H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

[MAY 28, 1832.

comes back. Now, it is self-evident that each will re- Now, watch close the process by which these exchanges ceive the same quantity of manufactures in Liverpool for are actually effected, and see if you can discover how the his cotton, each will have the same amount of duties to planters get relieved from their burdens as producers. pay to the Government, and each will obtain the same The first step in this complicated process is a sale to the price for his manufactures in the United States. They exporting merchants for money. Here keep a close look come out precisely even, with the immaterial exception, out, for we have reached the point on which the whole that, if the voyage consumed two or three months, the controversy turns. Examine and see whether the planters export duty bond would, of course, fall due that much obtain any more money for their staples than they could earlier than the other. I defy the ingenuity of man to have realized for them, by sending them to Europe on make out any other difference in the two cases, let them their own account, and making the exchange themselves. be twisted and turned as they may. Now, it certainly re- If they do not, it is conclusive proof that they evade no quires no great powers of combination to perceive that portion of the burden by selling here for cash, in place of what would be true in this respect of the two cotton selling in Europe for manufactures. If they do, then the planters with cargoes worth twenty thousand dollars, exporting merchant has been guilty of the singular folly would be equally true of all the cotton planters of the of giving the planters just so much more for their staples Union, with cargoes worth thirty millions. But it has than they are worth; an imputation to which no one will been said, by a very respectable authority, that this argu- suppose him to be liable. ment cannot be true, because the cotton planter may sell The truth is, that the exporting merchants cannot and his cotton in Europe, and consume the proceeds there, will not give the planters a farthing more for their staples bringing nothing back in return. This is readily admitted. than the planters could have themselves made out of them, I have never alleged any thing so absurd as that an export by going through the whole process of the exchange. In a duty, which is paid, is not a greater burden to the planter word, the value of cotton is the value of the foreign manuthan an import duty, which is not paid. My very propo- factures it will purchase. These are, strictly speaking, sition assumes, however, what is true in point of fact, equivalent values, and convertible terms. In whatever that protected articles are imported in exchange for cot- degree, therefore, an import duty upon these manufacton, and that protecting duties are actually paid upon tures will diminish their exchangeable value to their prothem. If you dispute the fact, I refer you to the treasury ducers, in the same degree, precisely, will such duty statements; if you dispute the inference, I refer you to diminish the exchangeable value of the staples of exportathe common arithmetic. tion with which they are, in point of fact, purchased.

I am aware that, in answer to these views, which assume The controversy then, disguise it as you may, resolves that the manufactures imported in exchange for agricul- itself into a competition between the Southern planters tural staples are really the productions of the planters, and the Northern manufacturers, for supplying the market and that, consequently, an import duty upon the one is of the United States with certain descriptions of manufac equivalent to an export duty on the other, it is frequently tures. And I take it to be the very clearest of all proporeplied that this would be all very true, and quite indisput- sitions in political economy, that the protecting duties able, if the planters really did, in point of fact, carry their must, in the very nature of things, inflict an injury upon staples abroad, and exchange them for manufactures. the Southern planters at least equal to the benefit they But it is said with as much solemn gravity as if it had any confer upon the Northern manufacturers. In truth, the thing to do with the question, that this is not the real course injury inflicted in the one case must be greater than the of trade; that the planters do not export their cotton, to-benefit conferred in the other. The very ground upon bacco, and rice to foreign markets, and obtain manu- which the protecting duties are demanded, is, that the factures for them, but that they sell them to the exporting cotton planters can import and sell manufactures cheaper merchants, who sell bills on Europe to the importing than the domestic manufacturers can make and sell them. merchants, who purchase the manufactures with these So far, therefore, as these duties operate as a protection, bills, and sell them to the retail merchants, who finally sell them to the consumers.

they take away the employment of a more productive class, and give it to one that is less productive. If, with a protection of forty per cent. the manufacturers can only make their ordinary profits, and if the planters can maintain the competition, even under this enormous discriminating duty, it is evident that with mere revenue duties of twelve and a half per cent. the planters could sell at much lower prices than the manufacturers, and at the same time realize much higher profits.

Now, this is a very fair specimen of that sort of rigmarole by which a conjurer puts the spectators off their guard, when he is about to shuffle his balls and practise a deception on their senses. In the name of all that is rational, what difference does it make, as to the matter in discussion, whether the planters are the exporters of their own staples, and the importers of the manufactures received for them, or whether these operations are performed It follows, that the benefit which protecting restricby the agency of other persons? If the import duties tions can confer upon the domestic manufacturers may be would throw a burden upon them, as producers, in the much less, but cannot possibly be greater than the injury one case, it must equally do so in the other. There is inflicted on their rivals, the Southern planters. When I surely no legerdemain in having their exchanges effected advanced these opinions on this floor more than two years by the interposition of two or three separate sets of agents, ago, they were supposed by many to involve a novel and by which the planters can conjure off the burden which visionary theory, which had not been put forth by any all admit they would have to bear if they had effected book of authority. But it is a curious fact, tending to ilthese exchanges themselves. The complexity of the pro-lustrate the contemporaneous development of these views cess, like the juggling of the conjurer; the shifting of the in this country and in England, that almost at the very agents, like the shuffling of the balls, may bewilder and time they were first publicly advanced here, they were deceive the understanding of the planters, but they cannot possibly diminish their burdens.

Let this process be analyzed, and the mystery will vanish. It is agreed, then, that if the planters made their own exchanges abroad, the manufactures they obtained for their staples would be their own productions, and that an import duty on these would be a tax upon them, as producers, precisely as if an export or an excise duty had been laid upon their cotton, tobacco, or rice.

published there by two authors who may be justly regarded as ornaments to this branch of political philosophy. Professor Senior, of Oxford, in a course of lectures on political economy, published in 1830, distinctly lays it down, "that it is impossible to encourage the industry of one class of producers, by means of commercial restrictions, without discouraging to an equal degree the exertions of others. That every prohibition of importation is a prohibition of exportation. That every restriction on

H. or R.]

The Tariff.

[MAY 28, 1832.

the importation of French silks is a restriction on the ex- that it was for the interest of every body that every thing portation of those articles with which those silks would should be done in the most bungling and roundabout way have been purchased. That if it benefit the English silk possible; and that any pretence to increase national wealth manufacturer, it injures to at least an equal amount in the by such processes must be foolery, or worse. All this whole, though the injury is less perceptible, because they know, so long as none of the parties propose to opemore widely diffused, the cotton spinner, the cutler, or rate by the intervention of an exchange abroad. But let the clothier." Again: "A restriction or prohibition of a single exchange intervene, and the question is too much the importation of any foreign commodity occasions a for them. If the machine in which men are to ride for loss to those persons who would have produced the Eng. two shillings, instead of three, can only be bought with lish commodity with which the excluded foreign commo- Sheffield cutlery from France, they are utterly unable to dity would have been purchased; it occasions, also, a loss see that the national profit of steam-riding, the ultimate to those who are forced to purchase the dearer or inferior advantage of employing an English cutler to effect the English commodity."

I will now quote a few passages from an article in the Westminster Review for 1830; an article in which the doctrines I am maintaining are illustrated by a combination of wit and philosophy very rarely united in the discussion of so abstruse a subject.

production of the cheap machine, instead of an English horse dealer to supply the dear one, is the same as ever. In this case, they are ready to join the horse dealer in begging, first, that the employment may be taken from the Sheffield cutlers; secondly, that it may be taken from the persons employed in the expenditure of the shillings "Gloves may be had, it shall be supposed, from a of which it is proposed to rob the coach-riding public; French maker, for the value of two shillings a pair. An and, thirdly, that they, the public, may be robbed of a Englishman stands up and says that he can make gloves shilling in their coach-riding, without any advantage, in of the same kind for three shillings; and, therefore, for the aggregate, to any body. They can see that it would the encouragement of English commerce, it is expedient be absurd to put down the omnibus, upon the ground that to pass a law to prohibit the introduction of French gloves men ride cheaper in it; but they cannot see that, if the at two shillings, in order that those who choose to wear omnibus could only be got from France in exchange for gloves may be obliged to take them from the Englishman Sheffield goods, the case would be unaltered. Was it at three." "When you buy a pair of French gloves, it rightly said that John Bull is a man of one idea, or, at most, is clear they are paid for in something." "They are paid of two? And is there any reason why he should encoufor, to the Frenchman, it may be, in Sheffield goods. But rage himself in being a fool for the benefit of those who if the glovemaker procures a law that gloves shall not be pat him on the back that they may pick his pocket?" brought from France, it is plain that Sheffield goods Thus, you will perceive, sir, so far from regarding the must stop. The glovemaker may gain employment and consumers as the only persons affected by restrictive laws, trade to the amount of two shillings, but it is equally plain the very doctrine for which I am contending is clearly and that the Sheffield man must lose it." "The whole amounts distinctly affirmed. It is only necessary to substitute to a plan for robbing a Sheffield man or a Birmingham, Southern cotton for Sheffield cutlery, and Northern manuwho can make what people will voluntarily buy, for the facturers for English horse dealers, and the argument of benefit of the glover, who cannot; for clipping the com- the author becomes identical with my own. merce of some individual who has ingenuity and skill enough to command a market, to add to him who is with

Out."

Here, it will be seen that the author distinctly assumes that the principal injury produced by a restrictive law is to those domestic producers "who would have produced the English commodity with which the foreign commodity would have been purchased,” while the injury to the consumer is comparatively small.

Nothing, even in mathematical science, is more certain than that legislation can exercise no creative power in the way of producing wealth. No legislator has yet discovered the philosopher's stone, and magic is not one of the powers conferred by the constitution. Hard work, patient labor, these are the only agents, under Providence, by which wealth can be created. All the legislation in the world cannot add a blade of grass or a grain of wheat to the national wealth, except by securing every one in the I will now read a short extract, which admirably ridi- enjoyment of his property, and thereby stimulating his cules that bewildering confusion of ideas which induces exertions. But though legislation is impotent to create many to believe that there is some magic in a foreign ex-wealth, it is omnipotent to transfer it. While, therefore, change, which relieves the domestic producer from the it is the feeblest of all producers, it is the most powerful burden of a protective duty or restriction.

of all plunderers; and whenever restrictions or taxes confer wealth and prosperity upon one portion of the Union, it necessarily follows that an equal or greater amount of wealth and prosperity must be taken from some other portion.

"If a saving is to be made by the introduction of steam coaches, no effectual opposition can be made by the dealers in horses, because the public are sufficiently informed to know that all they expend less in coach hire will be expended upon something else instead; and, therefore, What have we been told by the advocates of the prothe loss of business to horse dealers will be balanced by tecting system on this floor and elsewhere? Why, that if an increase of business, of exactly the same amount, to we repeal or materially reduce the protecting duties, you somebody and somewhere, and they (the public) will gain sweep with the besom of destruction the entire face of the difference besides. They have a perfect comprehen- the manufacturing States, and leave that whole region a sion, that to put down steam coaches by act of Parlia- scene of desolation. Sir, is this so? Is it true that the rement would only be enacting that a quantity of employ-duction of the burdens of taxation will desolate a portion ment and profit should be taken from certain dealers, for of the States of this confederacy? If it be so, how elothe sake of giving to horse dealers the same quantity of quently, how irresistibly does it demonstrate the proposiemployment and profits, and no more, with a further ad- tion for which I am contending, and how plainly does it dition of the loss to the coach-riding public of the whole fix the seal of condemnation upon that system of plunder difference of coach hire besides. They see, distinctly, against which I am now raising my voice! What, sir! The that to propose such a thing would be as great an absur- reduction of the taxes spread desolation! Was the like dity and injustice, as to propose to enact that a carrier ever heard before? How will this desolation be producshould not grease his wheels for the sake of causing a ed? It is utterly impossible--remember, sir, I bar necrogreater quantity of horse flesh to be charged to his cus- mancy-that the repeal of the reduction of taxes can desotomers. They are aware that such a piece of legislative late one portion of the country, unless it be true that they dullness as this would amount to setting up the principle are drawn from the industry of another portion, and trans

H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

[MAY 28, 1832.

ferred by legislative injustice to the favored region of the purpose of giving it to another? No Government on protection. While, therefore, gentlemen are eloquently the face of the earth ever had or ever can have the right prefiguring their own desolation, which is to result from to exercise such a power, either directly or indirectly, restoring to my constituents only a part of their long lost openly or in disguise. It really appears to me, that, in the rights, they do nothing more than draw a picture of the evil times on which we have fallen, language has lost its desolation which the protecting system has already pro-meaning, and that the world is governed by a miserable duced throughout the Southern Atlantic States. cant of hypocrisy and deception.

I, therefore, solemnly invoke you, by the principles of justice, the ties of honor and patriotism, the guaranties of the constitution, and by all the sanctities of social life, not to uphold any longer this gigantic system of injustice and oppression!

Sir, I put it to the candor, the justice, and the prudence of gentlemen, if it be not time for them to pause in their career. The question presents itself in a practical way, which the dullest must comprehend; and no one, who is not voluntarily blind, can fail to perceive that the Southern States are sinking under a weight of oppression that no free people on earth has ever endured so long.

You openly and unblushingly perpetrate plunder, and consecrate the outrage by calling it protection! Do gentlemen understand the import of words? Protection! Protection, against what? Is there a band of foreign mercenaries threatening to plunder and lay waste the manufacturing establishments of the North? If there be any such danger to be apprehended, you have only to call upon the generous spirit of the South, and thousands will rally under your standard, prepared to shed the last drop of their blood in defending your rights and repelling the invaders. But there is no foreign army threatening invasion: and I again ask, against what is it that the manufacturers clamor The injury to the South by the continuance of the pro- so loud for protection? But one answer can be truly given tective system, cannot be less than the damage which will to this question: they desire to be protected against a fair be produced to the manufacturing interests of the North and equal competition with the productions of Southern by the repeal of that system. Or, to state the proposition industry. Involve it, mystify it, disguise it as you may, in a different form, the benefit which the Northern manu-"to this complexion it must come at last." The real infacturers derive from having high duties and restrictions vaders against whom this clamorous uproar for protection imposed upon the productions and exchanges of the South- is raised, are the planters of cotton, tobacco, and rice. ern planters, cannot possibly be greater than the benefit These are the true rivals of the Northern manufacturers, which the planters would derive from the repeal of those and but for them not a single voice would be heard from duties and restrictions. Now, the benefit which the manu- one extremity of this confederacy to the other, calling facturers receive from this system may be measured by the for protecting laws. damage they will sustain by the repeal of it; and if we are to place any reliance on their statements, they will be great and overwhelming. Not less overwhelming, then, would be the tide of prosperity which would flow in and enrich the Southern planters, if the barriers which impede their intercourse with their natural markets were removed, and their inalienable rights to the free use of the products of their industry were restored to them.

In a report recently submitted to the House by the Committee on Manufactures, the power of this Government to protect manufactures is placed on a ground entirely new and original. The power in question, sir, is drawn from that part of the constitution which authorizes the imposition of taxes for the purpose of "providing for the common defence." I give you the very words of the report: "to provide for the common defence. Defence against We have thus far considered this question only as it af- what? against whom? Defence against every danger and fects the relative interests of the contending parties: let against every foe; defence against all hostility, and from us now examine it in reference to the infinitely more im- every evil which may bear upon the whole community, portant consideration of their rights. And here the differ- and menace the general welfare: defence, especially, ence between the claims of the Southern planters and the against all hostility of foreigners, whether in war or in Northern manufacturers is too obvious to escape the dull- peace; for the hostility of nations to each other is not conest perception. No one will venture to maintain that the fined to times of war. The common defence must be proplanters claim any thing to which they have not a natural vided for as much against commercial rivalry as against and indefeasible right. They do not ask the Government warlike invasion; for the spirit of traffic, armed with powto give them any aid of any kind; they only ask that it er, as the experience of mankind has proved, is more will let them alone while honestly employed in the pur- insatiate and more grasping than all the Alexanders and suit of happiness. Have they not, for example, a natural Cæsars that ambition has inflicted on the race of man." right to produce cotton, tobacco, and rice? Have they Now, sir, to say nothing of the solecism of talking about not the same natural right to sell it wherever they can do" hostility in time of peace, a thing which I do not exit most advantageously, whether at home or abroad? And actly comprehend, I cannot recognise that as a part of the does not the right to sell abroad involve the right of bring-international or moral code of civilized nations, which deing home, without hindrance or restriction, the commodities nounces foreign commerce as a public enemy in time of obtained by that sale? It is clear, it is self-evident, that, peace, against which an eternal war of extermination is to in exercising these natural rights, the planters do not vio- be waged, by all the powers conferred upon this Governlate the rights of any other class of citizens, however di- ment, for "the common defence!" rectly they may come in conflict with their interests.

Will any gentleman have the goodness to point out what right of the manufacturers I violate when I carry my cotton to Europe, exchange it for manufactures, and bring I them into the United States for the purpose of using them myself, or of selling them to other people? No, sir, it cannot be done. On the other hand, there is no difficulty in pointing out the rights of the planters which you violate when you shackle their exchanges with restrictions, and incumber them with taxes in order to benefit the manufacturers: you violate their right of property--the right to make the most they can, in a lawful way, by the productions of their industry.

To what charter, human or divine, can you appeal for the power of taking away the property of one man, for

I must admit, however, that this view of the subject exhibits the true character and genius of the protecting system in a more clear, striking, and undisguised form, than have ever before seen it presented. If I know any thing of the history and objects of the federal constitution, its primary end was the protection and defence of foreign commerce against the injustice and violence of foreign nations, and not the protection of one branch of domestic industry, engaged in producing manufactures, against another branch engaged in producing the exchanges of foreign commerce. It is as great an outrage upon our vernacular language, as it is upon our federal constitution, to call this "protection." I will tell you, sir, what, according to my view of the subject, is the only kind of protection which this or any other Government may lawfully

MAY 28, 1832.]

The Tariff

[H. OF R.

extend to the citizens who owe it allegiance. In this re- for them? Gentlemen will find this a very puzzling inspect the duty of Government is exceedingly plain and quiry. With a view to excite our national prejudices simple. The first great protective duty of Government against the nations of Europe with whom we trade, and is to defend the country against the injustice or violence particularly against England, the most valuable of all our of foreign nations. To this end, it is clothed with the customers, it is said that our bread stuffs are excluded by power of maintaining fleets and armies. The second their corn laws, and that, of the vast amount of our annugreat protective duty is to defend every citizen or inhabit-al exports to those countries from which we receive maant within its jurisdiction from the injustice or violence nufactures, the productions of the Northern States amount of all other citizens or inhabitants. To this end laws are to a mere bagatelle. made, and public tribunals are established. If any foreign Now, sir, if England and France, and the other manuGovernment, by an act of violence, or an act of legisla- facturing nations of Europe, will not receive any of the tion, commits an outrage upon the person or property of productions of the Northern States, I beseech gentlemen an American citizen, it is the duty of this Government, at to inform me how the Northern States can require proany reasonable expense of blood or of treasure, to vindi- tection against the manufactures of these nations. What cate the right and avenge the wrong. If any citizen per- higher protection can they desire against foreign manupetrate an act of violence or injustice against the person factures than that which arises from the want of the means or property of another, the Government is bound to fur- of paying for them? nish a remedy for the outrage, by restoring what has been unlawfully taken, or causing indemnity to be made for it. When these things are accomplished, all the protective functions of Government are fulfilled.

The moment it goes beyond this point, and, under the pretence of giving protection, prostitutes its power to the unhallowed purpose of confiscating the property of one class of citizens to give it to another, however sacred the names under which this outrage may be perpetrated, the Government itself becomes the instrument of inflicting the very injustice, to prevent which was the great and cardinal purpose of its creation.

That the committee may perceive more distinctly the real object and bearing of this protecting system upon the two great rival interests upon which it operates, I will now call their attention to a statistical fact, which, I am sure, will strike every one as being extraordinary.

Sir, it has often struck me as one of the most arrant of those delusions that sometimes come over communities of men, that the Northern States should attempt to justify the exclusion of English manufactures, upon the ground that England will not receive their grain. This is not the foundation of the protecting system. It is not because England excludes American productions, but because she admits them almost free of duty, that the Northern manufacturers demand protection. This system is not designed to do so very absurd a thing as to prevent those from purchasing English manufactures who have not the means of paying for them; but it is designed to prevent those from purchasing who have the means of paying for them, to promote the interest of those who have not.

I am prepared to maintain, before any tribunal of New England farmers that can be organized, that if England would agree to receive the grain of the United States unI have already stated that it was against domestic and der a moderate revenue duty, it would be impossible for not foreign industry that the manufacturers call for pro- New England to carry on with Old England a commerce tection. But why is it that they need this very high and consisting of an exchange of the agricultural productions extravagant protection? It is because foreign manufac-of the former for the manufactures of the latter. When tares are purchased with the productions of the Southern it is known that the price of agricultural labor is much States, and because these productions are produced by higher in the Northern States than it is in any part of the slave labor, which is four times as cheap in the operations European world, does any one suppose that grain can be of agriculture as the white labor of the Northern States. produced by such labor, sent abroad under a revenue duty Yes, sir, at this moment, a day laborer on a cotton planta- in foreign ports, exchanged for foreign manufactures; tion in South Carolina, under the best management, does and that these can be brought into the United States unnot earn more than twelve and a half cents per day. This is der another revenue duty, and sold as cheap as domestic the true and only cause why the manufacturers require manufactures? No, sir: if England were to abolish her the Government to interpose its powerful arm to keep corn laws to-morrow, such a trade could not be carried down competition. It is, when properly considered, the on. The Northern manufacturer could still make goods greatest of all absurdities to suppose that it is against the English manufacturers that this protection is demanded. This is a mere flimsy disguise to cover the fraud and conceal the outrage perpetrated against the planters. I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, what harm the Manchester manufacturer, with his ten cent calico, could possibly do him, with his calico of the same quality at twenty cents, if there was no domestic production of the United States that could be exchanged in England for the former. It would be as impossible, sir, for the man of Manchester to bring his goods into competition with those of the man of Massachusetts, as it would for the batteries of Tripoli to be brought to bear successfully on the fortress at Old Point Comfort.

cheaper than the Northern farmer could purchase them abroad. And it is not until the former comes in competition with efficient agricultural labor, operating at twelve and a half cents a day, and producing one of the most valuable staples of the earth, that he finds it convenient to have his rival put down by act of Congress.

I speak of what I know experimentally, when I say that if the planters of South Carolina were compelled to pay fifty cents a day for the labor they employ on their plantations, they could not afford to produce cotton for less than twenty-five or thirty cents a pound. If I should attempt to cultivate it at the present prices, by such labor, my whole capital would be exhausted, and I should be utterly insolvent in less than ten years. Then, sir, it is obvious enough that it is the cheap labor of the Southern States, and not the cheap labor of foreign countries, against which this exterminating war of prohibition is waged by the whole confederacy of manufacturing interests.

If the Southern States were sunk by an earthquake, or if cotton, tobacco, and rice were stricken from the list of natural productions by some revolution in the laws of nature, is there any man here so utterly ignorant of the laws of commerce as to suppose that the twenty cent calico of Massachusetts would require any protection against I will now bring the conduct and the claims of our adthe ten cent calico of England? They never could be versaries to a test by which every christian combatant brought into competition. In what manner, and for should be willing to be tried. I will only ask that they what purpose, would the Birmingham and Manchester do unto others what they would that others should do unto manufacturers bring their goods into the markets of the them. A great deal has been said about compromising United States, and what would they obtain in exchange this question. Now, in order to see where the true mid

VOL. VIII.-197

H. or R.]

The Tariff.

[MAY 28, 1832.

dle ground lies, upon which the contending parties should that this would be the true point of equality. It would meet, I will first show you what are the two extremes. be as equal as a system of indirect taxation could be renThe manufacturers contend that high protecting duties dered. You will perceive, therefore, how liberal is the shall be levied, for their benefit, upon the productions of concession which the bill before you makes to the manuthe Southern planters. This is one extreme. I will now facturing interest, and how far it still is from putting the state the opposite extreme, which precisely corresponds South upon a footing of equality with the North. One-half with it. Suppose, then, that the planters of the South of the whole scheme will still be a tax upon the productive were to allege that they labored under great disadvan- industry of the South, and a bounty to that of the North. tage in exchanging their staples for manufactures; that The moment, sir, you impose a duty upon the manuthey had to go into foreign countries, pay heavy expenses factures of the North, you open the eyes of the manufacin sending their staples abroad, and in bringing back the turers to the absurdity of the doctrine which maintains manufactures obtained for them; from all which expenses that the whole burden of the duty falls upon the conthe domestic manufacturers were fortunately exempted, sumer. It never was true in any country, or in any conhaving their customers almost at their cwn doors. And dition of trade, that the producers of commodities upon suppose, further, that, to countervail these disadvantages, which impost or excise duties were levied, could throw and to encourage American commerce, they were to in the whole burden of those duties upon the consumers. voke the Government to permit them to import foreign Even in the state of things most favorable to this result, manufactures free of duty, while a protecting excise duty where the duties are imposed upon the entire quantity of of forty per cent. should be levied, for their benefit, upon the taxed commodities consumed in the country, the whole all the domestic manufactures that came in competition burden cannot be thrown from the producers to the conwith their imports: this would be demanding precisely the sumers, though the principal part of it undoubtedly would same protection against the manufacturers which the ma- be in most instances. If, for example, on any emergency nufacturers now demand and enjoy against them. I defy an excise duty should be levied upon hats and shoes, do any one to draw a sound distinction between them. How, you imagine that the whole burden of these duties would then, would the manufacturers stand affected by having fall exclusively on the wearers of hats and shoes? So far the rule which they have so long applied to others, applied to themselves?

from it, the mechanics engaged in producing these manufactures, guided by the unerring instinct of self-interest, would be the very first to complain of these duties as partial and unequal. And if a political economist should rise up and tell them to make themselves easy, for that no part of the burden fell upon them as makers of the hats and shoes, they would indignantly, reject his consolation as vain philosophy.

All their manufactures that come in competition with imports would have to pay into the treasury a duty of forty per cent. to encourage and protect the planting and exporting industry of the South. Would this be, in any respect, more unjust than the present protecting system? Would it not be its perfect counterpart? And who would be injured by these protecting excise duties levied upon! But, sir, if it be true as a general proposition, that all Northern manufactures? The producers of these manu- indirect taxes levied upon commodities operate, to some factures? Oh, no! We have been a thousand times told extent, as burdens upon the producers, it is much more that the producer bears no part of the burden of a duty obviously the case, and to a much greater extent, where levied on his productions, but that the whole burden falls the duties are not equally levied upon the entire quantity upon the consumer. If this be true, the manufacturers of these commodities consumed in the country, but where would sustain no burden, and have no cause of complaint partial and discriminating duties are levied on the smaller in consequence of this protecting excise duty. It would portion only of the national consumption. And such is fall exclusively on the consumers, and be thus distributed precisely the condition of things, and the operation of equally all over the Union, as it is alleged of the import protecting duties in the United States. duties. If this doctrine is true in one case, it is undoubt- I will illustrate my view by referring to the actual state edly true in the other. No rule can be true, as I often of the imports and consumption of cotton manufactures. heard it said when I was studying arithmetic, which will The value of cotton goods produced in the United not work both ways. Yet, sir, if we were to apply to States for sale, at the various manufactories, may be esti the manufacturers the rule which they have applied to mated at twenty-four millions of dollars; the value of simi the planters; if an excise duty of forty per cent. were lar articles imported from abroad has been, taking an levied and collected from their productions, as the import average of several years, about eight millions of dollars; duty now is from the productions of the South, a clamor making the whole mass of cotton manufactures sold and would be forthwith raised throughout the manufacturing consumed in the United States amount to thirty-two milStates, like that "universal hubbub" which Milton de- lions. In this state of our trade, the Government levies scribes in the infernal regions. A million of voices would cry a duty, it will be assumed, of fifty per cent., not upon the out, "oppression! desolation! war! vengeance! you have whole thirty-two millions' worth of cotton manufactures destroyed our manufactures! you have reduced us to beg- consumed in the country, but only upon the eight milions? gary!" And, sir, wo unto that audacious political eco- worth which are imported from foreign countries. And nomist who should dare to stand up amidst the ruins, and in this state of facts, it is contended that the domestic proattempt to console the manufacturers by assuring them, ducers of the imported manufactures, the planters of the as the Southern people have been so often assured, that South, are not subjected to any peculiar burden by these they had no cause whatever to complain as producers, for discriminating duties upon their productions, but that the that the whole burden of the duty must necessarily fall whole burden of the duty is thrown exclusively upon on the consumers. Thus, then, having seen the two ex-consumers of cotton goods. Let us examine this propo tremes, it is easy to find the middle ground of compro-sition, and see to what strange conclusions it would lead mise which lies between them. It is this: we say to our us. A duty of fifty per cent. upon the eight millions of adversaries, if you will permit our imported manufactures imported cotton manufactures, yields a revenue of four to come in free of duty, we will permit your domestic millions of dollars, which is paid into the treasury. Now, manufactures to remain equally exempt from taxation; if the whole burden of this duty falls upon the consumers or, to place it on a footing better suited to the wants of of imported cotton goods, it can only be so by the enthe Government, whatever duty you will consent to have hancement of the price of these goods fifty per cent. in levied on your domestic manufactures, we will agree to the market. But they come into a market where there have levied on our imported manufactures. If this were are also domestic goods of the very same kind to the an original question, I solemnly believe, indeed I know, amount of twenty-four millions.

the