Salt paid 6 cents a bushel. It now pays 25 cents. 
 Brandy, 8 to 10 cents a gallon. Do. 38 to 42 cts. 
 Wines, 10 to 18 do. do. Do. 40 to 100 cts. 
 
 Fruits, 5 per cent. Do. 3 to 4 cts. a Ib. 
 
 or about 30 to 40 per cent. 
 
 We are aware the rates of duty were raised during the period we 
 have taken, but still they were very moderate, compared with the 
 present ones ; and had they been continued, we should at this 
 moment have been able to dispose of several millions of the 
 products of the middle and Eastern states, and received in 
 return the cheap and wholesome wines of these countries, as a sub- 
 stitute for the high priced and poisonous domestic spirit, which is so 
 freely used by our people. The moral effect, therefore, would have 
 been more important to our welfare, than the millions of dollars that 
 would have been saved to the nation. 
 
 We here have another practical illustration of the inevitable re- 
 sult to which the principles of the "American System," when car- 
 ried to the extremes our opponents advocate, will bring the most 
 important branches of our commerce. 
 
 Let us now examine the effects of the non-importation and non- 
 exportation policy, upon the tonnage engaged in our foreign trade, 
 which many of our opponents contend has been as much benefitted 
 by the importation of manufacturing materials, as it has been injured 
 by the diminution of those exports and imports, which have been 
 affected by the " American System." The shipping employed in the 
 foreign trade, continued to increase from 1793 down to 1810, when 
 it reached its greatest height, 984,269 tons. It is now reduced, ac- 
 cording to the last return, to 700,787 tons. It will be said by our 
 opponents, that this decline in our shipping arises from our having 
 lost most of the carrying trade, which we formerly engaged. We have 
 already furnished some evidence that the carrying trade is still very 
 much engrossed by this country and Great Britain, in addition to 
 which we have many new sources of commerce opened to us, and 
 have added immensely to the business of transporting, by the extend- 
 ed cultivation of cotton. Let .us now see whether our tonnage de- 
 23
 
 174 
 
 clined after the peace. In 1810, we had 984,269 tons. From 
 1811 to 1S13, while we were at war with Great Britain, it diminish- 
 ed to 674,853 tons, but after the peace with Great Britain, notwith- 
 standing the resumption of their navigating business, by some of the 
 nations of Europe, it began to rise again, and in 1815 had advanced 
 to 854,294 tons. In 1816, the protecting system commenced, and 
 from that period the tonnage employed in the foreign trade has been 
 on the decline, and there are now 153,507 tons less than in 1815. 
 Here is the evidence of a very great decline in our foreign shipping, 
 and it is still more striking, when it is considered that we have added 
 during this period more than four millions to our population. 
 
 It is contended again by the supporters of the prohibitory system, 
 that the encouragement to our manufactures affords ample compensa- 
 tion to the shipping interests, for what they may lose in one direction. 
 1st. By the immense increase of our coasting tonnage ; and 2nd, 
 by the imports of wool and other materials used in the manufacture 
 of woollens. 
 
 It might readily be inferred from the assertions of our opponents, 
 that nearly our whole coasting tonnage was employed by them, and 
 had been brought into existence and supported by the transportation 
 of such manufactures as owed their extension to the tariff of 1816. 
 But it should always be borne in mind, that only a very small pro- 
 portion of the various manufactures of this country owe their estab- 
 lishment and success to high duties,* nor do they now stand in need 
 of them, as is evident from their having succeeded, when the rates on 
 most articles were not more than one-fifth to one-third of what they now 
 are. Of all the manufacturers of the United States, nine-tenths, at 
 least, are as much injured by the prohibitory duties as the other 
 classes. The coasting trade, therefore, can derive very little sup- 
 port from the few which have been added to the manufacturing class 
 by the protecting system. 
 
 The increase of population in the western states, and the occupa- 
 tion they have furnished to our shipping, and which surely can have 
 nothing to do with the system of high duties, unless it may be to 
 lessen that employment, will alone account for the whole addition to 
 our coasting tonnage ; and yet with all that aid we shall hereafter 
 show that this branch of business has not increased any thing near 
 so fast as before the high duty system. 
 
 We have before shown, that of the 629,000 barrels of flour ship- 
 ped to New England from the southern and middle states in 1825, 
 only 22,916 could be for the consumption of the woollen manufactu- 
 rers dependant on the high duties. The article which gives most 
 employment to the coasting tonnage, as depending on domestic man- 
 
 * There is a country, not undistinguished among nations, in which the progress of 
 manufactures has been far more rapid than in any other, and yet unaided by prohibition* 
 or unnatural restrictions. That country, the happiest which the sun shines on, is our 
 own." Mr. Webster's Speech on the Tariff in 1820. This is the answer from Mr. 
 Webster to an inquiry made by Mr. Clay, whether there ever was a country in which 
 manufactures succeeded without prohibitory duties ?
 
 175 
 
 ufactures is cotton. Let us then examine what portion of the 
 375,000 bales transported coastwise this year, is for the account 
 of the manufacturers. The whole quantity purchased and im- 
 ported by them, does not exceed 125,000 bales ; now half this 
 quantity would have been imported if the duties on cottons had never 
 been raised beyond 15 per cent. The 250,000 bales, which have 
 been re-shipped to Europe, and that came here as a remittance for 
 payment of provisions and manufactures* consumed at the south, 
 occupy more tonnage than all the manufactures or materials of man- 
 ufactures transported coastwise, which owe their existence to the 
 protecting tariff of 1816. 
 
 We will now examine more particularly the statements of our op- 
 ponents as to the increase of the coasting trade, in consequence of the 
 protective system. From the Harrisburg Address, we extract the fol- 
 lowing : " The protection of domestic industry has not only built 
 up the commerce and navigation of the United States, but continues to 
 increase both. Again "It (the protecting system) has probably 
 added 50 per cent, to the internal and coasting trade within the last 
 five years." That the protecting system has not built up our com- 
 merce and navigation, has already been shown, by the decrease of 
 Qiir foreign tonnage since 1815, from 854,294 to 700,787 tons, and 
 by a diminution of our exports below their amount, when our popu- 
 lation and wealth were not half so great as they now are. The de- 
 cline of our exports since the protecting system began to operate, is 
 very striking. In 1817, we exported 87,671,569 dollars; in 1818, 
 92,281,133 dollars; while in 1826 our exports had fallen to 
 77,595,322 dollars. This decrease in a country which has added 
 3,000,000 to her population within the time we make the compar- 
 ison, is one of those signs of a declining trade, which cannot be mis- 
 taken. The other assertion, that the coasting and internal tonnage had 
 increased 50 per cent., is refuted by the address, or by the report 
 annexed to the address, in which it is stated, and truly so, that the 
 enrolled and licensed tonnage of 1821 was 679,062 tons, and in 
 1826, 722,323 tons, making an increase of 53,161 tons in 5 years, 
 or 8 per cent, instead of 50 per cent. Any addition to the steam- 
 boat tonnage of the Western Stales, if that is what is meant by " in- 
 ternal trade," can have nothing to do with the " American System." 
 The prohibitory policy has lessened the increase by diminishing the 
 foreign demand for their staples. 
 
 Let us now examine another statement, made by Mr. Lawrence, 
 at the Boston Woollens Convention. " With regard to the declining 
 
 * It will perhaps be said, that the sale of our " protected manufactures" to southern 
 people, led principally to the shipment of the 250,000 bales of cotton coastwise, and 
 which has been re-shipped. To this we answer, that not one-tenth part of the amount of 
 northern fabrics sold at the south and west owe their existence to the Tariff 0/1816; and 
 what additional goods are made in consequence of the prohibitory duties, would be re- 
 placed by the cheaper imported fabrics ; and thus the southern purchases would be in- 
 creased, instead of being diminished, under a more moderate tariff, and consequently 
 we should receive a still larger quantity of cotton than we now do, for re-shipment.
 
 176 
 
 of commerce, the mere coasting tonnage, amounts to about as much 
 as the whole tonnage of the United States did in the time of the golden 
 harvest, as it was called." The golden harvest of our shipping, or 
 the period when we had the most tonnage, was in 1810, and Pitkin 
 states it at 1 ,424,781 tons, the coasting tonnage at this time is 722,923 
 tons, or about one half instead of almost as much. Again, observes 
 Mr. Lawrence, " What had produced this wonderful increase in 
 the mere coasting trade, that was thought by many of no consequence^ 
 Was it not principally and mainly owing to manufactures?" We 
 answer, that there is no man of common intelligence and reflection, 
 who ever considered the coasting trade of no consequence. It has 
 always been considered as one of the leading interests of the country, 
 and it employed nearly as much capital as the woollen manufacturers 
 now do, before the protecting system was established. 
 
 The second question, whether our coasting had not been princi- 
 pally and mainly increased by manufactures, or by the protecting sys- 
 tem, as we understand him to mean, we shall answer by official 
 statements. The protecting system came into operation in 1817, and 
 the returns of shipping for that year, give 590,186 tons of enrolled 
 and licenced, and for 1825, ending 31st December, 722,323 tons. 
 Here is an increase of 22 1-2 per cent, in 9 years. 
 
 We will now take the same term of years immediately preceding 
 our war with Great Britain. In 1804, the enrolled and licenced 
 shipping was 317,536 tons; in 1812, 477,971 ; giving an increase 
 in nine years of 50 1-2 per cent, and during this period we had an 
 embargo of two years. 
 
 It appears then after all those exaggerated statements which have 
 been published, of the advantages of the " American System" to the 
 coasting trade, that it has not increased half as fast as it did under 
 the free trade system. 
 
 We now come to the benefit derived by the shipping interests, 
 from the importation of the materials used by the woollen manufac- 
 turers. " A great deal has been said" observes Air. Lawrence, 
 " about those measures injuring commerce ; but many of our most 
 intelligent merchants had given up the idea. They were satisfied that 
 the freight of the raw materials used in the manufacture of woollens, 
 would amount to more than the freight on the woollens imported into the 
 United States. He was glad the bill before Congress at the last 
 session did not pass, as it was not such a one as was required, and 
 they would now get a better owe."* 
 
 The imported materials used in the manufacture of woollens, are 
 indigo, fustic, logwood, soap, sumac, woad, madder, and various 
 chemicals. As this list has probably passed through some 500 
 
 * The bill which passed the House last session established the duties on woollens at 
 38 to 139 per cent. The better one, which the Harrisburg delegates have recommended 
 to Congress, calls for rates of 57 1-2 to 281 per cent, and yet they deny that they are 
 monopolists, or even advocalcsfor jrrokibiiory duties. '
 
 177 
 
 speeches, essays, memorials, reports, addresses of conventions, fcc. 
 Sic. it has no doubt received all the additions which could with any 
 propriety be made to it, and we may therefore consider it as compre- 
 hending all the foreign articles used by the manufacturers ; as to the 
 indigo, fustic and logwood, they are mostly procured in exchange for 
 our produce, and would come here in the same quantities they now 
 do, if the protecting system had never existed. What the manu- 
 facturers require is but a small portion of what we receive, and the 
 shipping interest rather lose than gain by the sale in this country ; 
 since they are in consequence deprived of the benefit of transporting 
 the goods to Europe, or where else they may be wanted. Still, how- 
 ever, we will allow 500 tons for these articles. The oil, woad, su- 
 mac, madder and chemicals, used by the 25,000 manufacturers, 
 (added to the former number by the protecting system) would not 
 occupy more than 3,000 tons. The 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 pounds 
 of wool, at 1,000 pounds to a ton, would employ 2,000 tons, making 
 in all 5,500 tons, but lest we should have omitted some articles, or 
 under-rated others, we will allow 7,000 tons. Now all these articles 
 must be purchased abroad with the produce of our soil, so that in 
 addition to the tonnage employed in importing those materials, there 
 would be a quantity of shipping engaged in exporting the produce 
 which is to pay for them. The wool, in 1826, cost 449, 735 dollars, 
 and if we reckon the whole of the imported materials at 1,000,000 dol- 
 lars, it is a high valuation. Suppose then, that the produce sent 
 abroad to pay for the wool, 8z,c. &c. should require 7,000 tons more, 
 we should then have 14,000 tons of shipping employed by the wool- 
 len manufacturers, in the importing and exporting trade. 
 
 The import of woollens in 1326, was 7,888,826 dollars, and the 
 committee think they could not occupy less than 10,000 tons, and as 
 they must be paid for with the products of our soil, and cannot be 
 procured in any other way, we will allow the same proportion of ton- 
 nage as we did for the manufactures, which would make upwards of 
 55,000 tons ; to which adding the 10,000 tons, we have 65,000 tons 
 employed in the importation of woollens, and in the exportation of 
 products to pay for them. 
 
 We admit that this estimate is founded partly upon conjecture, but 
 it serves to show the relative quantity of shipping employed by the 
 manufacturers on the one hand, and the importers of foreign woollens 
 on the other. 
 
 But this statement only shews the tonnage employed in the present 
 reduced state of the woollen importations, while subject to the heavy 
 charges of 57 per cent. 
 
 Now as we are comparing the protecting system with the free trade 
 system, we must suppose the duty to be 15 percent., and in that case 
 we might and should probably import double the quantity we now do, 
 which would employ 130,000 ton?. 
 
 We have proved, then, from official returns, in the first place, that
 
 178 
 
 so far from our shipping interest having been benefitted by the pro- 
 tecting system, the foreign tonnage has declined since 1815, from 
 854,294 to 700,787 tons, while there is reason to believe that a con- 
 tinuance of the free trade system would by this time, have raised it 
 to 1,000,000 tons. 
 
 2. That the coasting trade has increased 22 1-2 per cent, since 
 the commencement of the protecting system, being a period of nine 
 years, while during the nine years which preceded the protecting 
 system, it increased 50 1-2 per cent., thus affording the most undeni- 
 able evidence of the injurious effects of this anti-commercial system, 
 upon this very important branch of commerce. Had the coasting 
 tonnage increased in the same ratio it did under the free trade system, 
 we should now have 888,229 tons, employed in the coasting trade, 
 and the difference between that sum and our actual tonnage 722,323, 
 or 165,906, is the loss which this interest has sustained by the 
 "American System." 
 
 3. That the woollen manufacturers employ 14,000 tons in the 
 importation of their materials for manufacturing, while the importers 
 of foreign woollens employ 65,000 tons, and would employ 130,000 
 tons, were the duties reduced to the former rates. 
 
 Can any one, then, deny that we have offered the most convincing 
 testimony of the mischievous effects of the prohibitory system upon 
 the business of the ship owner ; or, that judging from the past, that 
 he will not suffer still more when the principles on which it is founded 
 shall be carried to still greater extremes ? 
 
 It is well known that an over-supply of tonnage, be the excess 
 ever so small, will lower freights to such a degree, as to be ruinous 
 to the ship-owner, and such must be his situation, while our export 
 and import trade are constantly declining, and such has been the 
 case, during part of the time, since the protecting system was 
 established. 
 
 Let the reader observe, that this shipping interest, which amounts 
 to 85,000,000 dollars, is but a small portion of the capital involved 
 in commerce, which will be deeply affected by this anti-commercial 
 policy. The business of the importing and exporting merchant, the 
 venders and dealers in foreign goods and in such domestic productions 
 as are exported, the owners of various establishments dependant on 
 commerce, as well as the capitalists who depend upon it for the pro- 
 fits of their stock, all suffer from the " American System," somewhat 
 in the same degree with the ship owner, though its effects may reach 
 him in a less imposing way. What maybe the amount employed in 
 all these concerns, we cannot pretend to estimate, but it will be within 
 bounds to say, that the capital in this state alone, is greater than the 
 sum employed by all the woollen manufacturers in the Union. 
 
 2nd. Having attempted to show in this and the preceding sections, 
 the effects which this prohibitory policy had produced on our agri- 
 culture, commerce, and navigation, by the diminution of the export
 
 179 
 
 and import trade, as well as of our tonnage, we now proceed to th 
 consideration of the tendency of this system to provoke retaliatory 
 measures on the part of foreign nations, who may suffer by these 
 prohibitions. As to the right we have to prohibit the impor- 
 tation of foreign goods, it will not, of course, be doubted ; it 
 is therefore, as regards other nations, a mere question of expe- 
 diency. That we shall lose the largest portion of the export trade 
 we now possess,* is just as certain as that the excessive duties now 
 proposed will stop the importation of the principal European staples, 
 which we have heretofore received in exchange for our produce ; but 
 this would take place gradually, as commerce forced out of its natu- 
 ral channels should form to itself new ones. The countervailing 
 measures, therefore, will only hasten that commercial non-intercourse 
 which at all events, must result from the prohibitory system. 
 
 The nation with whom our commercial relations are the most im- 
 portant, is Great Britain, both on account of the immense quantity of 
 produce which she takes from us and consumes; and then again, be- 
 cause she gives us in return cheaper manufactures than we can ob- 
 tain elsewhere. Now, as one of the leading maxims of the advocates 
 of the " American System," is to impose the heaviest duties on those 
 foreign fabrics which come to us the cheapest, BECAUSE THEY INTER- 
 FERE MOST WITH THE DOMESTIC MANUFACTURES, it follows neCCSSa- 
 
 rily that the imports from Great Britain will be more affected than 
 those of any other country. 
 
 As our opponents have taken great pains to excite a prejudice 
 against this branch of commerce, and to represent Great Bri- 
 tain, as not taking freely, and on'favourable terms, the produce of our 
 soil, it is important to know on what footing our trade with that coun- 
 try now stands. 
 
 1st, The extent of this trade. 2nd, The duties imposed by our 
 tariff on British goods. 3d, The duties levied in England upon 
 American productions. 
 
 1st. We find from official returns, that of the domestic produce 
 
 * " If we are unwilling to receive foreign manufactures, we cannot reasonably suppose 
 that foreign nations will receive our raw materials; we may force other nations to seek an 
 inferior market for their productions, but we cannot force them to become buyers when they 
 are not sellers, OR TO CONSUME OUR COTTONS WHEN THEY CANNOT PAY THE PRICE IN THEIR 
 OWN FABRICS. We may compel them to use the cotton of the West Indies, or of the 
 Brazils, or of the East Indies, or the what of the Mediterranean, an experiment in itself 
 sufficiently dangerous to some of our most vital interests; but we cannot expect them to 
 carry on with us a ruinous trade, when the profit is all on one side. Nations like indivi- 
 duals, will pursue their own interests, and sooner or later abandon a trade, however fixed 
 may be its habits, where there is no reciprocity of benefit." 
 
 This is an extract from the Salem memorial, to which we have before adverted. The 
 inhabitants of that town, are both merchants and manufacturers, but they do not believe 
 it. either just or necessary, to destroy or embarrass commerce, that manufactures may 
 flourish ; we wish that those persons, who are really desirous that manufactures should 
 prosper, would look to the opinions of such men, and not to extravagant and visionary 
 theorists and ambitious politicians, who either misapprehend the true interests of the 
 manufacturers, or are willing to use them as an instrument for the promotion of their 
 personal view?.
 
 180 
 
 exported from 1823 to 1826, four years, $116,256,486 was shipped 
 to Great Britain and her colonies, and $101,548,827, to all the rest 
 of the world ; yet we are told by many of the most respectable and 
 accurate writers and orators, in favour of the American System, and 
 by some of those whom we have quoted, " that England will take 
 almost nothing which our soil produces ." Now the only inducement 
 Great Britain has to take this produce in preference to buying it else- 
 where, is our willingness to receive her produce and manufactures in 
 exchange for it ; nor will she find it for her interest to receive our 
 productions on any other terms; but the duties are now so high as 
 to lessen every year our importations of British goods, and our op- 
 ponents contend for such additions as will almost entirely exclude 
 the most important articles. 
 
 2nd. As to the duties on imported goods, it is impossible for any 
 one by a mere reference to our tariff, to form any judgment of what 
 they amount to, on some of the leading articles. Let us examine the 
 rates on the principal imports from Great Britain. 
 
 Cotton manufactures pay 29 to 100 per cent. 
 
 Woollen do. 38 do. 
 
 These two articles, constituted nearly 5-8 of the value of our im- 
 portations from Great Britain in 1825 and 1826. 
 
 We have already shown, that the whole amount of cotton goods 
 imported from all quarters in 1826 for consumption, was only 
 $5,601,961, of which, $4,024,344 were coloured and printed, and 
 on them the Harrisburg Convention recommends such a further 
 duty as will exclude all, except a few unimportant articles, not yet 
 manufactured here. 
 
 The import of woollens for consumption has been reduced to 
 $7,445,444 from all countries, and should the proposed duties of 
 57 1-2 to 281 per cent, or one fourth of the average of these rates, 
 be granted, this article will be excluded, except a few fine and mixed 
 goods, which our manufacturers have not yet attempted to make. 
 Linen goods, and Hardware generally, pay 29 per cent. 
 
 Glass Ware, " 34 do. 
 
 Earthen Ware, " 23 do. 
 
 Carpeting, 
 Window Glass, 
 
 30 to 55 do. 
 
 30 to 120 do. 
 
 60 to 75 do. 
 
 80 to 90 do. 
 
 29 do. 
 
 Iron Bolts, and Bar Iron, 30 dollars per ton. 
 
 Iron Rods, 67 1-5 " " 
 
 Plated and Japanned Wares and Saddlery 
 
 Paper Hangings, - " 46 do. 
 
 To this list might be added some other articles, but as they are 
 mostly excluded by the prohibitory duties levied upon them, they are 
 omitted. As by far the largest proportion of our imports have been 
 in cotton and woollen goods, the committee believe the average duty 
 on the whole importation for the two last years, cannot have been 
 less than 45 per cent, and when to that duty the other charges of
 
 181 
 
 19 to 30 per cent, (according to the bulk of the articles) are added, 
 it will be seen at once, what immense protecting charges are enjoyed 
 by the domestic manufacturers. 
 
 3d. Let us now see what are the duties paid on the importation 
 of American produce into Great Britain. Our whole export of do- 
 mestic produce to Great Britain and her colonies in 1826, amounted 
 to 25,542,299 dollars, and consisted chiefly of the following articles. 
 Cotton, paying a duty of 6 per cent. 
 
 Ashes, paying a duty of 6 shillings sterling, or 133 cents per cwt. 
 or about 25 to 30 per cent. 
 
 Tar, 28 cents per bbl. 
 
 Rosin, 4s. 9d. per cwt. Turpentine, 4s. 4d. per cwt. Flax-seed, 
 5d. per bushel. Rice, 15s. per cwt. The aggregate of these arti- 
 cles was $16,519,836, and as the principal amount paid only 6 per 
 cent., the average of the duties on the whole importation, was not 
 over 8 per cent. Tobacco, amounting to $2,774,443, paid 3s. per 
 Ib. duty, but it should be recollected, that this is not a protecting 
 duty, for the purpose of keeping out our produce, and we only suffer 
 from it, therefore, as it tends to diminish consumption. The two ar- 
 ticles which pay a protecting duty, are Ashes and Rice, with a view 
 of aiding their colonial and East India possessions, but neither of 
 them are of much importance to our trade. The remaining articles 
 to make up the whole export, were chiefly provisions from the 
 Northern and Middle States, for the British colonies, and which were 
 admitted on such favorable terms, as gave us nearly the whole of that 
 trade, till it was closed against us. 
 
 What a complete refutation does this investigation furnish, of those 
 complaints made by Mr. Tibbits, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Carey, and oth- 
 ers, against "British cupidity" and "British illiberality!" Let the 
 reader who is disposed to look at this question with impartiality, com- 
 pare the duties imposed by our tariff on British goods, with those 
 which Great Britain imposes on our staple productions, and say if 
 we have any reason to complain ? There never was a commerce car- 
 ried on with more advantage to a nation, than we derive from our 
 trade with Great Britain, and the time will come, if we should be 
 deprived of it, when the nation will look back with surprise, and still 
 more regret, upon the indifference which is now shown in the most 
 commercial sections of the Union, for its preservation. 
 
 But it is contended that Great Britain refuses our lumber and bread- 
 stuffs. It is true, that while the Corn Laws remain as they now are, 
 we cannot send to that country our flour and wheat, unless in seasons 
 of extreme scarcity, but there can be no question, that those laws 
 will be so modified within 6 months, as to admit our grain in years of 
 moderate scarcity, nor is there much doubt, that in the course of a 
 few years, they will undergo such further alterations, as will enable 
 us to supply her with immense quantities of grain of all sorts, and 
 thus serve, more than all the other foreign markets we now have, to 
 24
 
 182 
 
 maintain the value of a great staple, on which millions depend for 
 support. The consumption of bread in England for one week, would 
 require from us more flour than the average of our annual export 
 for some years past. 
 
 The timber monopoly may also be modified, but it is of no great 
 importance, whether it is, or is not, as the Baltic States, from their 
 vicinity, would undersell us in that article. 
 
 But we are told in an address from the Pennsylvania Harrisburg 
 State Convention, signed by Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, Mr. Carey, and 
 others, that, " every member of Congress must be sensible that ab- 
 stract speculations on this subject, are futile, while even those princi- 
 pal kingdoms, with which the United States have most intercourse, 
 particularly Britain, France, Spain,* and their dependencies, refuse 
 the proffered terms of liberty and equality, and inflexibly maintain 
 their own manufacturers, by excluding not only the MANUFAC- 
 TURES, but the produce of this and all other countries, EXCEPTING 
 SUCH AS SERVES THEIR OWN OCCASIONS." With regard to France, 
 England, and Spain, not receiving our manufactures, we may say, 
 that such a prohibition does us no injury, since we have none to send 
 them, which they cannot purchase cheaper at home or elsewhere. 
 Of the export of our domestic produce, amounting in 1825 and 
 1826 to 120,000,455 dollars, Great Britain took 66,215,286 dollars, 
 or nearly nine-sixteenths of the whole, and France took 18,717,827 
 dollars. The export trade to Spain has been annihilated, as we have 
 before shown, by the high duty system. France, acting upon the 
 principles of the "American System," refuses the manufactures of 
 other countries, but it is not the case with England. The latter 
 country, since the free trade system, came into operation, admits 
 manufactures on much lower duties than we do.f 
 
 * So much do these conventions differ from each other, that in the address issued by 
 thn general Convention at Harrisburg, the ruin of Spain is attributed to the freedom of 
 trade. " The moral and political degradation, which lias so long existed in Spain, and 
 Portugal, was caused by the freedom of trade, which ruined the manufacturers." Here 
 again, the spirit of the " American System " as it is falsely termed, exhibits itself. 
 Free trade is not only ruinous to manufacturers, but to the political and moral welfare 
 of a nation. It follows then in the minds of these woollen delegates, that commerce 
 must be destroyed, that we may become a moral and a manufacturing people. That it is 
 the intention of our opponents to destroy commerce, is sufficiently apparent from their 
 opinions and proceedings, but as many of them have denied it, we are glad to have a 
 more open confession of their views. 
 
 We will now give the opinion of a statesman who differs as much upon this point from 
 these delegates, as we have shown him to do in his other views of the question we are 
 discussing. "The poverty and unhappiness of Spain have been attributed to the want 
 of protection to her own industry. If by this, it be meant that the poverty of Spain is 
 owing to bad government and bad laws, the remark is, in a great measure, just. But 
 these very laws are bad. because they are restrictive, partial and prohibitory. If prohibi- 
 tion were protection, Spain would seem to have had enough of it." Webster's Speech 
 upon the Tariff. 
 
 t In contradiction to these facts, it has been asserted by Mr. Tibbits, in an essay, sent 
 to this committee to enlighten them on the subject we are discussing, that "of the few 
 manufactured articles admitted (into Great Britain) the duties are rarely less than 50 
 per cent., and from that to 150 per cent. Cotton goods, of which there are some not 
 prohibited, pay duties of from 60 to 75 per coni. Earthen Ware, 75 per cent. Glass
 
 183 
 
 Woollens, China, and Earthen Ware, at 15 per cent. 
 Cotton Goods, 20 per cent. 
 
 Cast Iron Manufactures, 10 per cent. 
 
 Wrought Iron, Glass, Steel, and Tin, 30 per cent. 
 
 Silk Goods, 30 per cent. 
 
 And many other articles at much lower rates. 
 It is the condition, however, on which these nations receive our pro- 
 duce, that is objected to by these woollen delegates, who assemble so 
 often to enlighten Congress and the nation, upon the principles 
 of the " American System." " They will only take" say they, 
 " such produce as serves their own occasions ! .'" What would these 
 founders of a new policy have ? Do nations trade with each other 
 to obtain articles, which will not serve their own occasions ? Now 
 we differ so much from our opponents, that we should esteem a 
 commerce, resting on any other principle than the one they denounce, 
 as of little or no value, since a trade, which was not advantageous 
 to both parties, could not long exist. 
 
 But, say the advocates of non-importation, England requires our 
 productions, and cannot obtain them elsewhere. We have already 
 furnished evidence enough, that there are other countries from 
 whence she can obtain the great staple, which is most important to 
 her welfare and ours we mean cotton. 
 
 From India she can obtain rice, and in exchange, too, for those 
 manufactures which we are about to exclude. From her own colo- 
 nies, and the Baltic, flax-seed, ashes, and naval stores. Tobacco is 
 the only article on which England is dependant on us for a supply, 
 but it would require no great effort on her part to extend and im- 
 prove the cultivation of it in India to such an extent as to deprive us 
 of our best market for that important staple. It is one of the effects 
 of the system we are resisting, to raise up agricultural, as well as com- 
 mercial rivals among those nations who are now inactive for the want 
 of that stimulus, which we derive from our immensely valuable for- 
 eign trade. 
 
 We would appeal, then, to the farmer, the merchant, the ship 
 owner, the mechanic, the labourer, and to the just and liberal minded 
 manufacturer himself, whether it is any thing short of madness to 
 impose such restraints and prohibitions as cannot but prove destruc- 
 tive to a branch of commerce, which gives comfort and support to 
 millions of our fellow citizens ? 
 
 It appears, then, from the most indisputable evidence, so far from 
 Great Britain refusing to take our products freely, that, for the two 
 last years, the exports of domestic productions to that country and her 
 
 plates, 80 per cent." It is true, that in a note, he observes, "the address was written 
 previous to the late modification of the British Tariff." Why not, then, in the same no- 
 tice, say what those alterations were ? Or, why not, in his subsequent essays, state 
 what the duties actually were ? But his account of the duties on importations into 
 England, would slill have been incorrect, had not the tariff he referred to, been mod* 
 ified.
 
 colonies, have exceeded in amount the aggregate of our exports to all 
 other countries, by more than one-fifth, and that, with the exception 
 of tobacco, she admits our produce at an average of less than one- 
 fifth of the duties which we. impose on her produce and manufac- 
 tures. 
 
 Notwithstanding, then, the extremely favourable terms on which 
 we possess this trade, and its immense importance to the nation, our 
 opponents contend that British manufactures and produce must be 
 subjected to still higher duties. But will not this prohibitory system, 
 which cannot fail to deprive Great Britain of most of the advantages 
 she now enjoys from an intercourse with us, be met on her part with 
 counter restrictions and prohibitions? The committee apprehend 
 that such will be the effect of it. What is the language of the British 
 ministers, (who have made such great and useful reforms in the 
 commercial policy of England) to the people of that country ? Why, 
 that England will admit the goods of all nations on moderate duties, 
 and their ships on a footing of reciprocity, and in return, that they 
 will stipulate with those nations for the admission of British ships, 
 produce, and manufactures, on equally liberal terms. This is the 
 spirit of the free trade system, now acted upon in Great Britain. 
 These are the terms on which the trade of England is offered to all 
 the commercial nations of the world, and with the exception of 
 France, they have been generally accepted, and in consequence, the 
 foreign commerce of England has been greatly extended, and such 
 always must be the effect of a liberal policy, on an intelligent, indus- 
 trious, and enterprising population. 
 
 The French government, in consequence of the prejudices which 
 yet exist in that nation against a free trade, and still more probably, 
 from the influence of various classes, interested in the system of 
 monopolies and exclusion, have rejected the terms offered by Great 
 Britain, and there is, therefore, as we have before shown, less com- 
 mercial business between the two richest nations in the world, than 
 we transact with the island of Cuba. 
 
 Why, we would ask, will not Great Britain act upon the same 
 principle in regard to this country, when we have excluded her prin- 
 cipal staples? Why should she not impose discriminating duties 
 on our produce, and a tonnage duty on our ships? What in- 
 terest can she feel in maintaining any commercial relations with us, 
 when we shall have deprived her of nearly all the advantages of 
 commerce ?* 
 
 * The radical principle of all commercial intercourse between independent nations, 
 is the mutual interests of both parties. It is the vital spirit of trade itself; nor can it be 
 reconciled to the nature of man, or to the primary laws of human society, th.it any 
 traffic should long be willingly pursued, of which all the advantages are on one side, and 
 all the burdens on the other." President's Message, Dec. 4, 1827. 
 
 These are opinions worthy of the chief magistrate of an enlightened nation; and 
 what a reproof do they administer, to the narrow and illiberal views of our opponents :
 
 185 
 
 The committee are not speculating upon improbabilities. This is 
 the course which Great Britain has actually adopted in similar cases, 
 and it is the course, as appears to this committee, which the British 
 ministers have pledged themselves to adopt towards all nations who 
 will not trade on a footing of reciprocity.* Indeed, with regard to 
 us, this countervailing warfare has already commenced, as has been 
 evinced by the conduct of the British ministers in the negotiation of 
 the colonial trade. What were the principal objects of Mr. Gallatin's 
 mission to England ? To regain the West India trade, and renew 
 our commercial treaty. He has not succeeded in either. The West 
 India trade is withheld from us on terms upon which it was some 
 years ago freely offered, and the treaty is renewed indefinitely; 
 leaving it in the power of Great Britain at any time, on giving twelve 
 months' notice, to impose such restrictions and prohibitions as will en- 
 tirely put an end to the most valuable trade we enjoy. A commerce, 
 we repeat, which is more important to preserve, than all which we 
 have ivith the rest of Europe. 
 
 But, say our opponents, we can retaliate, and that, we believe, is 
 the end which many of them have in view.f But though the state 
 of things which must arise out of such commercial warfare would 
 
 * " May the Memorialists be permitted to say, that it would be a strange anomaly in 
 America to adopt a system which sound philosophy is exploding: in Europe, to attempt 
 a monopoly of the home market, and yet claim an entire freedom of commerce abroad ; 
 to stimulate our own manufactures to an unnatural growth by the exclusion of foreign 
 manufactures, and yet to expect that no retaliating measures would be pursued by other 
 nations." 
 
 The above is an extract from the Memorial of the inhabitants of Salem and its vicin- 
 ity to which we have before adverted, and the following are the names of the very re- 
 spectable committee who were chosen to prepare and forward it to Congress : 
 JOSEPH PEABODY, WILLARD PEELE, 
 
 JOSEPH WHITE, NATHANIEL HOOPER, 
 
 BENJAMIN W. CROWNINSHIELD, THOMAS STEVENS, 
 
 PICKERING DODGE, DUDLEY L. PICKMAN. 
 
 t " The commercial intercourse between the two countries, (Great Britain and the 
 United States) is greater in magnitude and amount than between any other two na- 
 tions on the globe. It is for all purposes of benefit or advantage to both, as precious, and 
 in all probability, far more extensive, than if the parties were still constituent parts of 
 one and the same nation." 
 
 The above is an extract from the President's last Message, and what a contrast is 
 there again, between his enlarged and just views of our commerce with Great Britain, 
 and the opinions entertained by the supporters of the prohibitory system ? The follow- 
 ing is an extract from Mr. Tibbit's Address, and furnishes another instance of that hos- 
 tile feeling towards our foreign commerce, which we have remarked in the leading 
 supporters of the "American System," and some examples of which have been exhib- 
 ited in this section. " But it may possibly be the case," observes Mr. Tibbits, " that 
 England before long will come out with a proposition to admit our bread-stuffs and pro- 
 visions, our lumber, and every thing which wemay think proper to send her, on condition 
 that we continue to take her manufactured articles in return. If so, and the proposi- 
 tion should be accepted by our government, it ought to be looked upon as a great calam- 
 ity." Again "We want, in addition to the obstructions England throws in the way 
 of importations, such further obstructions, raised by our government, as shall create the 
 fullest confidence in manufacturing undertakings in this country." These are the senti- 
 ments of one of the most eminent and respectable advocales of the non-importation and 
 non-exportation policy, an approved writer in defence of the restrictive policy, and a 
 delegate of the Harrisburg Convention, and we apprehend most of our opponents con- 
 cur in them. They appear to us, generally, to treat the question as if the entire de- 
 struction of our commerce, was essential to the accomplishment ol their views.
 
 186 
 
 suit the non-importation party, it would not repair the mischief we 
 should suffer. We could not even retaliate upon that country the 
 injury we should sustain, since the commerce which Great Britain 
 has with us, bears a much less proportion to her whole trade, than 
 the commerce we have with her, bears to ours. The amount of ex- 
 ports from Great Britain for the year ending 5th January, 1826, was 
 298,328,495 dollars, of which five-sixths was in British produce and 
 manufactures ; but of this vast sum, our imports for 1826 amounted 
 only to 26,131,969 dollars. On the other hand, of all the domestic 
 exports from the United States for 1825 and 1826, amounting to 
 120,000,455 dollars, there were shipped to Great Britain and her 
 colonies, 66,215,286 dollars. We should, therefore, in a war of re- 
 strictions and prohibitions, be by far the greater sufferers. And so in 
 regard to the navigation interest. Complaints have been urged 
 against the trade with England,* because many of the importations 
 were made into this country by British subjects, as if they had not a 
 right to carry on all our import and export trade, if they find it for 
 their interest to do it. It is not true, however, that they are exten- 
 sively engaged in the trade, if we can judge from the official returns. 
 The imports in foreign ships, in 1825, from England and her colo- 
 nies, only amounted to about 6 per cent, and in 1826 to 9 per cent. 
 There were, no doubt, some goods in American ships, but in that 
 case, we had the benefit of transporting them, and commissions, &ic> 
 equal perhaps to the common profits of trade. The colonial trade, 
 while it was open, was almost entirely in our hands, and employed 
 102,000 tons, or one-seventh of all the shipping we have engaged in 
 foreign commerce. 
 
 It will be observed that the committee have confined their remarks 
 upon the effects of the anti-commercial policy, to the trade with 
 Great Britain, because of its importance, but it will occur to every 
 intelligent reader, who is in the least familiar with the subject, that 
 the same duties which exclude the fabrics and produce of Great Bri- 
 tain, will exclude similar articles from other parts of the world, so 
 that eventually, we must have almost an entire cessation of commerce 
 with some nations, and a great diminution in our trade with others, 
 and we may perhaps have countervailing acts on their part, as well 
 as on the part of Great Britain. 
 
 Our opponents treat the subject we are discussing, as if it was a 
 mere question between the manufacturers and merchants, and that 
 
 * " It is not now a question between different American interests, but one between 
 Americans and Englishmen. We see daily in the advertisements of our newspapers, 
 that American importers are relinquishing business, and it is well known that 
 about four-fifths of the woollens imported into the United States are on foreign ac- 
 count." Circular of the Boston Woollens Committee, Nov. 7th, 1826. 
 
 British importers of cotton at Liverpool, are also undersold by American competitors, 
 but they do not, therefore, petition Parliament to destroy the American trade. The New 
 England manufacturers undersell those of New York and Pennsylvania, and have ruined 
 thousands by their competition, yet we should not think it wise in those states, if they 
 had the power, to exclude our cheaper fabrics.
 
 187 
 
 the latter were the only persons in the community disposed to resist 
 their pretensions. It is true that their interests are more immediate- 
 ly affected, but we ask who are the merchants, but a portion of the 
 community, filling however an important station from the relation in 
 which they stand to the people at large, whose agents in fact they 
 are . ? The merchant is then but the mere factor of the planter, farm- 
 er and citizens generally, employed in collecting and distributing 
 those articles which are necessary for the existence, the comfort and 
 enjoyment of man. The foreign merchant is employed in sending 
 abroad the surplus productions of the soil, and receiving back such 
 commodities as are wanted in return. It is in vain, therefore, for the 
 party we are resisting, to single out this profession, and represent 
 them as disconnected with the community at large, and having, there- 
 fore, no interest in common with them. 
 
 All classes depend on each other, and all must suffer by a system, 
 which while it lowers the value of e-very man's earnings, enhances 
 the cost of some of the first necessaries of life. 
 
 That the merchant must suffer by a policy which will diminish, and 
 in time almost annihilate foreign commerce, must be obvious to every 
 mind, but perhaps there is no class of men who will more easily es- 
 cape from its evils. If you drive him from the ocean, he will trade 
 upon the land, and if he has wealth, he will join that favoured class, 
 whose demands we are resisting. 
 
 * It is the planter and farmer whose interests will be most deeply 
 injured by the system of restrictions ; their comfort and almost their 
 subsistence, depend mainly on the value of those surplus productions, 
 which cannot be consumed at home, and must therefore be worthless, 
 unless we can still resort to those extensive foreign markets, which will 
 certainly be closed against us, if the " American System" should 
 prevail. 
 
 There is one point connected with this question, which is of great 
 importance, but having already extended this report much beyond 
 the limits the committee had intended, we can only present it to the 
 consideration of our readers, as a subject meriting their most serious 
 consideration. We mean the effect which the non-importation sys- 
 tem must have upon the revenue. Now it will occur to every man 
 of the least reflection, that as we derive our revenue, (with the ex- 
 ception of about a million of dollars from the sale of lands) from the 
 impost on foreign goods, that a system which excludes the most val- 
 uable of those importations, must lessen the revenue ; but obvious and 
 irresistible as such an inference must be to every impartial mind, our 
 opponents contend, that among other extraordinary and valuable attri- 
 butes of the " American System" is that of excluding foreign goods, 
 and at the same time increasing the revenue ! " We contend also," 
 
 * " The tendency of ihe whole system, was fo discourage our commerce with foreign 
 nations, and by making returns more difficult, to sink yet lower the price of every article 
 of our produce, could not be disguised." Lowndes' Speech on the Tariff, 1820.
 
 188 
 
 say the Boston Woollens Committee, " that the increase of duty will 
 not impair the revenue of the United States." And Mr. Stewart of 
 Pennsylvania who has published "so many strong facts," upon this 
 question, observes in one of his speeches, " it had been alleged that 
 this measure would greatly diminish the revenue. This he denied, 
 and expressed the opinion, that it would greatly improve the reve- 
 nue" 
 
 We have already proved by official documents, that the effect of 
 the existing high duties has been to diminish very much the importa- 
 tion of the two articles which afford more revenue than any of our 
 foreign importations, and that the additional duties which our oppo- 
 nents contend for, would almost entirely exclude them. The reve- 
 nue on the importations of cottons and woollens for 1825, could not 
 have been less than $6,000,000, and the committee believe it to 
 have exceeded $7,000,000. 
 
 Let us now look back and see what effect has already been pro- 
 duced on the revenue, by the operation of the protecting system. 
 The high duty, or protecting system, went into operation in the sum- 
 mer of 1816, but as long credits are given on the duties, and as 
 importations did not diminish till the importers had experienced from 
 the dreadful losses they sustained, their inability to contend with the 
 domestic manufacturers, the receipts at the treasury did not show 
 the effects of the Tariff of 1816, till 18 months, or two years, after it 
 was established. 
 
 From the statement of the sums paid into the treasury since 1815 
 from imports and tonnage, (extracted from a respectable journal) the 
 committee find the amount in 1816, to be $36,306,894; and for 
 1817, $26,283,348 ; while in 1818, it declined to $17,176,285 ; in 
 1821 it fell off to $13,004,447. What is the revenue this year ? It 
 is stated in the President's Message, that the whole receipts at the 
 Treasury for 1827, will not exceed $21,400,000. 
 
 We ask then the most deluded supporter of the " American Sys- 
 tem," if this statement does not afford evidence of a decline in the 
 revenue ? We are aware that 1816 does not present a correct ave- 
 rage of the revenue for ordinary years preceding the high duty sys- 
 tem, because in 1814 and 1815 the importations were unusually 
 large, but on the other hand it should be borne in mind, that we have 
 since that period, added 4,000,000 to our population, and more than 
 that proportion to our national wealth ; it is, therefore, reasonable to 
 conclude, that under a continuance of the duties which existed prior 
 to the protecting system, we should at this time have had a revenue 
 of $35,000,000, instead of the actual revenue as estimated by the 
 President, of $21,400,000. 
 
 But can we maintain our revenue at its present value ? We cer- 
 tainly cannot, if the views of our opponents are accomplished. We do 
 not pretend to deny should even the Harrisburg Tariff be adopted, 
 that we shall still have many articles of consumption, such as teas,
 
 189 
 
 wines, pepper, sugars and silks, and even some fabrics of woollen and 
 cotton not yet attempted by our manufacturers, all of which will 
 afford revenue. Suppose then we admit that the revenue will not 
 decline below $12,000,000, how, we would ask,is the difference be- 
 tween that sum and $22,300,000 (our present expenditure) to be 
 obtained ? And still further, how are those large sums, which the 
 same party propose to expend in canals and rail roads for the ac- 
 commodation of their establishments, and to evince their patriotism, 
 to be raised ? What source of taxation can we resort to, to supply the 
 loss of the $10,000,000? Why, the same men who would destroy 
 our foreign trade have found a remedy for one of the evils which 
 will result from the " American System." We can, says Mr. Stew- 
 art have an excise !* Yes, we can, and must have an excise and 
 a land tax of $12,000,000 or $15,000,000 to bring $10,000,000 
 into the treasury, to accommodate those who will profit by the 
 " American System." But who will pay this tax ? Will it be the 
 capitalist and the rich manufacturer, the merchant, and other wealthy 
 classes of the community who now pay much of it on articles of 
 foreign consumption ? Yes, they will certainly pay some portion of 
 it, but the heaviest part of the burden will fall upon the cultivator of 
 the soil, whose expenses are enhanced, and produce lowered, by this 
 very system for the support of which he is so heavily taxed. 
 
 The Committee have now terminated their proposed examination 
 of the leading positions, on which the advocates of the restrictive poli- 
 cy appear to us, to rest for their support. 
 
 They are sensible, that some of the details they have gone through, 
 will be tedious to all, and may seem superfluous to many, but they 
 appeared to them to have an important bearing on the question we 
 are discussing, and every one will acknowledge, that pages are often 
 necessary to detect a fallacy, or refute a misrepresentation, which a 
 few lines only might embrace. 
 
 The statements and arguments we have been answering, are se- 
 lected from the speeches and publications of the most respectable and 
 
 *" Genllemen dread an excise : and why was an excise more terrible than an impost ? 
 Were they not alike a tax upon consumption ? The only difference was, that the impost 
 was paid on the consumption of foreign productions, and the excise was paid on the 
 consumption of our own. Besides, an excise would have the valuable and important 
 effect of leading to economy in public expenditures, and checking all kinds of extrava- 
 gance." 
 
 This committee do not agree with Mr. S. in his views of an excise tax. There are 
 many objections to it, in comparison with an impost on foreign goods, as a means of 
 raising money. It is a very expensive way of raising- revenue, at least 5 times as much 
 so, as on foreign goods. It is also n vcr_v obnoxious mode of taxation, and in some sec- 
 tions, it has been found to be almost or entirely an impracticable out. The history of the 
 very respectable state Mr. S. represents, will verify these assertions. As to a land tax, it is 
 a very unequal one in its operation. The owner of a farm, who has nothing to depend 
 upon but his labour, must pay the same rate per each acre, that his rich neighbour does, 
 who may have $10,000 at interest. It resembles in this respect the proposed woollen* 
 tax, which falls the heaviest on those who have the lenst means of bearing it, and such 
 we believe will be the general efiect of the " American System." 
 
 25
 
 190 
 
 intelligent advocates of the new system, and if the committee have 
 succeeded in refuting them, we can assure our readers, it has nothing 
 more to rely on for its support. 
 
 No one in this community can fail to remark, in the opinions we 
 have presented them, of some of the most influential and able advo- 
 cates of the new policy, the entire abandonment of those sound prin- 
 ciples which have been long entertained in this quarter, upon the 
 subject we have been discussing, and which till within a very short 
 period, numbered among their zealous supporters, some who are 
 now the most active in promoting the " American System." 
 
 There is, however, another circumstance still more striking, which 
 is the utter destitution of every thing like correctness in the state- 
 ments, or soundness in the reasonings of those with whom we are 
 contending. They argue on wrong assumptions, and draw from them 
 conclusions which would be false, even if their premises were not so. 
 
 That there is no want of talent or ingenuity among the party we 
 are opposing, we all know; what then, is the reason, when they come 
 forward with demands of the most extraordinary character which 
 were ever made upon a free and enlightened nation, and for the pro- 
 motion of objects which they deem of vital importance to their per- 
 sonal interests, that they have not furnished in support of those de- 
 mands, any thing which merits the name of argument ? We say, 
 they have nothing to offer ! 
 
 The principles which are summoned to the aid of the new policy, 
 are all at variance with the just and enlightened sentiments which 
 prevail in this nation.* 
 
 The claims of our opponents, with however much earnestness and 
 plausibility they may be urged, have nothing to rest on, but fallacies 
 and misrepresentations ; and if they succeed, it must be by deluding 
 the nation into a course of measures, which will be productive of the 
 most destructive consequences. 
 
 In despair of finding any arguments, the advocates for restriction 
 would sustain themselves by authorities, but there is not one, we have 
 seen cited, that has not been either perverted from its true meaning, 
 or on examination found to be in direct opposition to their views. In 
 truth there are no authorities living or dead, to which they can refer 
 for support, unless they recur, as they sometimes do, to those unen- 
 lightened ages when the principles they advocate originated. 
 
 There are indeed some men engaged in the cause we are resisting, 
 who would send us back five hundred years, to learn the true princi- 
 ples of regulating our commercial policy, and it would be equally 
 wise, were we influenced by their advice, to adopt at the same time, 
 
 * " In short, sir, the general sense of this age sets, with a strong current, in favour of 
 freedom of commercial intercourse, and unrestrained individual action. Men yield up 
 their notions of monopoly and restriction, as they yield up other prejudices, slowly and 
 reluctantly ; but they cannot withstand the gcuci ul tide of opinion." Mr. Webster's 
 Speech on the Tariff.
 
 191 
 
 the principles of civil liberty which then prevailed, or to transfer to 
 this country, the arts of making cotton and woollen goods, as prac- 
 tised by our venerable ancestors. 
 
 The practical advantages of the enlightened principles which now 
 prevail in regard to the subject of this discussion, over the restrictive 
 systems of those ages, are as obvious and as great, as the manufac- 
 turing arts of modern times, are superior to those which existed five 
 centuries ago. This is a truth, which no nation on earth ought to be 
 more sensible of, than the people of this country, because no nation 
 ever prospered in the same degree we have, since the establishment 
 of our independence, and to what other causes we would ask, can 
 this prosperity be attributed, so much as to the influence of those just 
 and liberal principles, on which our institutions are founded ? 
 
 Again, the supporters of the restrictive policy refer us to the ex- 
 amples of other nations, of Germany, Italy, Holland, France and 
 Russia,* who they say, are acting upon the principles of the 
 " American System." 
 
 But the conduct of those nations ought not to reconcile us to prin- 
 ciples which are manifestly unjust, nor to the expediency of our 
 adopting them, nor does it even shew that those principles are ap- 
 proved of, where they are acted upon. These unjust restraints upon 
 the occupations of men, were not of their creation ; they are among 
 the evil institutions which descended to them from their forefathers, 
 and though suffering under their influence, they have not, as yet, 
 found courage or strength enough, to throw them off. 
 
 The nations they refer to, are governed also by emperors and 
 
 * " France under her restored monarchy adheres to the same system. She found her- 
 self entangled in one commercial treaty with Great Britain, and would not be allowed 
 into a renovation of a compact, by her regarded as injurious in its operation. Russia, 
 also, for a short period, manifested symptoms of good will to the liberal school, but soon 
 repented and returned to her old system. In Germany, Italy, Holland, and every other 
 commercial European state, duties, bounties, drawbacks and restrictions, are the order 
 of the day." Otis' Speech at the Boston Woollens Convention. 
 
 Notwithstanding this condemnation of the doctrines of the liberal school, Mr. Otis still 
 admits the correctness of their principles, and that is all we are contending for. " It is 
 very well known" says Mr. Otis in his speech, " that speculative writers have espoused 
 very opposite theories. .One class supports the restrictive system, which is founded on 
 duties, prohibitions, and monopolies ; and even upon bounties. Their opponents con- 
 tend for the liberal system. This leaves individuals and capital to seek out their own 
 channels of employment, without the interposition of government. There could be no 
 doubt but the latter system was the most attractive ; and he believed that its fundamental 
 principles and theories were correct. He was a disciple of that school and had been educated 
 in its faith and tenets. But it was rare that abstract and elementary principles furnished 
 unerring rules of conduct for the practical statesman." Here we have an acknowledg- 
 ment from one of the most sensible advocates of the " American System," that the theo- 
 ries ice are contending for, are correct. As to their impracticability, it is too late to find 
 many believers in that doctrine, since we have been acting upon them ever since we 
 existed as a nation, and it is the successful operation of them in this country, which has 
 hastened the adoption of them in Great Britain and elsewhere. But what is the alterna- 
 tive if we abandon the liberal system ? Why, we must adopt the restrictive system, 
 which Mr. Otis himself says, '' is founded on duties, prohibitions, and monopolies ', and even 
 upon bounties." It is then for the people of this country to say, whether they will ad- 
 here to the wise and just system we have so long flourished under, or adopt the one now 
 recommended to us. of bounties, monopolies, and prohibitions.
 
 192 
 
 kings, and although considered as blessings, in the countries over 
 which they rule, we do not think it necessary or expedient to import 
 them, for the improvement of our civil institutions. 
 
 It is not true, however, that all, or even most of the commercial 
 nations in Europe, act upon the unjust and illiberal principles, which 
 are recommended for our adoption. Germany, Italy, and Holland, 
 with the exception of some of the most inconsiderable states, inclu- 
 ded under those terms, are acting upon the free trade system. In 
 some of those countries, the import and export duties are barely 
 sufficient to pay for their collection, and in the others, they are gen- 
 erally, and upon the average, much less than those which are imposed 
 on this free nation. 
 
 France, we admit, is most unhappily compelled from causes to 
 which we have before adverted, and against the opinions of her wis- 
 est economists and statesmen, to adhere to the prohibitory system, and 
 its fatal effects are exhibited in the limited trade she has with the 
 first commercial nation in the world, less as we have before observed, 
 than we enjoy, with an island containing a fiftieth part of the popu- 
 lation of France, and not one hundredth part of her means of con- 
 sumption. 
 
 The whole export and import trade between France and Great 
 Britain, in 1825, (one of the most active and speculative years we 
 ever had,) amounted to only 14,574,692 dollars. What it would 
 have been, had the two nations made those exchanges, which their 
 welfare and happiness require, no one can say ; but considering the 
 great population, their enterprize, skill and industry, and the means 
 they have of consuming all the comforts and luxuries of life, as well 
 as their vicinity and diversity of productions, .there can be no ques- 
 tion, they would, under a liberal system, have a commerce ten 
 times more extensive and advantageous, than they now enjoy. 
 
 And what is the amount of the trade between France and the 
 next greatest commercial nation we mean the United States ? Our 
 official returns, give an aggregate amount of domestic exports to 
 France and her colonies, for 1825 and 1826, of 18,717,827 dollars, 
 while to Great Britain and her colonies, (where our opponents say, 
 the products of our soil are not freely admitted,) we exported the 
 same years 66,215,286 dollars. The exports to France the two 
 preceding years, were still less than of the two we have given. 
 
 Can the advocates of restriction, find any encouragement in these 
 comparisons, between the practical results of the principles they ad- 
 vocate, and the free trade system ? 
 
 We are referred also, by the advocates of the American System, 
 to Russia a country just emerging from a state of barbarism, and 
 which has hardly yet taken rank with the civilized nations of the 
 world, for the principles of our new commercial code. 
 
 Let us then see what has been the effect of her wise system, which 
 we are called upon to adopt, upon our commercial relations with her.
 
 193 
 
 In the official returns, the committee find the amount of domestic 
 produce exported to Russia in 1826, was 16,604 dollars. 
 
 This is the encouragement afforded to our domestic labour and 
 capital, by a nation of 40,000,000 people, and praised by one of the 
 most intelligent of our opponents, " for repenting of the lessons 
 she had taken in the liberal school, and for having returned to the old 
 system." 
 
 It is asserted by some of the supporters of the restrictive policy, 
 that " Great Britain has abandoned the free trade system" 
 
 That Great Britain still retains some of the restrictions which were 
 entailed upon her, by acts of legislation of some hundred years stand- 
 ing (but which no statesman within the last half century of any repu- 
 tation has pretended to defend) we have already admitted. But it 
 cannot be denied, that she admits our staples on much more favour- 
 able terms than we do hers ; and with regard to the only article of 
 much importance which she now excludes, there can be uo question 
 her laws will soon be so modified, as to create a more extensive de- 
 mand for it, than is afforded by all the other markets, on which we 
 now depend for the sale of that valuable staple. 
 
 As to that particular point which involves the principle we are dis- 
 cussing, we give the following extract of a speech of Mr. Huskisson's 
 in 1825, which embraces the views of the whole administration, and of 
 the most intelligent and influential portion of the English nation. 
 
 " The result of the alterations, which I have now stated to the 
 committee will be this ; that upon foreign manufactured articles gene- 
 rally, where the duty is imposed to protect our own manufactures, 
 and not for the purpose of collecting revenue, that THE DUTY WILL IN 
 NO INSTANCE EXCEED 30 PER CENT. If the article be not manufac- 
 tured much cheaper or much better abroad than at home, such a 
 duty is ample for protection. If it be manufactured so much cheaper, 
 or so much better abroad, as to render 30 per cent insufficient, my 
 answer is, first, that a greater protection is only a premium to the 
 smuggler ; and secondly, that there is no wisdom in attempting to 
 bolster up a competition, which this degree of protection will not sus- 
 tain." 
 
 These are not the mere speculative, but the operative, governing 
 opinions of the statesman who has taken the lead in those useful re- 
 forms in the British commercial policy, to which we have before ad- 
 verted, and in accordance with these views, he substituted for a pro- 
 hibition on silks, a duty of 30 per cent. When this act was passed, 
 it was considered by the British manufacturers, that they should be 
 undersold by the French, and the measure excited the most violent 
 clamour among those who had so long profited by the monopoly ; 
 still he would not yield to their complaints, and the duty now stands 
 at what is considered in England, a fair protecting rate. 
 
 Now this duty, enables the British merchant to import silks at 35 
 per cent, which is all the protection which the English manufacturers
 
 194 
 
 have against the fabrics of France, while our woollen manufacturers 
 are guarded against foreign competition, with charges amounting to 
 57 per cent, yet they complain that our government do not give them 
 the protection which British manufacturers enjoy. 
 
 But it is contended by some of the apologists of the " American 
 System," that although its immediate effects may be injurious, that 
 eventually, advantages will result from it. To our minds, there is no 
 such cheering prospect in view ; but if there was, would it be wise, 
 would it be just, to subject this nation to an immediate and certain 
 injury, for a future and contingent good ? 
 
 In the schemes of our opponents, every thing is prospective but 
 the evils they will bring upon us ; these are certain, immediate, and 
 interminable ; while the benefits we may derive from their policy, 
 are uncertain, remote, and improbable. 
 
 Again ; the men who claim exclusive privileges, appeal to our na- 
 tional pride and our love of independence, as motives which should 
 induce us to aid them in the unjust and violent measures they pro- 
 pose, as if it was possible for a sentiment of so elevated and gener- 
 ous a nature, to mingle with the views of men who appear to be gov- 
 erned by the most selfish desires. The restrictive policy, say they, 
 will promote our national dignity, security, and independence; while 
 on the other hand, we contend that consequences directly the reverse 
 of these will be among its bad effects. It will promote nothing, but the 
 political and pecuniary interests of those, who organized the system. 
 
 But we are told it is patriotic to support the exclusive system ! If 
 it is patriotic to support systems, which go to the destruction of in- 
 dividual rights, and the general welfare; to transfer property from 
 millions for the benefit of hundreds ; to put such restraints upon the 
 occupations of men as would deprive them of half their earnings ; to 
 plant the seeds of discord through every quarter of the Union; to 
 create sectional prejudices, sectional hatreds and sectional wrongs ; 
 to disturb our social relations at home and our peaceful relations 
 abroad ; and finally, to destroy our confidence in the government 
 and constitution under which we live; then is patriotism one of those 
 blessings which will require the spirit of martyrdom to endure one 
 of those virtues, that will be the ruin of our country. 
 
 But it is an American system, and must, therefore, be encouraged ! 
 It is not an American system ; the term is not descriptive of the 
 thing. It is a foreign system the vitiated parts of a foreign system, 
 which cannot be incorporated into our youthful and healthy constitu- 
 tion. It is a system, which cannot be established, or if established, 
 cannot be endured. 
 
 Before the committee close this report, they would again advert to 
 the object they have in view. They beg leave to remind the reader, 
 that there is no question between us and those against whom we are 
 contending, as to the advantages of manufactures to this country, nor 
 whether it is desirable that all just and proper measures should be used
 
 . 
 
 2iJ .<* 
 ^ -,% * v, - 
 > 
 
 195 
 
 for their extension and success. On these points there is no difference 
 of opinion, and this committee yield not to the most zealous of the 
 manufacturers themselves, in their earnest and unfeigned desire, to see 
 this branch of industry flourish in common with all others. The 
 committee have no prejudices against manufacturing generally, nor 
 any branches of it. 
 
 What then, it may be asked, is the object of the report ? Is it to 
 create hostility to the manufacturers ? Certainly not ! Nothing 
 can be more remote from the intentions or wishes of this committee, 
 and they have been most unfortunate in their expressions, if any 
 fair and impartial mind can suspect them of such a motive. 
 
 Who are the manufacturers, but our fellow citizens, our acquaint- 
 ances, our friends, and our relations? Can the interests of a class 
 who employ so much of the labour and capital of this town, vicinity 
 and state, suffer without involving every one in their losses ? Are we 
 not, then, bound to them by the ties of good will, of friendship, and 
 of interest ? How, then, can we be hostile, or even indifferent to 
 their welfare ? It would, indeed, be most uncandid and still more 
 unreasonable, for any one to imagine that we could have been influ- 
 enced by any other motive than a desire to do what little we can, in 
 resisting not manufacturers, but the principles some of them advo- 
 cate, and which we think adverse, not only to all the other great in- 
 terests of the country, but to the manufacturers themselves. 
 
 As a class of men, we consider the manufacturers as contributing 
 their full share to the public welfare, and we desire to see them pros- 
 per ; but that their prosperity may rest upon that economy, skill, and 
 industry, which they have generally exhibited in their concerns, and 
 not on an artificial and forced system of laws and regulations, unjust 
 and onerous to the nation, and which, if it can be established, must 
 sooner or later be abandoned ; not, however, without leaving behtnd, 
 on the part of the nation at large, feelings of disgust and aversion, 
 not only towards manufacturers, but to the sections in which they 
 prevail. 
 
 This is not a mere sectional and pecuniary question, which should 
 turn upon the point of our making a little more or less profit by any 
 particular branches of business. It involves considerations of a much 
 higher nature, though even upon that score, we have no doubts 
 whatever, that the manufacturers themselves, would very generally be 
 sufferers by any further extension of duties, since the existing rates 
 are sufficient for their purposes, and any increase, would only serve 
 to bring an odium upon them, which all must be desirous to avoid. 
 But if it could be proved, that the proposed measures would benefit 
 not only the manufacturing, but all the other great interests of the 
 manufacturing states, then we should say, it was a question of morals, 
 and should still contend, that it was both inexpedient and unjust to 
 support a system, which, however advantageous to us, would be in- 
 jurious to the rest of the nation.
 
 UCSB LIBRARY 
 
 The views which the committee take of this subject, have heen 
 maintained and are still maintained, by many of the most intelligent 
 manufacturers themselves, and we think it is only necessary for others 
 to have a clear perception of their interests, to unite in our opinions. 
 We entreat, then, those who may still differ from us, to examine the 
 question, to look at it with that impartiality, with that enlightened sel- 
 fishness, which they evince in the common affairs of life, and we ap- 
 prehend they will arrive at the same conclusions which other manu- 
 facturers have done, who have as deep an interest at a stake as 
 themselves, and are equally desirous of promoting it. 
 
 In conclusion, we say, the system we are opposing, is not patriotic, 
 is not American. Disguise it under what names you will, it is still a 
 system founded on error and injustice. It is a system in which there 
 are principles at work, that will first weaken, and finally break those 
 social, moral and political ties which bind this union together. We 
 call then upon the farmer the merchant the mechanic the navi- 
 gator the labourer the citizens at large upon every one who feels 
 an interest in the welfare of his country and above all, upon the 
 prudent, just, and enlightened manufacturer to join us in resisting it. 
 
 It has frequently been stated in this report, that the duty of 38 per cent, on woollens, 
 imposed a tax of $23,940,000 on the consumers. The reader must have noticed, how 
 we arrived at that result. The manufacturers have at this moment a duty of 38 per 
 cent. ; they demanded last year 80 percent., and now call for 57 1-2 to 281 per cent. We 
 therefore assumed 38 per cent, as the basis of our calculation. But it is contended, that 
 we admit the inaccuracy of our own estimate, by having before proved, that we manu- 
 factured a large proportion of all the woollens we consumed, under a much lower rate. 
 Now if our opponents admit this to be true, then, they acknowledge, that even the exist- 
 ing rates of duty are too high, and of course they cannot sustain their claims for addi- 
 tional duties. 
 
 But it is the effect of high duties to enhance the prices of all goods made at home, as 
 well as the imported, whether the quantity of the latter be more or less. This is the 
 ground taken by Mr. Everett, and all the advocates for increased duties on woollens. In 
 the case of imported wool, they consider the duty as enhancing the cost of all the icool 
 used in the United Stales. " It is no answer" says Mr. Davis, " to this view of the sub- 
 ject, to say that a large portion of the wool used here, is purchased of cur farmers ; for 
 as long as wool is imported, the foreign wool will regulate, the price, and when American 
 wool of equal quality falls below it, importations will cease." 
 
 If then 80 or 120 per cent, is considered by the manufacturers as necessary to keep 
 foreign woollens out of our market, they cannot, without great inconsistency, complain 
 that in estimating the bounty they enjoy at 38 per cent, we have taken too high a rate.