s, APPLETON, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 THE BILL TO REDUCE AND OTHERWISE ALTER 
 
 DUTIES 0\ IMPORTS. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives, in Committee of the Whole, Jan. 23, 1833. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY GALES AND SEATON. 
 1833.
 
 UCSB LIBKAKY 
 
 SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. CHAIRMAN: I have no doubt that this committee will give me full cre- 
 dit for sincerity when I assure them, that it is with extreme reluctance that I 
 rise to address them on this occasion. Certainly, nothing in itself can be 
 more appalling than the idea of making a speech upon the tariff; which, of 
 necessity, must be expected to be far more tedious than any merely thrice 
 told tale. But the great amount of capital belonging to my constituents, in- 
 volved in the decision of this question, an amount far greater, I apprehend, 
 than is represented by any other individual on this floor, imposes on me a duty 
 which I dare not avoid. Nor is this all. The principles embodied in the bill 
 on your table, and the circumstances under which it is brought forward, give 
 to this measure an importance, a solemnity, which have attached to few ques- 
 tions which have been agitated since the establishment of the Government. It 
 is, in my estimation, intimately connected with the permanent peace, happi- 
 ness, and prosperity, if not with the very existence of this Union. 
 
 Now, sir, what are the circumstances under which this measure is brought 
 forward? Notwithstanding the greater part of the last, long protracted ses- 
 sion, was occupied on this subject; notwithstanding the result of those labors 
 was the passage of a bill, by the votes of a majority of this House almost un- 
 precedented in any important measure, a bill which was received throughout 
 the whole country with all but universal satisfaction, as a fair compromise, 
 as the harbinger of peace, of reduced excitement; notwithstanding all this, 
 we are now informed, by authority, that we must review our work; that 
 that bill will not do; that the whole matter must be gone over again. 
 
 The measure before us naturally presents two questions: the first, whether 
 it is necessary, proper, or expedient, that we should pass any bill on this sub- 
 ject; the second, whether, on the supposition that that question is answered 
 in the affirmative, this is such a bill as we ought to pass? 
 
 Notwithstanding the impatience of the honorable gentleman from Tennes- 
 see, (Mr. POLK,) that we should come to the details of the bill, I must first 
 discuss the preliminary and previous question are there any good reasons 
 why we should pass any bill at all? 
 
 Why, Mr. Chairman, should we disturb the act of last July? Nobody 
 dreamed of doing so before the meeting of Congress. All the reasons are to 
 be found in the communications to this body from the Executive. Let us ex- 
 amine them. The duty is urged upon us of reducing the revenue to the ex- 
 penditures of the Government; and the first question is, what relation do they 
 now bear to each other? 
 
 The President informs us in his annual message, that " It is expected, how- 
 ever, that, in consequence of the reduced rates of duty, which will take effect 
 after the 3d of March next, there will be a considerable falling off in the re- 
 venue from customs in the year 1833. It will, nevertheless, be amply suffi- 
 cient to provide for all the wants of the public service, estimated even upon a 
 liberal scale, and for the redemption and purchase of the remainder of the 
 public debt." 
 
 Well, sir, then for 1833 there is no difficulty. Notwithstanding the reduc- 
 tion in the term of credit for duties after the 3d of March, and the circum- 
 stance that a considerable portion of them will be payable in cash, thus con- 
 centrating a great part of the revenue of two years, the revenue is only ex- 
 pected to be amply sufficient for the expenditure, including the reimburse- 
 ment of the balance of the public debt, so that for a year to come, at least, 
 there can be no surplus.
 
 We are next told, that "the final removal of this great burthen [the public 
 debt] from our resources, affords the means of further provision for all the 
 objects of general welfare and public defence which the constitution author- 
 izes, and presents the occasion for such further reduction in the revenue as 
 may not be required for them." 
 
 Here is a sentiment to which the whole nation will respond; the happy era 
 of freedom from debt, presents an admirable opportunity for doing something 
 liberal and glorious for the general welfare. 
 
 But, sir, without making any calculation for these proposed objects, of 
 which the Secretary of the Treasury in his annual report for the last year fur- 
 nished us a long list, have we arrived at a point where we can decide with 
 any degree of certainty or confidence that the revenue, under the bill of last 
 session, will exceed the proper and necessary expenditure of the Government? 
 That bill was framed for the express purpose, and with the express view, to 
 reduce the revenue to the amount of the expenditure, and, at the same time, 
 to preserve that incidental protection to manufactures which has always formed 
 a part of our revenue system. 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury informs us in his last annual report, that he 
 still believes that fifteen millions (as estimated in the report of 1831) is a fair 
 estimate of the probable expenses of the Government, for all objects other than 
 the public debt. I shall assume it to be so; and propose to inquire what rea- 
 son there is to believe that the revenue under the act-of July last will exceed 
 that sum? 
 
 In doing so, I put out of the question the sales of the public lands, as not 
 furnishing any permanent fund tor the expenditure of the Government. It is 
 well known that a bill for the distribution of the proceeds of these sales 
 amongst the several States, passed the other branch of the Legislature during 
 the last session, and was postponed in this House, at the close of the session, 
 by a small majority, on the ground that the time was too short for acting upon 
 so important a matter. There are various other projects for the disposition of 
 these lands; and we are told, by the same high authority under which this bill 
 is brought before us, that "it is our true policy that the public lands shall 
 cease, as soon as may be, to be a source of revenue." It would, therefore, be 
 absurd to take them into view, in an arrangement of the duties intended to be 
 permanent 
 
 Fifteen millions are wanted, then, as revenue from imports; and the question 
 is, whether, under the act of July last, they will produce a greater sum? We 
 find in the last annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury the following 
 paragraph: " Taking an average of the importations, for the last six years, as 
 a probable criterion of the ordinary importations for some years to come, the 
 revenue from customs, at the rates of duty payable after the 3d of March 
 next, may be estimated at eighteen millions of dollars, annually." 
 
 As the Secretary has not informed us of the process by which he comes to 
 this result, its correctness can only be tested by such data as the official docu- 
 ments furnish; and I confess I cannot, by any calculation which I can make, 
 come to the same result. But, before presenting my own calculations, I must 
 call the attention of the committee to another circumstance connected with 
 this inquiry, of a character altogether extraordinary. The President, in his 
 last annual message, urges the necessity of reducing the duties to the revenue 
 standard; and the Secretary of the Treasury, in his report accompanying it, 
 makes use of the following language, speaking of his report of 1831, communi- 
 cated to this House at their former session: 
 
 " In the last annual report on the state of the finances, the probable expen- 
 ses for all objects other than the public debt, were estimated at fifteen mil-- 
 lions. This is still believed to be a fair estimate: and, if so, there will be an 
 annual surplus of six millions of dollars. 
 
 "Still firmly convinced of the truth of the reasons then presented, fora re- 
 duction of the revenue to the wants of the Government, I am again urged by 
 a sense of duty, to suggest, that a further reduction of six millions of dollars 
 be made, to take effect after the year 1833. Whether that shall consist alto-
 
 gether of a diminution of the duties on imports, or partly of a relinquishment 
 of the public lands, as a source of revenue, as then suggested, it will be for 
 the wisdom of Congress to determine. 
 
 "Deeply impressed with these reflections, which are now rendered more 
 urgent by the reduced and limited demands of the public service, / had the 
 honor, at the lust session of Congress, to recommend a reduction of the duties 
 to the revenue standard. The force of those, and similar considerations, and 
 of that recommendation, may be supposed to have received, at that time, the 
 sanction of Congress, and to have formed a motive of the act of the 14th of 
 July last, notwithstanding that it was not then deemed practicable fully to 
 adopt the recommendation of the Department ." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, on reading these passages in the report of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, I thought it the language of pretty severe reprimand, because 
 we had failed to carry into effect his recommendations for reducing the reve- 
 nue, and as urging that circumstance as the .ground for requiring our further 
 action. In the hurry in which that bill was made to take its final shape, it 
 was not easy to calculate precisely the comparative reduction which it made, 
 as compared with the bill from the Treasury: my own impression, at the time, 
 was, that it went quite as far, or farther, than that bill. The language of the 
 Secretary, therefore, a good deal surprised me, as indicating a result so differ- 
 ent from my own expectation. It occurred to me, in examining into this mat- 
 ter, to inquire, how far we had failed in our duty? how far we had fallen short 
 of the Secretary's recommendation? J will not conceal my astonishment at 
 the result; and, Sir, I ask, what will be the astonishment of this House, should 
 it turn out, after all, that the bill of July provides for as great a reduction of 
 the revenue, as that furnished us by the Secretary himself? play, more, sir; what 
 will they think, should the reduction under our own bill go beyond that pro- 
 posed by the Secretary a full million of dollars? It is, indeed, passing strange; 
 but it is said figures cannot lie, and I can bring them to no other result, as the 
 following table will show: 
 
 Reductions of duty by the bill of 14th July, 1832, as compared with that re- 
 ported by the Secretary of the Treasury, on 2~th Jlpril, 1832, taking the 
 imports c/1831, according to the table annexed to the report of the Commit- 
 tee of Ways and Means, as furnished by the Treasury Department, as the 
 basis . 
 
 Amount. Rate of reduction. 
 
 Woollens, not exceeding 35 cts. sq. yd. $1,005,000 5 per cent. $50,025 
 Worsted stuff' goods. 3,594,000 10 359,400 
 
 Blankets, not exceeding 75 cents each, 650,000 20 
 
 Silks, from India, ' - 1,804,000 15 
 
 Silks, other countries, 8,398,000 15 
 
 130,000 
 270,600 
 1,259,700 
 98,700 
 
 Sail duck, - r 470,000 21 
 Manufactures of hemp or flax, (deduct- 
 ing osnaburgs, &c.) 4,264,000 10 " 426,000 
 Hemp, unmanufactured, 51,909 cwt. 50 cts. cwt 25,954 
 Coffee, 81,757,386 pounds, cent, 408,785 
 Teas, 5,182,867 pounds, I " 51,828 
 Wines after 1834, j half present duty, 296,034 
 
 $3,377,026 
 
 Additions of duly made by same bill. 
 Amount. Rate. 
 
 On wool costing over 8 cents per Ib. $1,234,000 34 per cent. $119,560 
 Woollen yarn, - 100,000 30 p.ct.& 4 cts.lb. 50,000 
 
 Woollens over 35 cents square yard, 5,893,000 20 per cent. 1,178,600 
 
 Flannels, bockings, and baizes, 350,000 20 " 70,000 
 
 Carpetings, 420,000 25 " 105,000
 
 Sewing silk, 649,000 20 per cent. 129,800 
 
 Sewing silk, from India, - 52,000 15 " 7,800 
 
 Indigo, - - 759,000 15 " 113,852 
 
 Salt, 4,182 bushels, - Scents, 209.117 
 
 $2,303,729 
 
 Reductions, - $3,377,026 
 
 Additions, - 2,303,729 
 
 Balance in favor of reduction, - $1,073,297 
 
 There may be a few other small items, operating both ways, but which can- 
 not aftect the result; besides, the addition on raw wool is altogether greater 
 than will ever result in practice: the importation of 1831 being wholly unpre- 
 cedented, and more than three times the amount imported in any one previous 
 year. It may, therefore, be safely assumed, that the act of July, 1832, re- 
 duced the amount of duties more than a million of dollars below those pro- 
 posed by the Secretary of the Treasury, assuming the import of 1831 as the 
 basis. It would seem, therefore, that if the duties have not yet been reduced 
 to the revenue standard, it is not the fault of the two Houses of Congress, 
 Avho have actually gone beyond the recommendation of the Executive. 
 
 The question then arises, Have we any good ground for believing that we 
 shall be overburthened with an excess of revenue under the existing law? 
 
 It is notorious, that, at the present moment, instead of there being any 
 money in the Treasury, the balance is actually the other way. In the corre- 
 spondence between the Secretary of the Treasury and the President of the 
 United States' Bank, it was admitted that the Government would be short at 
 least some few hundred thousand dollars of the amount requisite to pay oft' 
 the three per cents on the first of January, and which it wished the bank to 
 advance on interest. So that, at present, we are in fact somewhat behind 
 hand. Now, the gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. IXGERSOLL,] of the Com- 
 mittee of Ways and Means, has shown conclusively, that, according to the 
 estimates of the Treasury Department, the balance in the Treasury, on the 
 1st of January, 1835, wifl be less than the appropriations which will then be 
 outstanding. I do not perceive that this statement is at all impugned by that 
 of the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, ['Mr. \EHPLANCK.] 
 The only difference appears to be, that the latter thinks we ought to be con- 
 stantly in debt to the outstanding appropriations some millions; trusting that 
 they will not. be called for until we can receive the amount from new sources. 
 This appears to me rather a niggardly course, as a permanent one, for a Gov- 
 ernment free of debt, and with a reduced income, as it leaves them no availa- 
 ble fund for possible contingencies. 
 
 The most important question, however, is, whether the permanent revenue, 
 under the act of 14th July, 1832, will probably exceed the sum of fifteen mil- 
 lions 'of dollars, the estimated necessary expenditure? In recommending the 
 measure of reduction to us, the Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report 
 of December, 1831, made use of the following very sensible language: 
 
 " It will be difficult precisely to graduate the revenue to the expenditure. 
 The necessity of avoiding the possibility of a deficiency in the revenue, and 
 the perpetual fluctuation in the demand and supply, render such a task al- 
 most impracticable. An excess of revenue, therefore, under any prudent sys- 
 tem of .duties may be for a time unavoidable; but this can be better ascer- 
 tained by experience, and the evil obviated, either by enlarging the expendi- 
 ture tor the public service, or by reducing the duties on such articles as the 
 condition of the country wti*lld best admit." 
 
 I agree fully in these sentiments, and they would seem to offer an irresisti- 
 ble argument against disturbing the existing law, until tested by experience. 
 The Secretary of the Treasury, in his communications of the last year, as- 
 tlu> amount of imports for 1830 as the basis of his calculation, be'iiu-;
 
 70,876,000 dollars. He now assumes the average of six years, including 
 1832, which gives 86,260,000 dollars, whilst the Committee of Ways and 
 Means assume 100,000,000. 
 
 The importation of 1830, was a very small one. In fact, the only correct 
 mode of estimation for the future is to take an average of years, and in the 
 present case the result will be as nearly as may be, the same, whether we take 
 an average of four or six years. Taking, then, the average adopted by the Se- 
 cretary of the Treasury, as a fair basis of calculation, and I shall attempt to 
 show that it is the utmost which can safely be taken, from the gross imports 
 of 86,200,000 dollars must be deducted the amount of foreign goods exported, 
 which, on an average of the same period of six years, amount to a fraction 
 over 20,000,000, leaving 66,200,000 as the nett amount of foreign imports, 
 including those free and those liable to duty, consumed in the country, and 
 from which the revenue from imposts is to be derived. The only accurate 
 mode of estircmting this revenue, under a change of duty, would be, to take 
 the average amount of each article, liable to duty under the new act, imported 
 for the last six years, and deducting the quantities exported, calculate the 
 duty on the -balance, as the average nett quantity consumed. We have been 
 furnished with no such tablej and, in the absence of it, I must take such 
 data as we have. The table annexed to the report of the Committee of 
 Ways ari*d Means, gives twenty-three dollars and sixty-six cents per cent, 
 as the average duty payable on the entire import, under the act of July last, 
 taking the importation of 1831 as a basis of calculation. This ratio will give, 
 on the nett import of 66,200,000, a revenue of 15,660,000 dollars, subject, 
 however, to a deduction for the expenses of collection, of about a million of 
 dollars. 
 
 Now. sir, I think it can be made apparent, that this mode of estimation 
 gives too high a result, because the import of 1831 embraced imports of cer- 
 tain articles paying the highest rates of duty, vastly greater than the average 
 imports of the same articles for six years, or than can safely be calculated on 
 for the future, as the following: 
 
 Import of 1831. Average of 4 years. Rate of duty. 
 
 Wool costing over 8 cents, 1,234,000 400,000 54 per cent. 
 
 W'oollens subject to high duties, 6,100,000 4,100,000 50 " 
 
 Cottons, 16,090,000 10,800,000 42 " 
 
 Now, it must be apparent, that this excessive importation in these particu- 
 lar articles goes to increase the rate of duty on the whole importation very 
 materially over any average of years which can betaken. From a calculation 
 which I have made, these items will reduce the average rate of duty from 
 twenty-three dollars sixty-six cents to twenty-two dollars forty-four cents per 
 cent. 5 and in this table no allowance is made for the reduction of one-half 
 the duty on wines after the 3d of March, 1834. Putting all these things to- 
 gether, I estimate the excess arising from this mode of estimation, as amount- 
 ing to at least a million of dollars on the nett revenue, which will reduce it 
 below 14,000,000, on the basis assumed by the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 There is another view of it. The Secretary of the Treasury communi- 
 cated to this House on the 4th of June last, through the Committee of Ma- 
 nufactures, a table, containing an estimate of the duties which would accrue 
 under the bill reported by Mr. Adams, the chairman of that committee, taking, 
 as a basis, the importation of 1830, on which the nett revenue Was calculated 
 and made to amount to $12,763,000. The import of that year was a small 
 one, amounting to $70,876,000, whilst the foreign exports were $14,387,000, 
 leaving a nett importation of $56,489,000, on which the revenue was to be le- 
 vied. The bill of the 14th of 'July last made very considerable further re- 
 ductions, especially in the articles of tea, coftee, silks, linens, sail duck, and 
 certain descriptions of woollens, amounting, after making full allowance for 
 additions on a few small articles, to more than a million of dollars; or allow- 
 ing for a proportionate amount of debentures, making a deduction from the 
 nett revenue, calculated in that table, of full $800,000, and reducing the entire
 
 8 
 
 nett revenue on the basis (hen assumed, below 12,000,000 of dollars. If, thet*, 
 $56,489,000, the nett importation of 1830, gives a nett revenue of $12,000,000, 
 under the law of last July, $66,200,000, the nett average import of the last 
 six years, will give $14,100,000, from which is still to be deducted $300,000 
 for the reduction on wines, after March, 1834, leaving the permanent nett re- 
 venue, on the basis assumed by the Secretary of the Treasury, $13,800,000. 
 This appears to me the only safe estimate which we can make from data in 
 our possession. 
 
 It is therefore apparent that, instead of our having any troublesome surplus 
 of revenue over $15,000,000, under the existing law, the probability is, that 
 it will actually fall considerably short of that sum. It is true the Committee of 
 Ways and Means assume $100,000,000 as the probable amount of future im- 
 portations, and have assumed that as the safe basis of legislation in establish- 
 ing a permanent system of revenue, presenting the singular anomaly, that in 
 July last we were furnished by the Treasury Department with the basis of 
 of $70,000,000 as a datum for legislation, and in the succeeding December 
 our Committee of Ways and Means say $100,000,000 is not too high an es- 
 timate, and all this under the same administration. This discrepancy alone 
 would furnish a sufficient reason why we should not meddle with this subject 
 at the present session. It is, however, easy to show that the assumption 
 of $100,000,000 of gross imports, or of $80,000,000 of nett imports, as the 
 basis of a revenue system, is wholly unsafe and unwarrantable. It would 
 seem to have resulted from the fact, that our official tables of imports give the 
 amount for the year ending 30th September, 1831, at $103,191,000, and for 
 1832 at $101,036,000, which might, at first sight, give an air of permanence 
 to" these high sums; but a careful examination will show the fallacy which 
 would result from doing so. Everyone acquainted with commercial operations, 
 is aware how periods of depression and elevation of-prices. of caution and 
 overtrade, follow each other in a sort of irregular circle of years. This is not 
 the occasion to discuss the causes of these fluctuations; but the fact is noto- 
 rious. Depression is followed by caution, which leads to successful operations 
 which are pushed on to full, and finally to overtrade, until another depression 
 completes the revolution of the wheel. 
 
 The return of these periods is very irregular, but the years 1829-30-31 and 
 32 are a striking illustration of a complete revolution in the short period of four 
 years. Every one knows that the year 1831 was a year of great overtrade; of 
 great prosperity in the commencement of it, and great loss in the end. Kvery 
 one, therefore, was prepared to see a great increase in our imports of that year, 
 which expectation was, in a great measure, satisfied by finding our official 
 tables giving an import of one hundred and three millions tor 1831, after seventy 
 millions in 1830. But the fact that the import of 1832 should still come up 
 to one hundred and one millions, was somewhat puzzling. I was at a loss to 
 account for it myself. Having some recollection of the period when the great 
 increase of imports commenced, and was in operation, it occurred to me, 
 that the quarterly returns might throw some light on this matter. Accord- 
 ingly I obtained from the Treasury Department the following statement of 
 the aggregate amount of imports for the several quarters of the years ending 
 30th September, 1831 and 1832. 
 
 4th quarter ending Dec. 30, 1830, $20,465,508 to 1831, 21,920,495 
 
 1st " of 1831, Mar. 31, 1831, 22,948.340 "1832, 33,697,120 
 
 2d " " June 30, 1831, 28,083,858 " 1832, 23,045,395 
 
 3d Sep. 1831, 31,693,418 " 1832, 22,373,887 
 
 103,191,124 101,036,897 
 
 Here the whole mystery is solved: the imports for the year from 1st April, 
 1831, to 31st March, 1832, amount to the enormous sum of $115,394,891; and 
 every one conversant with the state of trade during that period must be 
 aware, that it is precisely that in which the overtrade commenced and reached 
 its crisis. If any doubt the fact of this overtrade in the year 1831, I would
 
 refer them to the series of questions propounded by the gentleman from New 
 York [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] to the President of the United States' Bank, dur- 
 ing the last session, the thief object of which was to show that this great over- 
 trade was owing to the increased issues of the United States' Bank. The 
 fact of the overtrade was admitted, and the difference between the gentleman 
 from New York and the President of the Bank was simply, that the former 
 charged the bank with having caused the overtrade, by an improper increase 
 of its circulation, whilst Mr. Biddle insisted that the bank had merely met the 
 demand for an increased circulation, resulting from an increase of trade. . It 
 is not my purpose to discuss the question which party was in the right. It 
 is unquestionably true, that overtrade and a greatly expanded bank circulation 
 are always coincident; they act and re-act upon each other, and it is not always 
 easy to say which is cause and which is effect. It is evident, then, that here 
 was a year of great overtrade, which has greatly increased the official returns 
 of imports for the years 1831 and 1832, and that tho*e returns form no 
 proper basis of calculation for the future, without joining with them the two 
 preceding years of restricted importation, 1829 and 1830. If other evidence 
 be required of the danger of taking the years 1831 and 1832, as a criterion for 
 the future, it may be found by a reference to our exports. It is evident that, 
 there must be a pretty near correspondence between our domestic exports, and 
 the nett amount of our foreign imports, which ore received in exchange for 
 them. Accordingly, we find the exports of domestic produce for six years, 
 from 1825 to 1830, average $57,400.000; whilst the imports of foreign goods for 
 the same period, after deducting foreign goods exported, average $60,200,000. 
 Now the exports of domestic produce for the years 1831 and 1832, average 
 $62,175,000; whilst the imports of foreign goods, after deducting those export- 
 ed, average $79,900,000; making an excess, from the proportion which our 
 imports bear to exports, for the preceding six years, of about thirty millions 
 of dollars; that is to say, our imports have outrun or gone in advance of our 
 exports that sum, and must wait for the latter to come up with them. We 
 accordingly perceive a great falling ofTin the imports of the last twofquarters of 
 the year ending September 30, 1832 five millions in the first, and nine mil- 
 lions in the second, as compared with the corresponding quarters of 1831. This 
 falling off must continue much longer, unless this balance against us is paid 
 for by loans. We have, in fact, made loans to the amount of twelve millions 
 on this account seven millions by the bank of the State of Louisiana, nego- 
 tiated by the Barings, and five millions by the United States' bank against the 
 three per cents; the last, to be sure, is only temporary, and is only postponing 
 the day of payment fyr a year. It is very true that some gentlemen calculate 
 on a great increase of importation, in consequence of a reduction of duties, and 
 a consequent increase of the revenue: but I cannot agree with them in the lat- 
 ter result: the increase will be in free goods, or goods paying little duty, and 
 the probability is, there will be a corresponding diminution in commodities 
 paying high duties; so that the revenue is as likely to be diminished, as in- 
 creased. 
 
 I trust, Mr. Chairman, that I have made it apparent that the basis of an 
 average of six years, as adopted by the Secretary of the Treasury, is as high aa 
 amount of imports as it is safe to assume in relation to the revenue and that 
 we have no ground for believing that the revenue will, for years to come, exceed 
 fifteen millions of dollars. I am myself fully of opinion that it will fall short 
 of that sum, and thus the operations of the treasury, for three years to come, 
 will be very much cramped, instead of our being burthened with an excess. 
 There is no good' reason, then, why we should pass this bill on the alleged 
 ground of a necessity of reducing the revenue to the expenditure of the Gov- 
 ernment. That has been done already. 
 
 But, sir, there are other ominous giyings out in the official communications. 
 The President, in his late message, after recommending a proper adaptation 
 of the revenue to the \yants of the Government, proceeds: " In effecting this 
 adjustment, it is due, in justice, to the interest of the different State*, and 
 even to the preservation of the Union itself, that the protection afforded by
 
 10 
 
 existing laws to any branches of the national industry, should not exceeti 
 what may be necessary to counteract the regulations of foreign nations, and 
 to secure a supply of those articles of manufacture essential to the national 
 independence aud safety in time of war. If, upon investigation, it shall be 
 found, as it is believed it will be, that the legislative protection granted to 
 any particular interest is greater than is indispensably requisite for these ob- 
 jects, I recommend that it be gradually diminished: and that, as far as may 
 be consistent with these objects, the whole scheme of duties be reduced to 
 the revenue standard as soon as a just regard to the faith of the Government, 
 and to the preservation of the large capital invested in establishments of do- 
 mestic industry, will permit." 
 
 These communications have been, not inaptly, compared to the responses of 
 the Delphic oracle, which every party was able, to interpret according to his 
 wishes?. So here the text admits of a liberal or narrow construction; it may be 
 made to cover the whole ground of the American System, or exclude it alto- 
 gether. But other intimations of a more alarming character follow. 
 
 " Those who take an enlarged view of the condition of our country must be 
 satisfied that the policy of protection must be ultimately limited to those arti- 
 cles of domestic manufacture which are indispensable to our safely in time of 
 war. Within this scope, on a reasonable scale, it is recommended by every 
 consideration of patriotism and duty, which will doubtless always secure to it 
 a liberal and efficient support. But, beyond this object, we have already seen 
 the operation of the system productive of discontent." 
 
 There is no great ambiguity here; and the plain English of it is, that the 
 whole system of protection to American industry must be swept by the board. 
 That system, which for sixteen years has been acquiring stability and strength; 
 which has brought the country to a state of prosperity of which the annals of 
 the world afford no parallel this whole fabric is to be swept away with a 
 haste and rapidity unexampled in our legislation. 
 
 Is it pretended that the system is not a wise one in itself? No, sir, not that 
 I am aware of. This very Congress have, by a l.arge majority, affirmed the 
 wisdom of the system; they have, in public estimation, given assurance to (he 
 system by the act of last July. And yet this same Congress are now called 
 upon to retract all their opinions upon this subject, and, at the bidding of Ex- 
 ecutive power, to place their names on record, in black and white, in ever- 
 lasting, if not in damning, contrast with themselves. 
 
 Can such things be? Is this a Government of the people? a Government of 
 public opinion? A distinguished gentleman of South Carolina, [Mr. McDur- 
 FIE,] in a speech of the last session, drew a most glowing picture of the 
 oppression and tyranny growing out of the democratic form of Government 
 a Government of majorities, of King Demos. Methinks the form of our Go- 
 vernment is changed. It seems to be a perfect monocracy. We are living 
 under a new dynasty; and, perhaps before the close of the session, the same 
 gentleman may favor us with an eulogium on King Monos. Is it not so, sir? 
 May we not, with equal truth, ask, in the language put into the mouth of 
 Cassius by the great dramatic poet, in reference to Julius Cassar: 
 
 " When could they say before, who talked of us, 
 " That our wide walks encompassed but one man?" 
 
 What is the ground for this change? What is the pretext? It is said the 
 South is discontented; that the South considers the tariff unequal in its opera- 
 tion, perhaps unconstitutional. South Carolina has placed herself in an atti- 
 tude of opposition to the Government; and the Atlantic States south of the 
 Potomac will join her, and secede from the Union, unless the tariff system 
 is repealed instanter. This is the ground, and the whole ground, on which it 
 is expected that this bill will pass. But does this House believe that this sys- 
 tem acts oppressively and injuriously upon any portion of the Union? The 
 admission would be an admission of their own shame, unless some new light, 
 some new conviction, has burst in upon them. If that be the case, it must 
 have been by intuition. The allegation is, that the system operates unequally
 
 11 
 
 and injuriously upon the States employing slave labor, whilst it is beneficial 
 anil advantageous to the States employing free labor. And what, Mr. Chair- 
 man, is the argument to support this proposition? In the whole discussion of 
 the last session, 1 heard no argument used to establish this partial injury, 
 but the argument invented by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. 
 McDuFFiEJ and which has since, under the influence of that gentleman's 
 eloquence, been adopted by the State of South Carolina as the ground of her 
 proceedings. It may, therefore, now be properly called the South Carolina 
 theory. That theory is, that the farmers and planters who produce the articles 
 which are exported from a nation bear the whole burthen of the tax levied in 
 impost duties on the commodities imported into that nation, whether they 
 consume any portion of those commodities or not; in other words, that a duty 
 of forty per cent, on imports consumed in the north takes forty bales of cotton 
 out of every hundred produced by the cotton planter. This illustration has 
 also given it the name of the '" forty bale theory." 
 
 I am not going to discuss the argument by which that theory is supported; 
 that was done sufficiently at the last session. But, I ask, if there are ten 
 members of this House perhaps there are ten but I boldly ask, are there 
 twenty who believe in that argument? Nay, more, are there twenty men in 
 this nation, north of the Potomac, having any acquaintance with commercial 
 operations, or any knowledge of the science of political economy, who do not 
 consider the theory a mere rhapsody of metaphysical sophistries? All may 
 not be able to unravel the web so ingeniously put together; but all perceive 
 that it is, and must be, false. 
 
 Now, I aver, that I know of no other argument which goes to show the 
 operation of the tariff to be unequal in its character, but this South Carolina 
 or forty bale theory. The supporters of that theory expressly admit that its 
 supposed inequality rests solely on that argument; and that, if impost duties 
 fall exclusively on the consumers of the foreign commodities, there is no in- 
 equality in the case. The only other argument entitled to any consideration 
 is this: that certain products and manufactures of the North, consumed in 
 the South, are enhanced in price by the protecting tariff, and thus operate to 
 their especial injury. But, to my apprehension, this argument resolves itself 
 into the general question of general, expediency, so often discussed and so 
 often decided in both branches of the National Legislature. If Virginia pays 
 an extra price for Pennsylvania iron, so does New England. If Virginia pays 
 an extra price for New England woollens, so does every man in New England 
 itself. The great interest of New England, as of all the other sections of the 
 Union, is agricultural; and I should be glad to be informed how the wheat 
 grower of Virginia suffers more from the system than the wheat grower of New 
 York, or the grazier of Massachusetts; all of whose productions are regulated 
 by the price in foreign markets, as well as that of the cotton planter. 
 
 The question of the advantages of a system of free trade, or of duties pro- 
 tecting home productions, is a question of theory against practice. Free trade 
 has been very well argued by speculative writers, on grounds which might 
 prove very correct in a world destined to universal peace, and actuated by a 
 spirit of universal philanthropy. But, unhappily, these speculative theorists 
 have not made the slightest progress in persuading their own nations to adopt 
 their views in practice. And is there an individual on this floor who will have 
 the temerity to maintain that the opening our ports on the principles of free 
 trade to other nations closing their doors upon our productions, would not be 
 to prostrate our industry and prosperity at the foot of foreign nations? to sub- 
 mit to pay them precisely what tribute they choose to levy upon us? 
 
 I except, however, from this inquiry the gentlemen of the South Carolina 
 school, and yet they are" the last who can, with any consistency, deny the 
 general expediency of the protecting system, because one of their strongest 
 arguments to show the inequality of the system, is, the statement of the fact, 
 that the whole North is flourishing in unprecedented prosperity under the in- 
 iluencc.' of this system, from which circumstance, the. truly logical inference is 
 drawn, by a process of argument equally logical, that (hi* prosperity must, of
 
 12 
 
 necessity, be subtracted from their own. The most that can be said of any 
 real inequality in the system is this, that, whilst the intended and expected 
 effect of attracting capital into the protected branches of industry has been 
 operative and effectual in the Middle and Northern States, the same result 
 has not been produced in those of the South. The reason must be, either be- 
 cause the profits of slave cultivation are so great as to leave no inducement to 
 employ capital in manufactures, or that the effect of slave labor is to indispose 
 the white population to that persevering and thrifty industry necessary to the 
 prosecution of these branches, and on which the prosperity of the. North de- 
 pends. It is no answer to this argument to say that slave labor cannot be em- 
 ployed in manufactures. Suppose it cannot, there is white labor enough. The 
 white population of the States who complain most of this system, is upwards 
 of two millions. 
 
 In fact, however, although not acting so quickly, the system seems begin- 
 ning to act effectually in many of those States. Maryland was amongst the 
 first to adopt, and took the lead in supporting, this system- Virginia, I am 
 told, is proceeding rapidly in the establishment of manufactures. I understand 
 several cotton mills are building, as well as in operation, both in Richmond 
 and Petersburg. 
 
 I am informed by an honorable gentleman of Georgia, (Mr. CLAYTON,) 
 that twelve or fifteen cotton mills are building in that State, to share in those 
 profits, which, at the last session, he informed us he was making himself in 
 that business. Several establishments are making in Louisiana, and I believe 
 also in Mississippi. And it would seem that the fanatics, who are hurrying 
 South Carolina to her ruin, are acting under the conviction that the system, 
 left to itself, would soon work itself into favor, even in their own region. 
 
 The only ground, after all, on which the immediate and hurried action of this 
 House can be justified is, that it is necessary to the preservation of the Union. 
 Good Heaven! Mr. Chairman, has it come, to this? Has the national bond of 
 union, under which every citizen of these United States has grown proud, 
 even to a by-word amongst those foreigners who visit us, become so weak, 
 that it cannot be trusted to hold together for a single twelvemonth? Impos- 
 sible! Nothing in private life is more hazardous than to act under the influ- 
 ence of panic. It can hardly be less so in legislating upon the vital interests 
 of a great and growing empire. Can it be strengthening the Union, for this 
 Legislature, before the echo of the President's message can return upon the 
 capitol from the distant mountains, to do an act which shall be felt in every 
 vein and artery of the body politic? Can it be preserving the Union, for its 
 chosen guardians to abandon in affright a system which they were sent here 
 to protect? a system which they themselves, and a vast majority of this na- 
 tion, believe to be the source of their present, and essential to their future, 
 prosperity? Can peace and safety result from such a course? Can it pre- 
 serve the Union, or make it worth preserving, for this Legislature, in this 
 state of agitation, to pass this bill; and by the stroke of the pen, by which it 
 becomes a law, to prostrate private property, with a recklessness, it not wan- 
 tonness, which has no parallel in the legislation of civilized nations? 
 
 Will it promote the cause of free Government in Europe, for this their mo- 
 del, their pattern in wicked, midnight haste, to pass an act, annihilating pri- 
 vate property with less reluctance or consideration, as 1 verily believe, than can 
 befound in theannals.of the petty despotisms of Asia or Africa? Sir, there isone 
 evil greater than disunion itself: it is to make the Union not worth preserving. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am not insensible to the dangers which threaten the repub- 
 lic. One of the States of this Union is in rebellion peaceable rebellion or, 
 if that word sound too harsh, be it a crisis or, to be more strictly correct, South 
 Carolina is in a state of nullification. But is there any danger so imminent in 
 this? She has done what it was apparent twelve months ago she would do. 
 She has put in practice, as a remedy, a political theory nearly as absurd as the 
 system of political economy on which she founds her grievances. But, sir, in 
 my apprehension, the danger of the present crisis is past nullification is nul- 
 lified. Th Preid<-nt*s proclamation, ratified a* it has been, by one uiiiver-
 
 13 
 . 
 
 sal burst of public opinion, has killed it. It is true, South Carolina is raising 
 troops; but does any one apprehend danger to the Union from South Carolina, 
 by force? with a white population of two hundred and fifty thousand, equally 
 divided, and holding in her bosom three hundred thousand slaves? No, Mr. 
 Chairman, no one apprehends danger from South Carolina alone. No one 
 supposes that South Carolina will undertake to set herself up as a nation by 
 herself. She is acting, and we shall act, under other views. Our sense of 
 danger, and the real danger, lies in the circumstance that, throughout all the 
 Atlantic States owning property in slaves, from the Potomac to the Missis- 
 sippi, there is a strong feeling of common interest; a strong sympathy for South 
 Carolina; a violent clamor; a great excitement against the protective system; 
 an idea, more or less general, but certainly of a large majority, that the sys- 
 tem is unequal in its operation, and injurious to them. Nor is it surprising, that 
 thisstate of feeling should exist. Whoever listened to, or has read the speeches 
 which were delivered in this House, during the lastsession of Congress, by a cer- 
 tain party, and which* were dispersed, thick as autumnal leaves, through the 
 whole region of the South, with other incendiary tracts, all calculated, if not 
 intended, to rouse the whole South to madness, cannot be surprised at the re- 
 sult. We were told in this hall, that the protective system was a vampire, by 
 which the North was sucking the warm blood of the South; that the free States 
 were prairie wolves, gorging their jaws by instinct in the blood of the South, 
 whilst oppression, robbery, and plunder, were sounded to every note of the 
 gamut. Is the result surprising? Those who could not understand the argu- 
 ment on which their wrongs were founded, could understand the application; 
 and, coming from such sources, can it be wondered at, that the existence of 
 these wrongs should be believed? 
 
 Now, I suppose it will be conceded, that a great majority of the people of the 
 States north of the Potomac, and of the West, believe the system of protection 
 to be one of sound policy; that the practical operation of it has been beneficial 
 to them and injurious to none; that the prostration of the system will inflict 
 real injury on them, by paralyzing their industry, without provingof any benefit 
 to the South; but that, on the contrary, they will suffer in the general injury. " 
 This is the state of the case. It certainly presents matter for grave consider- 
 ation, for wise and deliberate counsel. But dp we lessen the danger by re- 
 fusing to look it calmly in the face? The danger is disunion. Shall we strength- 
 en this Union, and lessen .this danger, by yielding up what a majority of this 
 House, in their consciences believe, what a majority of this nation believe, to be 
 a great national good, in complaisance to opinions which we believe to be whol- 
 ly erroneous? That such is the opinion of a majority of this House, stands on 
 record in the journals of the last session, under the sanction and responsibility 
 with which we perform the duties of our high trust. Under these circum- 
 stances, I also ask, in the language of the President, what shall be done? 
 Shall we sacrifice great interests under the influence of panic? or shall we ex- 
 amine fearlesly into the nature of the malady, and ascertain if it be capable of 
 a permanent cure? 
 
 It is apparent that this great difference of opinion grows out of one great 
 circumstance in the condition of the different sections of the country the 
 existence and non-existence of slavery. The great question is, whether this 
 circumstance presents any real incompatibility or difference of interests, so 
 as to make a system which is favorable to one section actually injurious to 
 another? This is rather a question of fact. I am favorably inclined to the 
 proposition of the gentleman from Rhode Island, [Mr. BUUGES,] or something 
 of similar character, for a large committee, or for commissioners, to inquire 
 into the actual operations of the tariff; to bring the sufferings of the South into 
 something like a tangible shape: to give us facts, of which we have so little, 
 in the place of theory, of which we have so much. I should like an inquiry 
 into the state and effect of manufactures, thorough and searching; like those 
 which are gone into before committees of the British Parliament on all ques- 
 tions affecting great interests. 
 
 Then, sir, there is another consideration connected with this subject The
 
 14 
 
 tariff' is put forward as the great, the only, ground of complaint; but is it the 
 only ground of apprehension, of fear? Sir, it is idle to disguise it Every 
 man who hears me knows that there is a question behind the tariff, to which 
 that is but as dust in the balance; a question which includes what may 
 emphatically be called the Southern interest the Southern feeling; which 
 includes, also, the fear and apprehension of the South, that the General Go- 
 vernment may one day interfere with the right of property in slaves. This is 
 the bond which unites the South in a solid phalanx; this is the key to their 
 jealousy of allowing a liberal construction of the constitution in relation to the 
 powers of the General Government. Why does Virginia pass weeks together 
 in discussing the abstract right of secession from the Union? Does she wish 
 to secede?. No, sir; except in one event. She wishes to keep the door open, 
 in case the question of emancipation should ever be seriously brought before 
 Congress. There lie on the tables before you certain resolutions of the State 
 of Georgia, proposing a Convention of the States for certain enumerated pur- 
 poses. I noticed, when these resolutions were reported in the Georgia Le- 
 gislature, an additional proposition for the consideration of the Convention, viz: 
 what further security should be obtained for a certain description of property. 
 This was struck out, by unanimous consent; and why? Was it that this last 
 consideration, like the postscript to a letter, was not considered important? 
 Not at all; but it was not thought expedient to express any distrust of the 
 security under the present constitution. For myself, Mr. Chairman, I be- 
 lieve the South are unduly sensitive on this point. I know of no Northern 
 statesman who calls in question the inviolability of the property in slaves, 
 under the constitution. I am sure the people of the State which I have the 
 honor, in part, to represent, have no more disposition than they believe they 
 have right to interfere in this matter in any way. But, sir, this extreme sen- 
 sitiveness and apprehension, on the part of the South, on this matter, is an 
 element too important to be overlooked, in adjusting their supposed grievances. 
 
 There is another question. Does the South really wish the continuance of 
 the Union? I have no doubt of the attachment of the mass of the people of 
 'the South to the Union, as well as of every other section of the country. But 
 it may well be doubted whether certain leading politicians have not formed 
 bright visions of a Southern confederacy. This would seem to be the only 
 rational ground for accounting for the movements in South Carolina. A South- 
 ern confederacy, of which South Carolina should be the central State, and 
 Charleston the commercial emporium, may present some temptations for in- 
 dividual ambition. 
 
 And now, Mr. Chairman, having shown what appear to me sufficient rea- 
 sons why we should not act at all at present, I proceed to the inquiry, whe- 
 ther the proposed bill is such a one as we ought to pass, on the supposition 
 that the public exigency requires us to pass any bill at all. Its great and 
 leading character is, that it strikes a fatal blow at the two great branches of 
 manufacture of wool and of cotton; that it will annihilate an immense amount 
 of capital, invested in mills and machinery, now employed in those manu- 
 factures. 
 
 Before going into details, however, I must advert to the manner in which 
 the public mind has been prepared for this great sacrifice of capital. I was 
 forcibly struck, the other day, with the story told us by an honorable gentle- 
 man from Kentucky, [Mr. WICKXIFFE.] of a man who had determined the 
 destruction of a harmless animal, and, unwilling to perpetrate the deed him- 
 self, said he would accomplish his purpose by giving it a bad name. 
 
 Much in the same way, it appears to me, has the public mind been prepared 
 for the sacrifice of the manufacturers. Sir, we have all seen, for nearly a 
 twelvemonth, the scurrilous newspapers venting their abuse upon this interest 
 but they are unworthy my notice. The first indication from authority is to 
 be found in the Veto message returning the United States Bank bill, as 
 follows: 
 
 " Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Govern- 
 ment now encounters, and most of the dangers which impend over our Union,
 
 15 
 
 have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by 
 pur National legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied 
 in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protec- 
 tion and equal benefits, but have besought us to make (hem richer by act of 
 Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires, ive have, in the results of 
 our legislation, arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and 
 man against man, in a fearful commotion, u-hich threatens to shake the foun- 
 dation of our Union- It is time to pause in our career, to review our prin- 
 ciples, and, if possible, revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compro- 
 mise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution, and the fathers of our 
 Union. If we cannot, at once, injustice to interests vested under improvident 
 legislation* make our Government what it ought to be, we can, at least, take 
 a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against 
 any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the ex- 
 pense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our 
 code of laws and system of political economy." 
 
 This certainly is ominous language, although somewhat obscure. The mes- 
 sage to this Congress, at the present session, speaks somewhat plainer: 
 
 "But those who have vested their capital in manufacturing establishments 
 cannot expect that the people will continue, permanently, to pay high taxes 
 for their benefit, when the money is not required for any legitimate purpose 
 in the administration of the Government. In some sections of the Republic, 
 its influence is deprecated as tending to concentrate wealth into a few hands, 
 and as creating those germs of dependence and vice which, in other countries, 
 have characterized the existence of monopolies, and proved so destructive ry 
 liberty and the general good." 
 
 But the most extraordinary demonstrations, in this particular, may be found 
 in the communications of the Secretary of the Treasury. That officer, in his 
 report on the finances, made in December, 1831, presented the following just 
 and statesman-like views: 
 
 " To distribute the duties in such a manner, as far as that may be practica- 
 ble, as to encourage and protect the labor of the people of the tTnited States 
 from the advantages of superior skill and capital, and the rival preferences of 
 foreign countries;, to cherish and preserve those manufactures which have 
 grown up under our own legislation, which contribute to the national wealth, 
 and are essential to our independence and safety, to the defence of the coun- 
 try, to the supply of its necessary wants, and to the genera! prosperity, is con- 
 sidered lobe an indispensable duty. The vast amount of property employed 
 in the Northern, Western, and Middle portions of the Union, upon the faith 
 of our own system of laws, and in which the interests of every branch of our 
 industry are involved, could not be immediately abandoned without the most 
 ruinous consequences." 
 
 And yet, sir, in his report just made us at the commencement of this ses- 
 sion, we find him, after adverting to the protective system, as *' that legisla- 
 tion especially which confers favors upon particular classes," he proceeds: 
 
 " To perpetuate a system of encouragement, growing out of a different state 
 of things, would be to confer advantages upon the manufacturing, which are 
 not enjoyed by any other branch of labor in the United States, and to convert 
 the favor and bounty of the Government into permanent obligations of right, 
 acquiring strength in proportion to their continuance. 
 
 " It will be conceded that, when the fair rate of profit attendant upon the 
 sagacious employment of capital in the United States is satisfactorily ascer- 
 tained, it may be wise so far to protect any important branch against the inju- 
 rious effects of foreign rivalry, as may be necessary to preserve for it the 
 same rate of profit as is enjoyed by others. If, however, by protective legis- 
 lation, or otherwise, the proprietor of an actual capital shall be enabled to em- 
 ploy itin manufactures as advantageously and profit ably AS in any other branch 
 of labor, all things considered, he could not reasonably demand more. The rate 
 of protection which should enable manufacturing labor, conducted uponborrow- 
 ed capital to indemnify the lender, and, in addition, to realize the regular rate of
 
 16 
 
 profit for itself, would not merely confer undue favor upon the manufacturer, 
 at the expense of every other employment, but bring the influence of the capi- 
 talist in direct conflict with the general mass of the people. It might even be 
 apprehended that, by such means, there would be an accumulation of power in 
 the hands of particular classes, strong enough to control the Government itself. 
 If these observations are entitled to respect, little doubt is entertained that, in 
 a tariff framed on proper principles, the reduction of six millions, now recom- 
 mended, may, for the most part, be made upon those commonly denominated 
 protected articles, without prejudice to the reasonable claims of existing esta- 
 blishments." 
 
 These sentiments emanate from high public functionaries, whom I wish to 
 treat with all becoming respect. I am bound to consider them as sincere opin- 
 ions, with however little examination they may have been taken up. But, 
 Mr. Chairman, as the representative of a great amount of capital, which has 
 been induced to embark in the business of manufactures, under the sanction 
 of your laws laws passed for the express purpose of giving capital that direc- 
 tion, it becomes my duty to protest, in the strongest terms of which I am ca- 
 pable, against the theory and the application of the sentiments contained in 
 these extracts. Why is the odious term of monopolists applied to the manu- 
 facturers? A monopoly is an exclusive privilege. What exclusive privilege 
 attaches to a business which is open to every individual in the United States? 
 How is the manufacturing of cotton more of a monopoly than the planting of 
 cotton or rice? or the growing or grinding of wheat? They are equally occu- 
 pations open to every body. Similar productions are equally subject to an 
 impost duty, imported from abroad. 
 
 Then, sir, we are told of favored classes; of favors; of rich men not being 
 content with equal protection, and haying besought the Government to make 
 them richer by acts of Congress. Sir, I deny the fact. I deny it in toto. 
 When did capital or capitalists ask you to regulate the employment of their 
 capital ? Never. The mere possessors of capital are everywhere in favor of free 
 trade. Who^ were in favor of your tariffs? and who opposed them? Sir, this 
 House, from motives of public policy, enacted the tariff laws, with a view to 
 induce capital to go into the business of manufacture. The capitalists said, 
 No; let us alone. Well, sir; you pass your 1'aws, on the strength of which 
 capital is induced to take the channel indicated by your legislation. Millions 
 upon millions are invested in mills and machinery, which can 'be converted 
 to no other purpose, carrying competition to the very lowest point of profit in 
 other occupations. And shall we now be told that we are grasping monopo- 
 lists, unworthy the protection of the laws? Rich, forsooth! Dangerous, per- 
 haps, to liberty! Strong enough, perhaps, to control the Government! 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I care not how low may be the sources from which these 
 sentiments may have been drawn, nor from how high places they may have 
 been held up to the view of this nation I pronounce them the genuine prin- 
 ciples of revolutionary radicalism; they are the principles of Jack Cade; they 
 are the principles of French Jacobinism, in the worst periods of the revolu- 
 tion, when the cry of Rich aristocrat! met the response of " la lanterne!" 
 and consigned the unhappy victim to the nearest lamp post. 
 Let this war upon property be carried out, and we need not trouble ourselves 
 about preserving the Union. It will not be worth the pains. It strikes at 
 the root of the principle of accumulation the very foundation of all civiliza- 
 tion. On this point, I may appeal to the gentlemen of the South, who made 
 us such eloquent harangues, during the last session, on the inviolability of 
 property. Will it strengthen'their confidence in the security of their peculiar 
 property to see ours sacrificed without remorse? Will the name of rich slave- 
 holder be a better security, in this warfare, than that of grasping monopolist? 
 
 Now, sir, what is the fact in relation to capital? It is the universally ad- 
 mitted theory in political economy, especially of the free trade writers, from 
 Adam Smith down to Senior and McCulloch, that the productions of labor an* 
 precisely in proportion to the capital devoted to the maintenance of that labor. 
 Capital is the fund for the payment of wages. This theory lies also at the
 
 17 
 
 Bottom of the American System; and I beg leave to quote the following pas- 
 sage from the Address of the New York Convention: 
 
 "All the means of human enjoyment, and all the accumulations of wealth, 
 are the product of human labor. National happiness and national wealth are, 
 therefore, promoted in proportion to the active industry of the community; 
 and that industry is in proportion to the inducements to labor arising from the 
 amount and certainty of its remuneration. The immediate instrument for 
 calling labor into action is capital. Capital is necessary to furnish the laborer 
 with the means of applying his labor to advantage, whether in the simple tools 
 of agriculture, and some of the mechanic arts, or in the complicated and ex- 
 pensive machinery applied to certain branches of manufacture, the modern 
 improvements in which have added so much to the productive power of man, 
 
 "It is a settled axiom, that the industry of a nation is in proportion to the 
 capital devoted to its maintenance. It is, therefore, thought to be a wise policy 
 to multiply the inducements to apply capital to tlie employment of labor at 
 home, rather than to the purchase abroad, and traffic in commodities of foreign 
 production, by which the capital of the country is made to set in motion for- 
 eign labor. This is founded on the principle, universally admitted, that there 
 is, in every nation, a power or capability af labor beyond that actually put 
 forth; and that its effective industry is proportioned to the stimulus applied 
 in the shape of capital. This constitutes the American System. It invites 
 the application of American capital to stimulate American industry. It im- 
 poses a restriction, in the form of an impost duty, on certain products of for - 
 tign labor; but so far as relates to American capital, or American labor, it 
 simply offers security and inducement to the one, and gives energy and vigor 
 to the other." 
 
 I quote this the more readily, because it is an argument which I have never 
 seen answered. Now, sir, what will be the effect of annihilating this capital 
 now employed in paying the wages of labor? To the capitalist, it is an abso- 
 1 ate loss; a sudden blow; and there's the end. But the withdrawal of the 
 capital which paid the wages of labor, in its different departments, will be a 
 permanent paralysis, acting directly upon the laboring classes. Why is the 
 price of labor 5d a day in Ireland, but because there is no capital to give it 
 employment? The country does not afford sufficient security to induce capi- 
 talists to place their property there. Here, sir, we are told of the great profits 
 of the manufacturers; as if this, if true, would furnish a good ground for in- 
 terference in reducing them. I deny that it would do so; because, if there is 
 any one principle of universal operation, it is the tendency of high prices and 
 high profits to cause an immediate competition, and thu* reduce prices and profits 
 as low or lower than the general level in other branches. I recollect, sir, that, 
 about the year 1818, upland cotton, certainly for two, and, I believe, for three 
 years, sold for upwards of thirty cents a pound. What was the consequence? 
 So rapid an extension of the cultivation as to have reduced the price one-half 
 in 1820. Take a more familiar instance: The price of coal, during the last 
 winter, in consequence of a short supply, rose to double the usual prices; the 
 effect of which has been that, at the present moment, the price of coal is lower 
 in the large cities than it has been for twenty years. The manufactures of both 
 wool and cotton have felt the full effect of this spirit of competition. Taken 
 together, I do not believe that either branch has given a return of the capital 
 invested and interest At all events, I boldly aver, that, for the last nine 
 months, no branch of trade or commerce has been so much depressed as the 
 business of manufacturing. I mean to say, that a given amount of capital, in- 
 vested in ships, or in commerce, whether in the China trade, the coffee trade, 
 the whale fishery, or in general trade, or in bank or insurance stocks, would 
 command, and will now command, more money than a like amount invested 
 in the best manufacturing stocks whatever. On this point, I challenge exami- 
 nation, and defy contradiction. 
 
 Sir, we have heard a great deal of rich manufacturing corporations; of over- 
 grown corporations, as odious, dangerous monsters. On this point, I have a 
 word to say, as on no subject, perhaps, is t!v_- ? more general misapprehension.
 
 IS 
 
 What is the fact? The wonderful results in the modern system of manufac- 
 ture are produced by the combined action of great masses of capital. This is 
 more especially the case in the manufacture of cotton. What, then, is the 
 effect of those corporations, or joint stock companies? Simply, to enable peo- 
 ple of small, or moderate capital , to come into the business on equal terms with the 
 rich. For myself, I know of no more ingenious mode of paralysing the direct and 
 immediate influence of wealth, than those very corporations. The property of the 
 rich capitalist, if he be rich, is taken from his control, and placed in the hands 
 of the more active managers of the concern. The mere capitalist has no more 
 command of it than if it were sunk in the bottom of the sea. It may be worth 
 while to inquire how these corporations are made up. I have before me the 
 component parts of probably the largest manufacturing corporation in the 
 United States the Merrimack Manufacturing Company with a capital of 
 $1,500,000. divided into shares of $1 ,000 each. The whole number of proprie- 
 tors is 160; of which 15 are single women, holding 55 shares; 1 1 widows, hold- 
 ing 66 shares; 20 trustees, holding 108 shares: 15 executors and guardiansy 
 23 professional men; 10 mechanics, workmen, and agents; 35 merchants, hold- 
 ing 560 shares; and 19 capitalists, or men retired from business, holding 240 
 shares. As proof that the rich are not the only proprietors, there are twenty 
 persons owning one share each, and thirty-eight owning but two shares each, 
 bir, I hope we shall hear no more of these aristocratic corporations. 
 
 There is one effect growing out of them, however, in the city which I have 
 the honor to represent, which I think too honorable to be passed over in silence. 
 It is this: the sons of our richest men covet the agencies of these companies, 
 not as sinecures, but as affording an active and honorable employment^ ana 
 because, with us, a useful occupation is essential to respectability. 
 
 I now come, Mr. Chairman, to an examination of the bill before us. In 
 looking over the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, I am exceed- 
 ingly at a loss, altogether puzzled, to determine on what principle it has been 
 framed. The first intimation is that of producing equality, quoting the invita- 
 tion of the President for " the removal of those financial burthens which may 
 be found to fall unequally upon any." As we proceed, one cannot but be 
 struck with the marks of haste with which the whole affair has been concocted. 
 After stating that the revenue must be reduced to fifteen mil lions, they proceed : 
 " The act of 1832 has made a partial reduction towards this point. But, under 
 this act, the revenue from the customs, for the next year, is calculated, in the 
 report of the Secretary of the Treasury, at about eighteen millions;" and, with 
 the income from the public lands, " exhibiting an annual excess of from Jive 
 to nine millions over the just uses of the Government, and taxing every family 
 in the United States to its share, or more than its share, of that uncalled-for 
 excess." An uncertainty of four millions is pretty vague ground for perma- 
 nent legislation. But when a gentleman of the literary accuracy which dis- 
 tinguishes the Chairman of this Committee, talks of taxing every family in 
 the United States to its full share, with the chance that some, or all, would 
 be taxed more than their share, it is pretty good evidence, if not of panic, of 
 a good share of that moral fear whicn the gentleman avows a fear that the 
 Union might be dissolved before this bill could be reported. 
 
 We next find the following: "The extinguishment of the debt, and the 
 commencement of the new Presidential term, makes this a fit season for per- 
 manent fiscal regulations. It is vitally important, too, to all engaged in any 
 of those numerous commercial, manufacturing, or agricultural enterprises 
 which are affected by changes in the rates of impost, and are more exposed to 
 suffer from uncertainty than even error in legislation, now to know the inten- 
 tion and policy of this Government in regard to their several interests." 
 
 Most extraordinary reasons, truly! A " new Presidential term!" So we 
 are every four years to have new " permanent fiscal regulations." But, sir, 
 the law of last July goes into operation precisely at the commencement of the 
 new Presidential term: and the policy of the Government was supposed to be 
 understood. And the whole effect of this bill is now to imsettle erery thing.
 
 19 
 
 to disturb all the calculations and arrangements of the commercial and manu- 
 facturing community. 
 
 The following paragraph is entitled to a passing remark: 
 
 " Throwing out of view, for the present, the progressive reduction that ex- 
 pediency and even justice require, they have fixed the revenue to be ultimately 
 received at a sum not exceeding 15,000,000." 
 
 It shows that the idea of justice to existing establishments, did once flit 
 across the mind of the committee, which they put out of view for the present, 
 and it will be found it never returned. I Irave already anticipated any de- 
 tailed remarks on the fiscal calculations of the committee: they assume 65 to 
 70,000,000 as the amount of dutiable commodities imported; whilst the actual 
 quantity, on the average of six years, is less than 60,000,000. The committee 
 proceed: 
 
 *' The committee, in the bill herewith reported by them, have endeavored to 
 arrange the duties with reference to this principle, at rates of from ten to 
 twenty per cent., varying from them chiefly in those instances where nation- 
 al independence, in time of war, seemed to demand some sacrifice in peace, 
 (as in the case of iron) or, when it was thought that a higher or lower rate of 
 duty, would be of advantage to the revenue, without any individual injury 
 (as in regard to distilled spirits,) or, when some branch of industry might be 
 materially benefited by low imposts on some of its raw materials. On many 
 articles, such as wines, spirits, iron, &c. experience has shown, that fraud can 
 only be prevented by specific duties on weight or measure; and, as these rates 
 must be graduated on the mean value of commodities of the same class or 
 name, this may sometimes fall heavily on particular kinds and qualities of 
 them." 
 
 We have here, a distinct avowal of the only principle, on which the com- 
 mittee depart from their original basis of equality. I must also ask the indul- 
 gence of the committee, to quote the following further extract from the report: 
 
 " In adjusting the several duties, they have generally conformed, unless some 
 strong reason for a different rule was perceived, to those of the tariff act 
 of 1816, with its short supplementary act of 1818. The act of 1816 was framed 
 with great care and deliberation, by some of our ablest Statesmen, looking, at 
 .the same time, to the revenue, then so peculiarly necessary for the discharge 
 of our large war debt, and to the preservation, during a violent transition from 
 war to peace, of the numerous manufactures that had grown up under the 
 double duties, and the practical prohibition of the embargo, the non-inter- 
 course, and the war with great Britain. The vast increase of manufactures, 
 of all sorts, in the United States, during the eight years between 1816 and 
 1824, proves, that the framers of that tariff, in providing revenue, had not only 
 given ample incidental security to existing manufactures, but even induced 
 new investments of capital. So well does it appear to have been adjusted in 
 regard to woollens, that the manufacturers of these goods, examined by the 
 Committee of Manufactures of this House, in 1828, generally agreed that 
 their business was in a more flourishing state, under the tariff of 1816, than 
 under the higher protection of 1824. 
 
 ** It has, however, been the wish of the committee to guard against a sudden 
 Jiuctuation of the price of goods, whether in the hands of the merchant, retail- 
 er or manufacturer, arid with that view they have made the reduction upon the 
 more important protected articles, gradual and progressive." 
 
 Now, sir, I deny altogether that the sole object of the tariff of 1816 was the 
 preservation of existing establishments. In the cotton manufacture, as then car- 
 ried on, the provisions of that act were generally thought altogether inade- 
 quate. I have formerly stated, and I now repeat, that it was under the repre- 
 sentations and influence of the late Mr. Francis C. Lowell, that Mr. Lowndes, 
 and others of the South Carolina delegation, were brought to support the cet- 
 ton minimum of that bill; Mr. Lowell was able to convince those gentlemen, 
 and experience has proved his correctness, that, under the influence of the 
 power loom, then just brought into perfect use, but actually in operation in 
 one single spot, (Waltham,) the protection of six and a fourth cents would be
 
 26 
 
 sufficient to establish the manufacture so far as to supersede and drive out of 
 the market the coarse India cottons, then in general use. The fat 1 have re- 
 peatedly had from Mr. Lowell himself. The arrangement then appeared as 
 desirable to South Carolina as to the North the substitution of an American 
 material and an American manufacture, for the miserable trash of India. To 
 effect this object, it was then thought no objection, that it imposed a prohibi- 
 tory duty of from 80 to 90 per cent., as it was proclaimed and well understood 
 that it would do. 
 
 For the latter clause -of the forgoing extract, I give the committee credit. 
 They do not put the extension ot time for the reduction of duties, in certain 
 cases for one or two years, on the footing of its being intended as any redemp- 
 tion of the public faith: it would be too miserable a mockery to do so. It is 
 merely to prevent the shock of too great fluctuation to the trading community. 
 But, sir, on this point ot the pledge of the public faith, I beg leave to refer 
 to the following extract, from the last message of the President of the United 
 States: 
 
 " What then shall be done? Large interests have grown up under the implied 
 pledge of our national legislation, which it would seem a violation of public 
 faith suddenly to abandon. Nothing could justify it but the public safety, 
 which is the supreme law. But those who have vested their capital in manu- 
 facturing establishments, cannot expect that the people will continue, perma- 
 nently, to pay high taxes./br their benefit, when the money is not required for 
 any legitimate purpose in the administration of the Government. Is it not 
 enough that the high duties have been paid as long as the money arising from 
 them could be applied to the common benefit in the extinguishment of the pub- 
 lic debt? " 
 
 Mr Chairman, I think it would seem to be a violation of the public faith; and 
 is it mere seeming? If the public safety require a sacrifice of private property, 
 let the public treasury provide an indemnity. The'laws under which this pro- 
 perty has been invested, are declared by the constitution equally supreme 
 with the constitution itself. Submit to this violation, and yourconstitution, your 
 Union, is not worth a rush. What a question is the last! Because a State of 
 unparalleled prosperity, under the operation of the protective system, has 
 enabled the Government so soon to pay offthe public debt; therefore the system 
 must be abandoned. Who has not sympathized with the unhappy bird, the 
 agonies of whose death were rendered more acute by perceiving, that a feather 
 from its own body had winged the fatal shaft. Is it not too much to be told, 
 that the success of this system has forged the weapon which is to prostrate it 
 in the dust? The last article of the report which I shall notice, is the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 The committee, perceiving no suffieient'reason why the consumers of 'foreign 
 luxuries should not pay their share of the public burthens, propose to raise the 
 rates of duties upon silks nearer to the average rate of duties imposed by the 
 bill, than they now are under the act of 1832. They also propose to fix a 
 moderate specific duty, equal to about 20 per cent, on the value upon teas, and 
 also upon coffee, which were made wholly free of duty by the act of the last 
 summer. This has been added from a motive of financial prudence, lest the 
 revenue from the customs should, from any modification of the bill, or other 
 cause, fall short of the estimate, or lest the proceeds of the public lands should 
 be in part diverted to some other channel." 
 
 Well, sir, we have got through the pretence of reducing the revenue; the 
 committee are now for increasing duties: and first, on silks, as luxuries. 
 
 Now, sir, I confess, if there is any one species of cant and humbug ad 
 vulgus captandum, which I despise more than any other, it is that which 
 we often hear, of great consideration for the poor, in the levying of import 
 duties. I should like to know what is meant by the poor, in reference to this 
 subject? Is it paupers? If so, they are supported by the community. If it is 
 intended to apply the term to the industrious part of the community, to the 
 working men and working women, I deny its application. Whoever has the 
 use of his limbs in this happy country is rich, and has his full share of what
 
 21 
 
 may properly be denominated luxuries in some countries. Now in reference to 
 the article of silks, I ask what farmer, what mechanic, what working man is 
 there, whose family does not wear silks, more in proportion to their property, 
 than those of the rich? If there are any class of human beings who do not 
 wear silks in this country ,|it is only the slaves. Then, Sir, a duty is added on 
 tea and coffee, not, I believe, as luxuries, although I have sometimes heard 
 them called so, but as a measure of" financial prudence." Sir, I commend 
 their prudence; they undertook a work of reduction, and, as proof, they went 
 manfully to work they propose to restore the duties on tea and coffee. Com- 
 ment is superfluous. 
 
 I will detain the committee but a moment, in comparing the details of the 
 bill with the principles put forth in the report. The leading exception to 
 equal duties, is in favor of articles necessary to our independence in war. As 1 
 proceed in their table, I find side and fire arms, rifles, muskets, reduced from 
 the protecting duty, equal to 53 per cent, to an ad valorem one of 20 per cent. ; 
 then "iron "wire, tacks, brads, sprigs, nails and spikes," retain their protective 
 duty from 35 to 96 per cent. Is this a mistake of the printer, or are the latter 
 implements of war and the former the insignia of peace. Then, Sir, we come 
 to hemp, an article essential to naval warfare, and which is apparently pro- 
 tected, but the duty on cordage is so graduated, that I have several letters 
 from manufacturers of cordage, informing me that should this bill pass, not a 
 ton of hemp will be imported, nor a ton of cordage manufactured in the coun- 
 try. The effect will be, that our ships will be wholly supplied with cordage of 
 foreign manufacture. Then there is coal put at five cents a bushel, equal to 
 forty-seven percent. Is this protected as a munition of war, or is it a luxury? 
 No, says the gentleman near me, it isa product of Virginia. Then, Sir, we come 
 to sugar, the protection on which I would be the last to abandon, especially 
 after the classical and eloquent speech of the gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. 
 WHITE.] Sugar pays a specific duty, under the bill, of 46 per cent. I should 
 like to know on which of the principles avowed in the bill, this duty is main- 
 tained, independence in war, equality or luxury? Perhaps, sir, there are 
 some protective reminiscences connected with sugar, which entitle it to spe- 
 cial favor; sugar was the subject of a protective duty in 1816. By the act of 
 that year, it was subject to a duty of three cents a pound; the committee 
 reported four cents, but it was reduced in committee of the whole, to 3; a 
 motion was then made to reduce it to 2|: this was opposed by the entire 
 Georgia delegation and nearly all that of South Carolina. The name of the 
 gentleman from Georgia, on the Committee of Ways and Means, [Mr. 
 WILD^,] will be found on that occasion voting against the reduction. So that, 
 \yith all that gentleman's zeal in favor of free trade, I apprehend he must con- 
 fess to a little peccadillo on that occasion. I recollect perfectly well, as a com- 
 mercial man, that about that period the idea was current, that Georgia was 
 going to abandon the cultivation of cotton and take up that of sugar. 
 
 I proceed to the provisions of this bill in the two great articles of woollens 
 and cottons. Woollens are reduced in this bill from fifty to twenty per cent, 
 besides doing away the specific duty on flannels and carpetings. 
 
 I shall not go into any details on this branch of business. Suffice it to say, 
 that it must, of necessity, prostrate the whole manufacture it must level it 
 with the dust. If it arise partially, it can only be when the price of wool shall 
 fall, not only to the price in Europe, but below it, and, by depressing the 
 price of labor in like proportion, a great part of the capital must be annihil- 
 ated. 
 
 I proceed to consider the operation of the bill on the manufacture of cot- 
 tons a manufacture which has been the subject of an accurate report by a 
 cpmmittee of the New York Convention, founded on actual returns. The ca- 
 pital employed in that manufacture in the autumn of 1831, and in making ad- 
 ditional machinery, was forty-five millions; it cannot be estimated, at present, 
 at less than fifty millions. Now, what is the manner in which this great, this 
 successful interest is treated by the Committee? Why, sir, the minimum, or 
 specific duties of seven and a half cents a square yard, on white goods, and
 
 eight and three quarter cents on printed or colored, are done away, and an ad 
 valorem duty of twenty per cent, put in their place; that is to say, seven and 
 a half cents is reduced on the average to one or two cents, and eight and three 
 quarters cents is reduced to from one and a half to three cents. And, sir, 
 what is the ground for this radical, this enormous change, to one-fourth that 
 imposed by the favorite act of 1816? I listened, Mr. Chairman, with great 
 attention to the explanation of the Chairman of the Committee, [Mr. VER- 
 PLANCK, ] and, also, to another member of the Committee, [Mr. GILMOREJ] 
 the reason given by both was the same, that, as we were able to export coarse 
 cottons to foreign countries, little or no protection could be necessary for any 
 part of this manufacture. Why, sir, to judge from the explanations of the 
 committee, I must presume that they are wholly ignorant of the fact that the 
 business of printing calicoes is carried on in this country, and yet, at least 
 ten millions of dollars must be invested in this branch of business, making 
 thirty-five to forty millions of yards per annum. Have the Committee made 
 any inquiry into the eftect of this change on this great interest? They do not 
 pretend that they have. Is it not lamentable to see how great interests are 
 sported with in this enlightened Government? We had last year a Commit- 
 tee of Manufactures, to whom was committed'the protection of the manufac- 
 turing interest; through them, the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to 
 collect information from all parts of the United States. That information is 
 not yet before us. But, on the strength of such information as he did obtain, 
 and I know he took very considerable pains to inquire into the state of the cot- 
 ton manufacture, he decided on the present rates of specific duties. And, yet, 
 here is a Committee, knowing nothing of manufactures, who lop off three- 
 fourths of the duty at a blow, because we export coarse cottons. Under these 
 circumstances, it becomes necessary to enter into some details in reference to 
 this whole manufacture. The cotton manufacture may properly enough be 
 divided into three branches: first, the coarser description of cottons, of which 
 a considerable part are exported; secondly, of the finer goods, as shirtings, 
 sheetings, &c.; and thirdly, printed calicoes, various colored goods for summer 
 wear, vestings. &c. In all these branches, competition has been carried so 
 far, as to produce an abundant supply for the entire consumplion of the coun- 
 try, with the exception of the finer descriptions of prints, and to have brought 
 down the profits of the business, at the present time, below the average of 
 other employments. It is a singular fact, that, at the present moment, the 
 manufacture of the coarse cottons for exportation is the most profitable branch 
 of the business. These coarse cottons, of which I am furnished with a de- 
 scription, contain the value, as near as may be, of four and a half cents of the 
 raw material to the square yard; the cost of manufacture, is three cents, and, 
 at the present price, produces in cash to the manufacturer, about, but hardly, 
 nine cents, and giving a profit of about ten per cent, on the capital employed. 
 It may be proper, however, to state that this result can only be produced by 
 the employment of the very best machinery. Now, sir, it is evident that this 
 identical description of goods could not be imported from England, even with- 
 out any protecting duty at all. But the English manufacture great quantities 
 of imitations of the?e goods out of the cheaper Bengal cotton, which they sell 
 at a lower price, and it is only after ascertaining by experience the superior 
 durability of our good? that they maintain themsejves in those markets, where, 
 it is probable, much greater quantities of the inferior British goods continue 
 to be sold than of the superior American manufacture. Now, sir, can it be 
 for the interest of any body to introduce these inferior goods made from Ben- 
 gal cotton? Can there be greater madness than that the cotton planters should 
 be desirous to try this experiment? I have no doubt, however, that the manu- 
 facture of our coarse cottons will sustain itself eventually; but, if the other 
 branches are prostrated, all the machinery will be turned upon this descrip- 
 tion of good?, and our own and foreign markets overstocked. So that, for a 
 time, this branch will be paralyzed with the rest. 
 
 That, under a .duty of twenty per cent., vast quantities of the finer de- 
 scriptions of plain goods and printed cloths will be imported, there can be no
 
 doubt; but it is upon the branch of calico printing that it will fall with peculiar 
 severity. So far as I am informed there is but one opinion amongst those 
 best acquainted with the subject, as to the effect of this bill that it will cause 
 an abandonment of the business. I believe it myself, and yet I have no hesi- 
 tation in saying that, in all the branches of the cotton manufacture, wanted 
 for the common purposes of life, including printed calicoes, the United States 
 are supplied by their own manufacture, intrinsically cheaper than any nation 
 on the face of the globe. It is very difficult to make a body, so much governed 
 by theories as this House, understand how this can be true, and yet the ma- 
 nufacture be abandoned, in consequence of the introduction of goods which 
 are actually dearer; but I appeal to practical men for the truth ot it. 
 
 The fact is, the effect of the specific duty has been to establish the manu- 
 facture of goods of superior quality to most ot the English, both as to sub- 
 stance, as to width, and as to permanency of colors. One-half, at least, of the 
 British prints imported are fugitive colors, of no value, but which cannot be 
 detected by the unskilful; while it is the custom of nearly or ail the Ameri- 
 can'printers to print nothing but in fast colors; at all events, the stamp of the 
 manufacturer is a sufficient guarantee. Under the present duties, none but 
 goods, comparatively high priced, are imported; but substitute an ad valorem 
 duty of twenty or thirty per cent., and whole ship loads of miserable trash 
 will inundate our markets. I have been furnished, and have before me, a sam- 
 ple which I believe to be the nt plus ultra of inanity; it is eighteen inches 
 wide, and, I think, thirty yards would hardly weigh a pound. It is said to 
 have been sold at six cents, subject to a drawback of four and three-eighths 
 cents; and yet I believe the one and five-eighth cents which it cost the expor- 
 ter is double its actual value- 
 
 The printing of cottons, in its present state, is one of the highest triumphs 
 of human art; the engraving the cylinders is, perhaps, the most delicate and 
 curious operation in mechanics; and the fixing the various colors is the appli- 
 cation of the highest discoveries in chemical science. The transfer of such a 
 busiaess from one country to another is a work of extreme difficulty, and of 
 great expense it has been completed. 
 
 I boldly assert that there is no branch of the business, the designing, the 
 engraving, the printing, or the raising the colors, which will not compare, in 
 beauty and perfection, with the best work in Manchester. My constituents 
 have invested several millions of dollars in this branch of business; they have 
 done it under the sanction and faith of your laws, and you have no right to 
 repeal those laws, and abandon that property to destruction. 
 
 Every dollar ot" capital belonging to my constituents, invested in the cotton 
 manufacture, has been invested since 1816. They have never asked you for 
 additional protection; on the contrary, in 1824, so far as individual opinion 
 went, they doubted the expediency of the addition then made. The great fall 
 of prices in 1826, however, materially altered the state of the case; and the 
 introduction of printing carried the business up into branches not originally 
 contemplated. And yet, sir, we took no part in the additional duty of 1828. 
 I was myself applied to, and asked if it was not expedient to petition Congress 
 for further protection; I replied, that, as t a question of policy, I might, per- 
 haps, think further protection expedient, as extending the manufacture into 
 higher branches, but being : myself interested in the manufacture, I would not 
 ask for it. It was not asked for by my constituents; they followed your le- 
 gislation, and they claim the protection of those taws, under which they have 
 acted, as a matter of right. The only testimony taken, in relation to the bu- 
 siness of printing, before the Committee of Congress in 1828, was that of Mr. 
 Marshall, formerly of Manchester, then a printer of New York. He was 
 
 asked the following question: " What is the difference in expense of printing 
 the same patterns and qualities in this country or in England?" His answer 
 was: " The expense^pf printing is one third higher here than in England; this 
 arises from the difference of expense in fuel, drugs, and wages the fuel which 
 costs twenty-seven dollars in Manchester, costs one hundred and twenty 
 dollars in Hudson to do the same business." And yet, sir, two gentlemen of
 
 24 
 
 mittee [Mr. GILMORE and Mr. POLK] have quoted evidence from that book, 
 in reference to coarse cottons, as justifying their report, and forgotten to refer 
 to this testimony of Mr. Marshall, which is directly to the point. 
 
 Now, sir, in the lower priced prints, where the foreign article is excluded, 
 competition has brought down the prices to the lowest point of Jiving profit, 
 and, in the higher branches, where they meet the English, there is much un- 
 certainty, arising from the nature of the business, where so much depends on 
 fancy, and the relative supply. This description of goods have to be sold, what- 
 ever may.be the price the manufacturers never think of keeping them over. 
 
 In consequence of the large importation in 1831, and the increasing compe- 
 tition, a great many printing establishments have lost money during the last 
 year. I have the accounts of the Merrimack Company, made up for six 
 months last November, showing a balance of profit of fifty-seven thousand 
 dollars on the manufacture of three millions of yards, something less than 
 four per cent, on the capital j but, in this account, no allowance is made for 
 wear and tear of machinery, nor for insurance against fire. Now, sir. if such 
 is the state of the business, under the present duty, can any thing but ruin 
 follow under the present bill, which removes full three-fourths of that duty. 
 There is one consideration of which I dare say this committee are not aware, 
 and which has an important bearing on this question the great outlay of 
 capital, compared with the annual product. The great results in the cotton 
 manufacture are produced by a great outlay of capital, which will only return 
 in the finer branches an annual product of fifty to sixty cents for every dol- 
 lar of capital. In other words, a capital of a million of dollars will only fur- 
 nish an annual supply of five or six hundred thousand dollars of manufac- 
 tures. So that twenty per cent, ad valorem on the products is only about ten 
 per cent, on the capital. 
 
 In this respect, it differs materially from the woollen manufacture) where a 
 given amount of capital will produce more than dollar for dollar in products. 
 The effect is, that a duty of twenty per cent, on cottons is no more protection 
 on the capital employed, than ten per cent, is on woollens. Why, sir, even 
 England, with all her superiority, imposes as great a duty on printed cottons 
 as that imposed by our present law. She imposes a duty of three and a half 
 pence, or seven cents the square yard, in addition to an ad valorem duty of ten 
 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, aware how little this committee know of the state of this 
 manufacture, I am going to furnish them the best possible evidence of the 
 truth of my statements the manufactures themselves. I have been furnished 
 from a few different establishments with these samples, to which I invite the 
 attention of the committee. It is, I dare say, such an exhibition as was never 
 before made in this Hall; it is, in my apprehension, an exhibition of which the 
 country may well be proud. I take pride in being the organ of making it 
 
 The distinguished son of South Carolina, who has lately taken a seat in the 
 other branch of this Government, and who, with his friend Mr.Lowndes, es- 
 tablished the cotton minimum in 1816, was in Boston about the year 1818, at 
 which time the Waltham factory was in full and successful operation. He 
 visited that establishment, and was received with that sort of gratulation and 
 triumph, which seemed to say, and which in fact did say Behold here your 
 work! 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I believe, in the enthusiasm of the moment, could it have 
 been revealed to him, that, in the short space of fifteen years, such an exhibition 
 as this could have here been made, ana of which it might also be said, This, 
 also, is your work! it would have given him a prouder, a nobler satisfaction, 
 than a true revelation that it was his destiny one day to be President of the 
 United States. But, alas ! what a change ! Alas ! Mr. Chairman, that 
 in that band, who have conspired, and stand eager and impatient to strike the 
 blow which is to lay this great interest prostrate at y0ur feet, I should be 
 obliged to say of that gentleman, Et tu Brute? 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I cannot leave this subject without adverting to one other 
 circumstance, which has an important bearing upon this whole matter. I
 
 25 
 
 stated, on a former occasion, that the depressed condition of the business of 
 manufacture in England afforded an additional reason against withdrawing 
 protection at the present time; that after a period of upwards of twenty years 
 of unexampled prosperity, and of extraordinary profits and high labor, a 
 crisis had arrived when over production, and an excess of population in those 
 departments, had entirely changed the scene; and that for several years nei- 
 ther capital had given any adequate income, nor the wages of labor afforded 
 a decent support to the laborer. The period which I fixed on as this crisis, 
 was the spring of 1826, vvhen a period of six months of riots, of burning of 
 cotton mills, and destruction of machinery, took place. There was a reduc- 
 tion in the price of manufactures of more than one-third in those six 
 months, from \vhch they have never recovered: on the contrary, they have 
 generally continued to fall still lower. This fact will sufficiently account for 
 the business of manufacturing being comparatively profitable from 1816 to 
 1824, under a moderate tariff, without its following at all that the same duty 
 would be an" adequate protection now. As this view is very important, I must 
 beg to lay before the committee what must be considered, I think, full con- 
 firmation of it. It is the testimony of Mr. Atwood, a highly respectable 
 banker of Birmingham, and a member of Parliament, before, the committee of 
 Parliament, appointed'io consider the expediency of renewing the charter of the 
 Bank of England. It may be observed that Mr. Atwood is, in one respect, a 
 theorist. He witnessed the prosperity of Eudind during the suspension of 
 specie payments, and the change which took piuce on supplying the place of 
 the small notes with gold, and attributes the change to that cause. I do not 
 agree with him; but as to the fact of the general distress, there cannot be a 
 better witness. The following is an extract from his examination: 
 
 " Has capital been invested in your neighborhood lately? Within the last 
 five or six months, when the iron-masters and manufacturers generally are all 
 going to ruin, and are in a state that I do not like to describe, because we all 
 feel the painfulness of it; they are many of them still enlarging their works, 
 not to partake of profit, but to prolong the path to ruin, by diminishing their 
 general charges. 
 
 " In that case, of course, the depression of trade bears much heavier upon 
 those who are not in a condition so to augment their works much heavier. 
 
 "Must not that be one principal cause of the distress that prevails with 
 you now, and is it not very much confined to that class of people? It is not 
 confined; the distress is like the atmosphere, among all working classes and 
 trading classes in England. 
 
 " Do you mean without exception? I say without exception, although I 
 know that extreme difficulty exists in getting at this truth: for I myself feel 
 great pain in stating it; but my opinion is, most decidedly* that all trade in 
 England has, within the last seven years, been carried on at a positive loss, 
 except ivhere speculators have now and then made a projit. 
 
 *' And you think that the effect of that distress has been to increase produc- 
 tion? In some trades, unquestionably. 
 
 " How is that consistent with an answer you gave, that you thought that all 
 consumption depended upon the increase of production, and that the increase 
 of production would tend to the prosperity of the trade? The tvages of labor 
 of the unhappy laborers are paid at half the price; the consequence oj which 
 is, that though they ivork sixteen hours a day in some trades, they do not 
 get so great a reward in exchange as when they worked twelve hours a day. 
 
 *' Then you do not think that the increase of production alone will tend to 
 the prosperity of the country? Not unless it is at high prices; it is the plenty 
 of money that makes prosperity. 
 
 " Then a plenty of money, raising the profits of Ihe people, is what you 
 think is to increase the prosperity of the country? Unquestionably, I believe 
 nothing else will do so; I mean by that, not a wild increase of money, but 
 such an increase of money as will be sufficient to raise the prices of property 
 and labor above the level of the fixed charges which the law and the habits 
 of the country impose upon production.
 
 26 
 
 '* Is (he production of the country greater or less than it was seven years 
 ago? In some instances it is greater, but in others it is less. It is greater, 
 by the inordinate toils of some classes of men; and less, by the total want of 
 employment, and the slate of half employment of other classes of men. 
 
 " In the aggregate, should you say that it is greater or less? It is less. 
 The aggregate productions, now, I consider are less than they have been for 
 the last seven years. 
 
 " Do you think the Aggregate capital employed in production is less than it 
 was a few years ago? I think there is little or no capital employed in pro- 
 ductive power now; the capital is annihilated, considered as money. 
 
 " Can there be production without capital employed in production? The 
 capital is annihilated; it consists of brick and mortar, machinery and engines, 
 which are almost worthless. I know one case of a cotton mill, which cost, 
 seven years ago, thirty-Jive thousand pounds, that was sold by auction a fort- 
 night ago for five thousand pounds. 
 
 " Is the food and raiment annihilated, with which the laborer is maintained? 
 The capital I consider to be the buildings, and machinery, and dead stock, and 
 implements and tools. I know a case, in Birmingham, of valuable tools and 
 implements of a brass foundry, which cost, seven years ago, one thousand 
 five hundred and sixty pounds, which sold a few weeks ago for one hundred 
 and twenty-five, pounds. 
 
 " Do you mean to say that the buildings and implements for producing the 
 manufacture are not in existence? They are in existence, but they are worth 
 almost nothing at all. 
 
 " Within what period do you consider that the capital invested in manu- 
 factures has been annihilated? In the last seven years. 
 
 " Has there been no fresh capital invested in manufactures? No; except 
 in the manner I have described, in the desperate struggles of men trying to 
 escape from ruin. 
 
 " You consider, then, that no capitalists have invested their capital in ma- 
 nufactories, with a view to productive returns within the last seven years? 
 I am certain of it. 
 
 " Is there any increase in the cotton manufacture within the last seven 
 years? The destruction of one man makes a rise of another. In some cases, 
 in the cotton trade, immense mills have been sold, or let. for a fifth of their 
 value; and out of that destruction, a new tradesman, coming in unshackled, 
 sometimes contrives to exist, but not to make a profit. 
 
 " Does not a branch of manufacture sometimes establish itself in a new 
 part of the country, to the very serious 4 injury of property in places where it 
 formerly existed? I have known nothing of that kind within the last seven 
 years. / see every one shrinking from manufactures; every one that can 
 draw out one-tenth part of his capital gradually does it, but 1 have seen no 
 determination of capital into any trade within the last seven years; on the 
 contrary, I have made it a point, within the last seven years, of asking the 
 question, and I am sure I have asked it of a thousand well-informed trades- 
 men, whether they knew of any branch of industry existing in England, in 
 which a. prudent man of industrious habits, with ten thousand pounds in his 
 pocket, and of competent knowledge, would be justified in embarking his 
 capital; and I have never met with but one single instance in which that 
 question has been answered in the affirmative, and that single in&tance was a 
 Manchester gentleman; and, when I came to cross-examine him, he broke 
 down. 
 
 " You have stated that the fixed capital of the country is absolutely anni- 
 hilated? Yes, I consider it so, as convertible into money. 
 
 "You have stated, also, that in many instances capital has changed 
 hands? Capital which was worth one hundred thousand pounds has fallen 
 in some cases down to five thousand pounds; that five thousand pounds gets 
 into new hands, and enables the new man to carry on the machinery and the 
 trade till another failure drives him to sell it for two thousand pounds; and 
 so there seems no limit to the depression in progress.
 
 27 
 
 u When do you consider that process commenced of the destruction of 
 capital? In the autumn of 1825. It commenced in the first place in 1816, 
 and then it was changed in 1817 and 1818; then it commenced again in 1819, 
 and went on till 1822; and then it changed again, and prosperity came till 
 1825." 
 
 Now, sir, this is the state of things against which cur own manufacturers 
 would have to contend on opening our ports at a small ad valorem duly. And 
 in this conviction I cannot avoid making a short extract from the examina- 
 tion of Mr. Rothschild, the celebrated banker, before the same committee. I 
 cannot but recommend the remarks of this practical man to the theoretical 
 supporters of the system of free trade. 
 
 " If the exchanges be in the long run almost invariably in favor of this 
 country, must not that be because there is a considerable balance owing from 
 other countries to this? Yes. 
 
 " How do you consider that there is a considerable balance owing from other 
 countries to this? Because England is the place of settlement for the whole 
 world; what is wanting in India, in the Brazils, &c. gets settled here; and se- 
 condly, suppose you import iron from Sweden, if you receive one thousand 
 pounds worth of iron and manufacture it, you will then get ten thousand 
 pounds for it, and then, when it is manufactured, it is sent to all the world. 
 Suppose you get cotton from America, the cotton costs there three pence or 
 six pence a pound, but when it is manufactured, that pound of cotton is worth 
 four times as much. In the regular course of things, the exchange with every 
 country must be in favor of this. 
 
 ** If your opinion be true, that if there were no importation of corn into 
 this country, and if there were no foreign loans wanted from this country, the 
 exchanges would always be in favor of this country, must not it inevitably fol- 
 low that all the gold and silver in the world must come to this country? It 
 will tend to come here. 
 
 " Must not there be some counteracting check? Yes; if there was not, 
 the world could not go on; if we had not sometimes importations of corn, 
 and sometimes foreign loans wanted, 1 do not know how the people on the 
 continent could live. 
 
 *' You have taken into consideration the commodities that go out, but have 
 you taken into consideration the wine and other articles brought here for con- 
 sumption? If it were not for those things, I do not know what would become 
 of the people abroad. 
 
 " Does not what you have stated prove that there is a gradual impoverish- 
 ment of every other country in the world? I do not Jcnow that; because, 
 you must consider the quantity of gold we receive from the mining countries. 
 We bought lately in Paris eight hundred thousand pounds sterling of gold, 
 which came from the Dey of Algiers, that was locked up in his cellar, and did 
 nobody any good. 
 
 " If other countries are not able to pay their debts to us, by sending to us 
 the commodities they produce, but are obliged to send us gold, must they not 
 be in a state of gradual impoverishment? Certainly; and what is the conse- 
 quence? The result is, that we always make a loan when they get very poor; 
 they always come for a loan of five or ten millions, or whatever they want." 
 
 Before I take my seat, Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say in reply 
 to the honorable member of the Committee of Ways and Means, from Ten- 
 nessee, [MR. POLK:] that gentleman informed us that the Committee had 
 fully examined into the matter; and that the bill would do the manufacturer 
 ample justice; that its only effect would be to take away a part of the enor- 
 mous profits which they were now making, and put them on a par with the rest 
 of the community. I confessl was somewhat curious to see how this position 
 was to be maintained; and I will not conceal my surprise my utter astonish- 
 ment, when he announced to us that the evidence was extracted from docu 
 ments furnished to the Secretary of the Treasury, under a resolution of the last 
 session of Congress, for the purpose of furnishing this House with information; 
 now in the process of printing, and which the committee obtained from the
 
 printer of this House, partly in sheets and partly in manuscript, but none of 
 which has been seen by a single member of this House. Yes, sir, it sems the 
 manufacturers have been tried, and convicted in secret conclave, by the holy 
 inquisition of this committee by confessions extorted from themselves and 
 all this not only without being heard, but without being present! They have 
 been convicted of making too much money. And, for this crime, this House 
 is called on to perform execution. And the gentleman has actually chided us 
 for the delay which made it necessary for him to state that there was any 
 evidence at all in the case. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, what is that evidence? In the first place, he states that 
 many of the agents declined answering the question, what were the profits? 
 All these are condemned in mass for contumacy; " the inference is, therefore, 
 most strongly drawn, that they could well bear a modification 'of duties ana 
 still realize a fair profit." To be sure one agent gives the reasons assigned by 
 many manufacturers; " as not willing to hazard an opinion on a subject they 
 have not viewed in all its bearings." Another agent says, " they generally de- 
 clined," or, " we make little or nothing." However, he says they have fur- 
 niihed evidence enough to condemn the whole body. Ana what is it ? In 
 the State of Vermont, Moulton and Cummins, in a woollen factory, make a 
 profit of forty per cent, on twenty-two thousand dollars; J. Powers makes 
 fifteen ; N. B. Hazen makes twelve per cent.; an iron foundry yields fifty- 
 four per cent. So much for woollens and iron! 
 
 Then, as to the cotton manufacturer, we have the following from one of the 
 agents: 
 
 '* It is well known that Maine has not many large manufacturing establish- 
 ments of any kind. In that portion of the State which I visited or examined, 
 I found but two cotton factories; one at Winthrop, in the county of Kennebec, 
 and the other at Gardiner, in the same county. The agent of the former very 
 readily answered all the inquiries put to him, within his power to answer; the 
 result of which will be found on sheet No. 1, accompanying this; but the di- 
 rectors of the Gardiner factory declined answering any of them, although 
 twice called upon by me, and once written to, on the subject. I, however, 
 found, by inquiry, that their operations are about one-third more than those at 
 Winthrop; and, owing to a favorable location and other facilities for carrying 
 on their business, their profits must have been, during the year ending Sep- 
 tember last, fully twenty-jive per cent." The agent guesses the profits at 
 Gardiner must have been twenty-five percent., because a factory at Winthrop 
 made " about twenty per cent." Now, sir, I happen to know that the factory 
 at Winthrop was sold, some years ago, by the corporation to whom it belonged, 
 for a very small part of the cost; leaving large debts unpaid, and which re- 
 main unpaid to this day. The gentleman then displays manuscript documents: 
 No. 150, fifteen percent.; No. 149, twenty per cent.; No. 134, twenty-five 
 percent.; No. something, fifty per cent.; but, on being questioned to what 
 business it related, it turns out to be saddlery. The gentleman proceeds 
 here are the returns; any gentleman can examine them for himself. And on 
 such ex parte, imperfect, and anonymous testimony, we are called on, without 
 an opportunity to examine it, to settle this most delicate question. 
 
 Most of the testimony quoted consists in the opinions of the agents ap- 
 pointed to collect facts appointed to collect facts, they furnish opinions! 
 
 Mr. Bronson, of Connecticut, thinks the cotton manufacturers make use of 
 a bad argument against the reduction of duty on cottons. Another agent an- 
 swers an objection, which has been made, very satisfactorily to the gentle- 
 man from Tennessee. It is this: " The apprehension in which so many of the 
 cotton manufacturers concur, that a foreign article, equal in appearance but 
 inferior in quality with theirs, might compete successfully with theirs, appears 
 to me [says the agent] quite groundless. Such an article would, in my opin- 
 ion, find its market value controlled by quality." 
 
 And for such opinions the public money is paid . Sir, I will not waste time in 
 answering such evidence or such opinions. I will only observe, that the 
 period fixed on for making these returns the year ending September, 1831
 
 29 
 
 comprised a period of great over-trade of high prices of great profits, real 
 or apparent, in every branch of business; it forms no criterion of tne average, 
 or subsequent state of things. I stated myself, at an early period of the last 
 session, that, in some few cases, manufacturing profits had amounted to ten 
 per cent., for six months; and yet the same establishments have made less 
 than four per cent for the last six months; in fact a great part of the sup- 
 posed profits of 1831 have proved mere moon-shine, having been swept away 
 by the numerous failures of 1832. I beg leave here to refer to a letter from a 
 mercantile house, in New York, of the highest respectability, which I pre- 
 sented to this House, during the last session, in connexion with this topic. 
 (See note A, at the end.) 
 
 I have a single word to say in reference to the questions propounded by the 
 Secretary, as to profits, without expressing any opinion as to (he propriety of 
 the inquiry. I do say it is a matter of the utmost difficulty and delicacy to 
 say what are the actual nett profits of a manufacturing establishment. 
 
 There is no rule that I know of, what allowance should be made for wear 
 and tear and depreciation of machinery; it is a problem wholly unsettled. So 
 much machinery is thrown out of use by new improvements, that there is a 
 constant tendency to overrate the profits beyond the final result. I cannot 
 state a stronger instance of this than in respect to the Waltham company; 
 certainly, I suppose, the most profitable concern that has existed in the United 
 States. They divided, for a series of years, about twelve or thirteen per cent, 
 on the average; making what was considered a sufficient reserve for wear and 
 tear, &c. And yet, in 1830, in making a critical valuation of their property, 
 of their original capital of six hundred thousand dollars they could only find 
 four hundred and fifty thousand dollars, or seventy-five cents to the dollar. 
 
 Sir, some of the questions from the Treasury Department were of a charac- 
 ter not easy to answer; for example: If a reduction of the tariff should cause 
 you to adandon your business, how would you employ your capital? What is 
 the average profit of money or capital in the United States? Who can answer 
 this question? Certainly I cannot. So much depends on the security of the 
 return. We know very well that four and a half per cent, stock of the United 
 States would bring a premium. In trade or manufactures, I suppose, 10 per cent 
 would not be considered unreasonable. Gentlemen from Kentucky, Ohio, and 
 Louisiana, tell me that any amount of money can be loaned, in that region, 
 on the best security, on bond and mortgage, at ten to twelve per cent. And 
 gentlemen of the highest authority, from Louisiana, inform me that they will 
 insure twenty per cent, in cotton planting, so long as cotton will sell for ten 
 cents a pound. 
 
 But the gentleman from Tennessee, after excepting against want of skill 
 borrowed capital bad machinery bad debts fire and floods, lays down this 
 proposition : " The general proposition which I affirm to be established by 
 the whole body of this testimony, is, that in all those establishments, where 
 there is skill, real capital, improved machinery, and proper economy and 
 vigilance in their management, they have proved to be more profitable than 
 any other regular and steady business." 
 
 Now, sir, I join issue with the gentleman; I deny the fact in toto, and 
 challenge him to make it good. Does he know better than the parties them- 
 selves? Sir, I have in my hand a statement made up by a gentleman, for 
 whose correctness I can vouch, in the shape of" an account current, showing 
 the result of an original investment of fifty-one thousand dollars, in the dif- 
 ferent establishments at Lowell, since 1821 and certainly no establishments 
 stand higher showing that, taking the price at which those stocks are selling, 
 his return is something short of seven and a half per cent, per annum. The 
 price of the stocks is in itself a very safe criterion; there are none worth par 
 in the market. I have the last semi-annual returns of profits from the fol- 
 lowing companies: The Lowell, making negro cloths, capital four hundred 
 thousand dollars; profits, between four and five per cent.; the Hamilton, 
 capital nine hundred thousand dollars, barely four percent.; the Merrimack 
 Company, capital one million five hundred thousand dollars, fifty-nine
 
 80 
 
 thousand dollars short of four per cent. As to the effect of this bill, which 
 the gentleman considers so safe, I have only to state, that the mere rumor 
 that this bill might pass, caused a large quantity of the stock of the latter com- 
 pany to be sold at twenty per cent, discount. I have also in my hand, a letter 
 from Messrs. Lawrence*& Stone, of Boston, owning one of the best conduct- 
 ed woollen establishments in the country, stating they had just made up their 
 account for the year, having manufactured two hundred thousand dollars' 
 worth of cassimeres, and showing an actual loss of over four thousand dollars; 
 and yet they did a very good business in 1831. I could multiply this evi- 
 dence to any extent; but trust I have satisfied the committee that this interest 
 is,, in fact, at this very moment, instead of being unusually profitable, very 
 much depressed. As an evidence of the effect of our hasty tampering with 
 this matter, I must beg to read the following extract of a letter from Lowell, 
 a place of twelve thousand inhabitants, depending on the cotton manufacture, 
 dated 13th January: 
 
 ** Lowell is dull enough; no land speculations are going forward, and no 
 prospects of new buildings yet being built. Several of the speculators and 
 builders, who are without capital (and this is the case with most) have failed, 
 and more must follow; no money can be hired now on real estate in Lowell, 
 and rents, which have been very high, are coming down. As yet it so happens 
 that every man who has failed, is of the true Jackson party, and the suppor- 
 ters of the President in this place are now pretty well satisfied, by woeful 
 experience, that he is not the great friend to protection which they have before 
 insisted upon his being." 
 
 After all, Mr. Chairman, will this bill satisfy South Carolina? No, sir, 
 not at all. She has sworn, by all the saints in the calendar, " that a protect- 
 ing tariff shall no longer be enforced within the limits of South Carolina," 
 and no human power shall drive lier from her position. Does this bill ex- 
 tinguish the principle of protection? By no means. It will prostrate great 
 interests, but it will not meet the position taken by South Carolina. 
 
 No friend of South Carolina would wish to see her satisfied with this bill. 
 I have too much respect for her to believe she would be satisfied by it. 
 What would be the inference, and what would be said by the world ? South 
 Carolina talked loud of principle; but she was only bragging high; her ob- 
 ject was to get a little filthy lucre, and she was satisfied with it. I shoXild be 
 sorry to see South Carolina so disgraced. No doubt she must retrace her 
 steps she may do so with credit to herself she may yield to the force of 
 public opinion. I would give her time for reflection. So far as the real 
 interests of South Carolina are concerned, I would save her from herself. 
 I fully believe that the passage of this bill would lessen the value of her great 
 staple of cotton nearly or quite a cent a pound. 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. Chairman,! have satisfied myself, if not others, that we 
 have no surplus revenue to reduce; that this bill is destructive, ruinous, un- 
 principled in its character; that its passage would alienate the affections of a 
 great body of the people from the Government, and tend to disturb the peace 
 and harmony of the Union.
 
 31 
 
 REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000611 037 3 
 
 NOTE (A.) 
 
 NEW YORK, June 4, 1832. 
 NATHAN APPLETOX, Esq. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Your letter, dated 1st instant, has been duly received, and we 
 now have the pleasure to hand you comparative statement of prices of cotton 
 goods in this market as compared with last year. The first column repre- 
 sents the prices of last year, and the other those of this, for the same article. 
 Six printing establishments have already failed in consequence of the extreme 
 low prices at which their goods have been selling, and several of the large 
 ones have reduced the quantity of their work one half. British prints have 
 been imported this season in unusually large quantities, and have been forced 
 into the market at ruinous prices; many of them at a greater loss than the 
 whole amount of the duties, and we should think the average of the auction 
 sales, when the greater portion have been sold, \yould exhibit a loss of full 
 four to five cents a yard. Pantaloon stuffs, of British and French fabric, have 
 been largely imported, and have been selling at a reduction in price of full 
 thirty-five per cent., and at a very heavy loss on cost of importation. The 
 great struggle, which has been carried on between the foreign and the domes- 
 tic manufacturers, for possession of the market, has been the principal cause 
 of the reduction of prices, by creating an overstock which must, for some 
 time to come, if not effectually, keep down the prices. Sattinets is an article 
 of considerable consumption, and composed of cotton and wool. It has fallen 
 off in price, on the finer qualities, twenty-five per cent., and on the coarse, 
 thirty-five per cent. 
 
 Flannels are now selling at a lower price than they ever sold in this market, 
 and we see no prospect whatever of an improvement. The quantity manu- 
 factured is ample tor the consumption of the whole country. Blue broad- 
 cloths, such as sold last year at three dollars and twenty-five cents, are now 
 selling at two dollars. Mixed cloths, such as sold last year at two dollars 
 and seventy-five cents, will not now bring more than one dollar and sixty- 
 two and a half cents. Black and fancy colored cloths are in about same 
 proportion, and the supply is abundant. 
 
 BURNS, HALLIBURTON, & Co. 
 
 Comparative Prices. 
 
 1831. 1832. 
 
 Brown shirtmgs, 8| 6 
 
 " sheetings, 11 9 
 
 Hambden twilled jeans, 15 10 
 
 Merrimack plate prints, 19 13 
 
 Dover do. 16 12* 
 
 Merrimack blues, 183 16 
 
 Rouen cassimere, 26 14 
 
 Hamilton drillings, 14 12 
 
 " printed stripes, 25 16 to 18 
 
 Printing cloth, 8* 6 
 
 1833. 
 
 cents. 
 
 14* 
 10