32D CONG.....1st Sess.

honorable gentlemen who are in favor of exempting railroad iron, and making it free of duty-for I am at issue with them-or if they cannot agree with me, and go upon principle, convince me I am wrong, and I will abandon the point. I say the De-mocratic party is against such a course. You cannot discriminate by making railroad iron free of duty, unless you lay down the principle that it is proper and right to discriminate in favor of corporations and monopolies, because that is the tendency of it. 1 have been astonished to see that gentlemen, who have been talking about the principles of this tariff, and apprehending that I was departing from them, are in favor of making railroad iron free. Now, I want those gentlemen to tell me how they are to resist this issue. If you are in favor of repealing the duties on railroad iron, then you are in favor of discriminating favorably to corporations and monopolies. If, upon the other hand, you argue with me that such a course is for the benefit of the whole country, then you are in favor of aiding internal improvements at the expense of Government. It will not do to say that in taking off thirty per cent. in favor of railroad iron indirectly you are not thereby giving thirty per cent. to corporations out of the funds of the Government. There is no distinction at all that I can see, consequently in voting to discriminate in favor of railroad iron, and making it duty free, the effect of it irresistibly is, that you either discriminate in favor of corporations, or you are in favor of taking the money out of the Treasury for disbursing it in favor of internal improvements. I am opposed to both.

Mr. Chairman, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or at least the Democratic party in it, have always advanced on sound principles. We have often been told that we are unsound. I say that we have always shown ourselves willing to advance, and I can prove it by the records. How is it on the bank question? Who created that bank? Was it the Democratic party of Pennsylvania? Sir, it was the creature of this General Government. If it be unconstitutional to have a national bank, you are responsible for it, and not the State of Pennsylvania. Not only that, sir, but it has been our misfortune to have your very erroneous legislation located in our State. When you crea⚫ted a national bank of thirty-six millions of dollars, you planted it in my State, and then turned round and found fault with us because we had it there. Why, sir, it was your error, and not ours; all the political heresies that have ever got into the State of Pennsylvania, have come from this General Government; and that State learned all her heresies in your school. Now, on the bank question we have advanced, and come to occupy a true position upon it. We agree that a national bank is an obsolete idea. Is not that advancing upon sound principles? And I hope, sir, to see that very principle, some day or other, impregnating the Supreme Bench of this Union. I hope to see the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States reversed by the Supreme Court; and I also wish to see the case of Prigg vs. The Commonwealth, reversed too; then I shall be satisfied with the opinions and position of the Supreme Court of the United States.

That is the doctrine of the Supreme Court, and not of Pennsylvania. The dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Taney, according to my judgment, is more in accordance with their public

views.

How is it with the question of the constitutional treasury? Is not Pennsylvania sound upon that question? If she be sound, does it not prove that she advances upon principle, and is always right? || All that she asks in reference to these great questions of the country is to allow time to deliberate. She does not want to be put under a high pressure all the time by hasty changes, even where error exists and has taken deep root.

I respect the opinions of those gentlemen of the South who differ with me upon the manner of modifying the tariff. We meet you upon the tariff of '46 now, and beg you not to leave its principles until you at least succeed in convincing us it is wrong. When you do that, we will go with you. Allow us to take counsel with you upon these principles, and when the proper time comes, we will always advance upon principle.

Only convince us that we are wrong, and Pennsylvania will follow the right.

How is it on the question of the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands? Precisely the same. Pennsylvania is sound upon that question -as sound as any portion of the Democracy of the country. How is she upon the execution of the fugitive slave law? When the country was supposed to be in danger, did not Pennsylvania come to the rescue, and sustain, not the South, but the Constitution? She was called, at the North,|| a dough-face.

She has been called a follower of southern doctrines. Sir, she recognizes the doctrine of No¦ North, no South; but the Constitution and the Union; the Constitution just as our fathers made it, enforced and interpreted by the principles of strict construction. She has always loved and admired southern constitutional doctrines; not because they are southern, but because in general they are sound in her judgment; but she has never lacked the nerve to forbear to follow when she believed them to be wrong.

I well remember when no man within the limits of this broad Union, occupied a larger share of her affections than the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, now gone to his grave. And yet, when he took a position in 1832 which she regarded as dangerous and unwise, she ceased to follow him on that question, although she never ceased to honor, to love, and to admire him.

It is upon the Constitution that she desires to stand, recognizing no higher law in the administration of the Government.

I cannot speak for the whole State, which I have the honor in part only to represent, except so far as my own opinions go of her position; but I think I understand her pretty well, and I can speak with confident assurance, at least for my own district, when I say that they repudiate the doctrine of Prigg vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as that other famous decision, in which a United States Bank is declared to be constitutional, or rather perfectly consistent with the spirit of that instrument-falling within the powers not granted expressly, but which in that case were held to be necessary for carrying out those that expressly were granted

HO. OF REPS.

an approval of its principles. In 1844 the honos able Mr. McKay, of North Carolina, chairmand the Committee of Ways and Means, offered Pennsylvania forty per cent. on iron; she decliner it, however, because she feared the change m not work well; she was not then prepared for. In 1846 a bill was passed establishing ad valorem. and putting the duties on iron at thirty per cer This was passed without the vote of Pennsylvan excepting the vote of the Hon. David Wilmot, far precisely the same reasons.

I now again refer to the resolution adopted b the Democratic convention of Berks county, E September, 1846, to show you that, in principe. she was right then, and only wanted time to cam it out. Now, sir, observe her progress: she wa silent on the subject, asking no modification fg * four years. Towards the close of the first session of this Congress, I offered an amendment not a change a single principle of the act; but finder: that in consequence of the very cheap rates of iron that the duties had fallen far below the reten standard, my object was to change the mode of appraisement so as to bring it up to that standard Could I have obtained a hearing, I would te have stated just what I state to-day, that Pent. sylvania will stand by the tariff of 1846, in primople-preserving ad valorems with the revenue standi ard; but on our own manufactures we ask you u keep the duties up to the revenue standard-not in go beyond it, nor fall behind it. If this produ a surplus revenue, pay off the national debt. lia surplus still remains, extend your free list on artcles not produced or manufactured here; and a doing so confine it to articles of general consump tion by the masses, (omitting luxuries as falorg within the exception to this rule.) If this fails, then reduce below the revenue standard on your manufactures, until, in the process of time, you reach absolute free trade-if you prefer it—and by this gradual, progressive reduction, you will find, when the time comes, your manufacturer will be able to bid defiance to the world; and all this cat be secured in the adjustment of a revenue ad te lorem tariff.

I should have stated these facts at the last session could I have had a hearing. My views wee just the same then at now; accordingly, as I have already answered the gentleman from Ohio, [M. CARTTER, I moved to modify then, because the duty had fallen far below the revenue standard Now, sir, I am opposed to modification at the session, because although the duty is now to high, I have no faith in its staying there. In six months it may be down again; but if it continues up, I would most certainly favor reduction und you come down to the revenue standard. My position then is, that an ad valorem tariff fluctua ting with the trade of the country cannot be per

The tone of public sentiment in Pennsylvania, in my opinion, is against both of these decisions. They hold them to be wrong, and will hail the day with pleasure when the Supreme Court shall deem it expedient to reverse them; professionally, as a member of that court, I respect the decisions; as a representative, desirous of faithfully expressing the sentiments of my constituents, which, in this particular, are in consonance with my own judgment, I repudiate them as unsound and untenable. It was precisely, then, upon these principles, that in 1851 the Democratic party of Penn-manent; and in order to make it effective, you mug sylvania planted itself upon the doctrine that the fugitive slave law should be faithfully executed in Pennsylvania, and that her act of Assembly, refusing our jails to the General Government, should be repealed, because such a position was absolutely required at that crisis from a party which professed to respect the compromises of the Constitution, and also professed to have nerve enough to say and do before the world what it believed to be right. It was in my own district (Berks) that the convention met and adopted this platform, nominating on it the present amiable and distinguished Executive of the State, William Bigler. Eight thousand majority crowned their success, and settled the question, I trust, forever.

I do not, Mr. Chairman, mention these things in a vain spirit of boasting. Other States were just as true; but I deem it due to the State which I in part represent, to refer to it in support of my argument that Pennsylvania is not stationary, as she is most unjustly represented to be, but has always been true to the Constitution, and is always progressive upon sound principles.

Now, sir, apply this rule to her action on the tariff. The tariff of 1842 was not understood by Pennsylvania herself when Mr. Walker proposed to establish the tariff of 1846. It was working well at that time; and although the Democratic party never endorsed its principles and details, it was averse to change-more from motives of fear of the consequences that might ensue than from

change from time to time and follow the fluctuating standard up or down the scale, just as the laws of supply and demand may please to send it.

I have said that Pennsylvania progresses on all these questions on sound principles. In 1844,8 refused McKay's bill; in 1851, she came here and offered to take it: it was refused; in 1852, she asked a modification of the tariff of 1846 merely to secure the revenue standard. Now she accepis it just as it is. Next year if it be too high, and a surplus accumulates, she will go with you to reduce it, and upon the principles I have laid down, she will go with you till ends in free trade, if the country so wills it. All she asks is that you wil only move cautiously, and gradually give stabil ity to your acts as you advance, and she will go with you to the end. I felt it to be my duty, u the extent of my humble ability, at the earliest opportunity, to try and place her thus fairly before the country. I do not arrogate to myself the right to speak for her by authority. I am but one of her Representatives; and when I have assumed to speak for the State, I wish to be understood as only speaking by authority for my district. Al I say of the State is but the result of careful observation and well-settled opinions. I speak or y for the Democratic party also, and such interests as I believe concur with it.. My colleagues may differ from me on many or all of my positions, and if so their opinions are entitled to as favor liable a hearing as mine are.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Had not the ground been taken in this debate, that a reduction of the duty on railroad iron would inure only to corporations, I might not have said a word on the subject. My State (now engaged in an extensive system of railroads) feels at this time a peculiar interest in this question, and the same may be said of the whole West and Northwest.

My friend, the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. JONES,] would find himself somewhat puzzled in attempting to draw a sensible distinction between manufacturing corporations and railroad corporations, and to demonstrate how the community will be more benefited by extending privileges to the former, and denying them to the latter. Indeed, sir, the reverse is true. For, while the admission into this country, duty free, of dye-stuffs, coarse wool, &c., will enable the manufacturer to make his goods at less cost, it does not follow that the community will buy them cheaper, for after all, the foreign article of the same kind regulates the price, which is always increased (if imported at all) by the duty imposed. The importation of it implies a demand greater than the supply at home, and the price which the foreigner must demand, to realize a profit, will be the price also of the home article, however cheap it may be made. To benefit the community by admitting, free of duty, certain articles necessary to the home manufacture, you must also admit the manufactured article itself, free of duty; otherwise, you only transfer the amount of the duty from the Treasury into the pockets of the manufacturer.

I think I shall be able to show that the admission of railroad iron, either free of duty, or with a light one, will benefit every one. If there were as many lines of railroads, extending from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, as there are States upon its shores from New York to Georgia inclusive, there would not be a man, woman or child, east of the Rocky Mountains, that would not in some degree be benefited. All would either travel upon them, or use something transported by them. The cheaper those roads are made the cheaper would be the travel and transportation. The interest on their cost would be less, and their profits begin proportionably sooner. A railroad costing $2,000,000 must make $120,000 a year clear of expenses, or do a losing business. If the same road cost but $1,000,000, $60,000 per annum would remunerate it, and the other $60,000 would be a saving to the community-that is, it could charge $60,000 less for travel and transportation. Would they charge less on that account? I say they would. There are very few that make more than six per cent. In truth, sir, the railroads of the South are built, not so much with a view to profit as to afford commercial || facilities. The farmers and planters make their subscriptions, looking for remuneration to the convenience of traveling, and the cheaper transportation of their produce. Our experience teaches us that, in a distance of fifty miles, twenty cents at least are saved on a bushel of wheat or corn, and three dollars on a hogshead of tobacco. The merchant and mechanic in the city takes the stock to increase the value of his lots and houses, and stimulate his trade. He gets his dividend in increased rents and profits; a dividend in money is regarded as an incidental benefit. Besides, sir, these roads are, either in whole or in part, owned by the State in which they are made. They are built in whole or in part by the money of the State, which is contributed, in the shape of taxes, by all. Hence all are interested in their cheapness. Besides this, they are, for the most part, limited in their profits by law; and the State has, by her officers, an influence and control corresponding in some degree with the contributions she has made. The charges, therefore, on these roads must be less as you diminish their cost.

NEW SERIES.-No. 3.

The Tariff-Mr. Meade.

Justice to the South demands that there should be a reduction of duty on railroad iron. Railroad iron was exempted from duty for a long period previous to 1842, and during that time a large number of the railroads at the North were built; but few at the South and West. Nor was it so much our fault as the result of circumstances. The density of the northern population enabled them to do what we could not then, or could but slowly do. Let not our inability, then, be charged as a fault.

I believe that a reduction of duty on railroad iron will eventually benefit the iron-master. The market for his iron is principally in the interior of the country. The cheaper he can get it there the greater will be his profits and the more he will sell. The article being very heavy, it is of the last importance to transport it cheap, for it will not bear a heavy transportation duty. A costly railroad is a perpetual tax on transportation. The cheaper the railroads are the cheaper in all time to come will be the transportation-tax on iron. English iron is now only the pioneer that is opening up a perpetual market for American iron. It first makes a cheap road to your mines, which takes your iron to the sea-board, thence by vessels it is distributed into every sea-board town, whence, by railroads, it is taken far into the interior. On every one of these railroad are twenty engines and a thousand cars, all of which are built and renewed from year to year out of iron taken from your mines. Along the lines, bar iron, plows, and machinery of all kinds, are transported, and all made of iron from your mines, deriving an incidental protection from a revenue duty. This state of things will spring up in a few years, if you will just have patience until foreign íron shall pave the way for your own. Our ancestors felled the forest with English axes; but for which it would have been still a forest. I will illustrate by a case in point: The road from Petersburg to Lynchburg, à distance of one hundred and twenty miles, is built by a subscription of individuals, assisted by the State, which, in pursuance of a general policy, takes three fifths of the stock. Had railroad iron been sixty or seventy dollars a ton, instead of forty-two dollars, the road would never have been built, for it was exceedingly difficult to procure the subscription, notwithstanding the comparative cheapness on account of the low price of iron. There are now running on that road engines and cars from Philadelphia. But for English iron at forty-two dollars a ton, many thousand dollars already spent would have been lost to Pennsylvania, and many thousands more in prospect. This road is one link in a chain that will reach from James river to the Mississippi. How much of Pennsylvania iron in various shapes will ultimately travel along this entire line it would be difficult to estimate. To the cheapness of railroad iron this entire line is principally indebted.

The low price of iron for a few years back was only the misfortune of the producer, similar to that which often befalls the cultivator of the soil. When cotton, grain, and tobacco, bear a low price, he flies not to the Government for aid; he puts up with it, and works the harder. He waits for a better day. Your system of protection, however, puts upon him the misfortune of others as well as his own. Protection means a premium in the shape of money, and it is paid altogether by the exporting interest; for whatever is paid by one protected class to another is ultimately returned. The farmer only asks the small privilege of being permitted to buy of those who will buy of him, instead of being forced to buy of those who will take only a portion of his products in exchange for theirs, demanding cash for the greater part.

The argument drawn from over-production is a fallacy-there is no such thing as over-production. The ability to buy alone regulates the extent of the sales. Millions of people in Europe were starving when our breadstuffs were cheapest. Would they not buy if they could? And why would they not? They had no employmentthere was no market for what they could make, though millions were in want of it. Restrictions, monopolies, high duties, legislative outrages on the laws of nature and of commerce, had made him a beggar with millions of others. Abolish the custom-houses all over the world; let there be free intercourse between its ports, and none would want. This country, from certain natural advantages, produces breadstuffs, provisions, cotton, &c. Other countries, from a like course, produces other things cheaper than we can. These should be mutually exchanged. These should form the basis of a commerce between them enriching all. The grand folly of this country has for twenty years been in trying to force productions which belonged properly to others. Why have we not attempted to force by protection the growth of tea, coffee, and the spices, as well as sugar? We should have done so, had nature been a little less emphatic in her denial. We would have done so, if it had been possible, by only doubling their cost. The folly of the attempt would only have exceeded our other follies in degree. We discovered that we lacked the climate to grow tea, but have not learned we lack the climate for other things that we have attempted. A dense and starving population produces a climate for many productions. We could make silk with such a climate. The delicate fingers of a starving female, who will for three cents a day gather up the threads of the butterfly's shroud, is alone wanting to confer that blessing on us. When we reflect on the causes that prevent us from manufacturing some things, it should be matter for rejoicing, instead of regret.

The cheapness of provisions here gives us many advantages over the European. But it must be remembered that what are necessaries here are luxuries to the laborer of Europe. In place of his potato we must have bread. In place of his bread we must have meat. In place of his one loaf we must have three. A laborer's daily consumption here is three times what it is in Europe. Cheap labor and a dense population alone enable the European to manufacture cheaper. I do not regard either of these things as blessings. The for

coat.

are standing bidders for the labor of the poor. The former invites the strong and athletic, the latter, the weak and delicate. They are a refuge from the exactions of the capitalists. It would be almost a pity to tell those poor little boys and girls of ten and twelve years of age, who are crawling upon their bellies through the coal seams of England, that for four months in the year, in the cotton-fields of the South, they could make their four shillings sterling a day, and play and gambol for the remaining eight months of the year. The knowledge of so much happiness else

32D CONG..... 1ST SESS.

where would kill the poor creatures with despair. Take away these bidders for labor, and wages would go down and assume the European standard. Here the capitalist goes in search of labor; there labor seeks the capitalist. There employment is the commodity in demand, and is procured by the lowest bidder; here the employee, and is procured by the highest bidder. There the capitalist dictates to the laborer; here the laborer to the capitalist, who asks protection from him by demanding a contribution from the rest of the community. He artfully puts it on the ground that you are protecting labor. Can it be denied that the thing protected is the article produced, or the bale of goods owned by the capitalist, which he sells without paying a tax, while the foreign owner of a bale just like it has to pay a third of its value for the privilege of selling? But it will be replied, that the bale is the product of labor, and if you protect that, you protect the laborer.

The capitalist when he goes into the market for labor gets it as cheap as he can, and I have shown through what agencies the price is regulated and kept up. But for argument sake, let it be admitted that the laborer is protected to the extent of his agency in producing the bale. What proportion of it did he make, and what the machine owned by the capitalist? In that proportion, whatever it may be, is the premium shared between them. I leave to others better acquainted with the subject to determine the proportions of each. But my own opinion is, for every dollar pocketed by the capitalist about one cent goes into that of the laborer, which is paid away the first time he buys a coat. Sir, the machine and its owner is alone protected. You may as well tell me that the poor of Louisiana are protected by the duty on sugar. The labor which makes it is owned by the capitalists as are the machines of the North. They alone receive the premium. The laborer pays it. The wealthiest class of the North is the protected capitalist. The wealthiest at the South is the protected sugar planter. In each of these classes you find the millionaires of the country. It is idle to tell me that duties were taken off tea and coffee for

the sake of the poor. Was ever a cup of either drank without sugar? No, sir; the reason is that there were no wealthy producers of these articles to combine with others to grind, not to protect the laborer.

I have heard it contended that if duties be light, foreigners will combine to overstock the market, and crush home manufacturers, and then demand their own prices. Men are alike governed by their interest all over the world. They will as soon combine at home as abroad. It is certainly more easy and practicable. Can the manufacturers of England, France, Germany, Belgium, and other countries more readily combine than those of Lowell? Is it more probable that the world will combine against us, than a corner to which the trade is secured? The competition of all nations is our best security against combinations.

I was very glad to hear, Mr. Chairman, that my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. JONES] had taken the liberal ground he did on protection; the only protection he wants, is that incidental protection which the highest revenue duties could give him. That was the ground assumed by Mr. Polk in his first message after his election, one which had never been officially taken before, and which was supported by nearly the whole Democratic party. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania must remember, that eight years have expired since that time, and the progress we have made since then in sound principles and knowledge of the laws of trade, has been very rapid.

I was pleased when the Democratic party took the ground, that they would be content with such incidental protection as the highest tariff of revenue would give, because I consider that one step towards a more liberal policy.

What does it amount to practically? If we desired to raise a million of dollars upon shoes, supposing that four millions were annually imported, a duty of twenty-five cents would raise it; a higher duty, say of fifty cents, would also do it; and at the same time incidentally encourage the home article, by excluding two millions of the foreign. The fifty cent tax is the highest revenue duty, but still it is protective, for while the same amount is paid into the Treasury upon the two millions of

The Tariff-Mr. Meade.

shoes, you are yet paying an equal tax upon the two millions made at home,-the one tax goes into the Treasury, and the other into the pockets of the manufacturers.

It is argued that the encouragement of our manufactures at home, lessens the supply of the productions of the earth, which would be overstocked in case we did not divert labor from the soil. When that time comes, the products of the earth will fall in value to that point which will itself suggest to capitalists other investments. But 1 never expect to see the day when the earth shall be beaten by any competitor. It has never been yet. A laborer can make more by plowing it, than in any other business.

HO. OF REPS.

be added to them, and included in their value a fixing the duty.

Mr. MILLSON. I regret that my colleag thinks that freight across the Atlantic shot under that law, be considered as entering into 122 valuation upon the goods on which duty is to be paid. He has just said that it was the object of the special act of 1850-for which I voted with much misgiving-to legalize the Treasury cir lars of Mr. Walker. I beg leave to suggest a my colleague, that the Treasury circulars of M: Walker, to which he alludes, expressly exele freight as one of the costs upon which duty wi to be calculated.

Mr. MEADE. My colleague has mistake i me in one particular. When I said that was it

Mr. Chairman, I listened with pleasure, until I discovered his object, to the remarks of the hon-object of the law, I had reference to the lawe orable gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] the other day. He seemed to desire to reduce the revenue, and diminish the surplus, by taking off duties. The object of his first resolution, as explained by himself, soon became apparent. In his list of articles to be made duty free, there is not one, I believe, which is manufactured here, and by making them free, we impose the necessity of keeping up the duties on all others.

1846, which had for its object the fixing of a ve ation at the foreign port, at the time the article wy exported to this country. That was the object that law, and whatever may have been the oben of the law of 1850, I say that, sitting as a ma upon the bench, there is not a lawyer in this Hr. who would not decide, that the cost and chargs] would include freight, whatever may have ter the opinion of Mr. Walker, or the intention. His free list consists of such things as we must Congress. Mr. Walker's views in relation to th., import, and many of them entering into the com- matter accorded with my own wishes, for I p position of the manufactured article at home.ferred that all dutiable articles should be estimite Now, I think I have shown clearly, that if we were to admit the raw materials free of duty, it would be an indirect protection to the manufacturer, and a tax on the consumer.

But the gentleman desires to reduce the revenue, and to prevent its accumulation in future. He! anticipates great inconvenience in the country from hoarding up the specie.

Mr. CLEVELAND. If the gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, I desire to know by what process of reasoning he will prove that, by admitting railroad iron duty free, railroad companies would transport cheaper, and at the same time the manufacturers, under similar circumstances, would not sell cheaper?

Mr. MEADE. If the gentleman will read my speech when it is printed, he will find that I have explained that matter fully. I cannot go over the same discussion; it would consume too much time. The gentleman can satisfy himself, if he will do me the honor to read my speech.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if the country was in want of a specie circulation, the argument of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] would hold good; but the money hoarded in the Treasury is only a portion of the surplus product of the country. It occupies precisely the same relation to commerce as so much corn in a time of plenty. The gold of California is an article of merchandise; and so long as the currency of the country is sufficient for the purposes of trade, no_inconvenience would result from the surplus. Release it to-morrow, and it would be driven away by the paper which, unfortunately, occupies the place of gold. But, Mr. Chairman, I will admit that there exists the other danger, to which the gentleman from New York has alluded. I entirely concur in what he says of the danger of extravagant, and, perhaps, unconstitutional appropriations. For the sake of the purity of the Democratic party, I should like to remove that temptation out of their way. But, sir, for the purpose of depriving the policy of 1846 of the credit due it, he has attributed our enormous revenues to the Treasury circulars issued by Mr. Walker, and which, when afterwards reversed by the decision of the Supreme Court, were made the law of the land by a special act. The construction put upon the law of 1846 by Secretary Walker, was certainly in conformity with the spirit or intention of the Legislature that passed it. If not precisely in conformity with the letter of that act, the design of Congress, as every one knows, was, that the duty should be assessed on the value attached to the foreign article at the time it left the foreign port.

But the gentleman may be reminded of another thing. Our revenues from the tariff of 1846, have been diminished by the construction which one of his own Secretaries put upon the act of 1850. There is not a lawyer in this House that would say the freight is not a part of the costs and charges of goods imported, which the law of 1850 required to li

as cheaply as possible, with a view to as sms. ! tax as possible. But still, construing the law a lawyer, I could not exclude freight from t costs and charges any more than I could comm sions, insurance, or any other charge.

Now, I do not desire, by any means, to fr: fault with this construction. I only alluded to 1. to prove to the gentleman from New York, M BROOKS,] that so far from being benefited the construction given these laws, the revenue been diminished by it. But the remarks of the res tleman from New York carry me back to the time I took my seat in this Hall in 1848, wie.... listened to the eloquent remarks of the then che man of the Committee on Ways and Means fre Ohio, [Mr. Vinton.] That committee was the under the control of the Whig party. I was the alarmed, or rather I should have been alarme if I had been subject to alarms, by the dele anticipations which were then indulged in bṛ 2 gentleman, in respect to what would be the aw! condition of the Treasury in time to come. Der | bankruptcy, and ruin to the country, were hobgoblins which walked through his speech that day. The contrast could but strike me ms forcibly, when I heard the other day another lest: ) of the Whig party bewailing the condition of hy | country, in consequence of its immense sur revenues, and predicting a speedy dissolution fr plethora and the wealth of the Treasury. W told the Whigs in 1848 to trust to the Demons

they would take care that there should be si bankruptcy, no ruin. We tell them now to | tinue that trust; we will take care that there s be no death from plethora. We will stop the s ply by reducing the tax. That gentleman our in the course of his remarks, (if he really desire to act the counsellor,) to have read his friends the White House a lecture on the subject of the own delinquencies.

Having an overflowing Treasury, and millen upon millions daily accumulating there w $6,000,000 to Mexico, all of which was bear | interest-why did they not, as they were us to do by the Mexican Government, pay that de and thus dispose of that amount of surplus, z stop the interest on $6,000,000? Though TS in the strongest terms which necessity a ↑ prompt, and even our magnanimity as a net appealed to, the Administration refused to an pate that debt, preferring to pay the interest $6,000,000, and at the same time purchasing T premium of fourteen per cent, our own baz having years to run. I did all I could to preve this; but I was not heeded. And here cand compels me to say that the Democratic party this House failed to do their duty in this matte in not coercing the Administration to pay Mex her debt at the time and in the manner she sired.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am unwilling that the large amount of surplus revenue should remain i the Treasury, or that any more should accumula

MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF.

OF VIRGINIA.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
December 14, 1852,

On the Tariff question; delivered in the Committee of the Whole, on the motion to refer the Annual Message of the President to the several committees.

Mr. MILLSON said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: My friend from Ohio, [Mr. STANTON,] who has just taken his seat, is a perfect embodiment of the effete protective policy. I shall have something to say presently, in reply to some of the positions he has assumed in this debate. Before I do so, however, I wish to address myself to the subject more immediately before the committee. Just one week ago, the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] introduced a resolution providing that so much of the President's message as relates to the tariff and revenue from customs should be referred to a select committee, with power to examine witnesses and collect testimony here and elsewhere, and with instructions to report as soon as possible upon the same, with a bill reducing the duties on imports, to such an amount as may be required for an economical administration of the Government. The introduction of this resolution gave me great satisfaction. I had long desired, I will not say expected, a movement of this sort; but I had not dared to hope that such a resolution would have been first submitted by a gentleman on the other side of the House. I'desired it because, as I said a day or two ago, I have thought, from the very moment of the passage of the tariff of 1846, that these duties were, to a great extent, protective, and that they ought to be materially reduced. At a large Democratic meeting held in my own city, a few days after the passage of that act, I had the honor to submit a resolution upon this subject, which was unanimously adopted. It was in these words:

"Resolved, therefore. That this meeting warmly approves the passage of the tariff act of 1846, regarding it as only the first step on the part of the United States towards that more liberal and enlightened system of international intercourse which is about to be established throughout the world, and believing that it will ere long be followed by such further reductions of duties as are imperatively demanded by the spirit of the age.”

I confess I felt some surprise that this movement for the reduction of the tariff should have been commenced by the gentleman from New York; but I was not less pleased than surprised. I differ from some of my friends in believing that the present is a very appropriate time for the consideration of this most important subject. It is true, as my friend from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] has intimated, that the Administration is about to retire from power; but if the gentleman from New York is to be regarded as speaking the wishes of the Administration, I am perfectly willing to concede to Mr. Fillmore the honor of effecting the final overthrow of the protective policy. The President elect recently said that the hour of triumph was the hour of magnanimity; and if the present President of the United States desires to prostrate the protective system, why, in the spirit of magnanimity, I am willing to concede that credit to him Mr. STANLY. I wish to inquire if this movement is by authority of the Administration. I understood it to be an individual movement on the part of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS.]

Mr. MILLSON. I was about to consider the subject in both aspects, and on either supposition. If the gentleman from New York did not express the sentiments and wishes of the Administration, if he meant to oppose the views contained in the President's message, then I was willing, as one conscientiously opposed to the whole protective policy, that on the very day after the reception of

6

President nor the gentleman himself desired to do any harm to the protective system. For although the language of the resolution was such as I heartily approved, and although the gentleman himself says that he disclosed his hand and told us what he was seeking, yet it seems that his purposes were Introduced another resolution differing materially from the first. That resolution does not contain any instruction to reduce the duties, but simply provides" that so much of the President's message as relates to the tariff and customs from revenue shall be referred to a select committee, 'with power to examine witnesses and collect tes'timony here and elsewhere, and with instructions 'to report by bill or otherwise on or before the 25th January next." Now, I am by no means willing to go for the second resolution of the gentleman from New York, unless it shall be amended either by the adoption of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. LockHART,] or that suggested by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES.] Without these amendments, I will not vote to create this committee, for the reason that it will be nothing more than such a commission as has been raised in the Senate, and from which no good would be likely to come, at least to those who do not want to confirm and bolster up the protective policy.

The gentleman from New York and I differ widely in regard to the objects to be secured by the adoption even of his first resolution. Looking to the language of the resolution which instructed the committee to report a bill reducing the duties on imports, I gave it my hearty support; and I may be permitted to confess my regret that it was not voted for, more generally, by gentlemen upon this side of the House. I must also express my surprise, that so many of the friends of protection, perhaps unwarily, gave their votes for its adoption. I do not think the course of either party would be precisely the same now as it was last Tuesday. I doubt if gentlemen upon the other side of the House would be so willing to vote for the resolution of the gentleman from New York as they then were; and I do not believe the gentleman from New York would be himself willing to vote for his own resolution if it were before us now, in the precise shape in which he first introduced it. The gentleman's object was to reduce the duties by enlarging the free list, and he said that that was an object common to both sides of the House. He wishes to abolish the duties on the raw materials entering into the composition of manufactured articles. The gentleman says:

"It seems to me that to this proposition there should be no objection. And I hope that there will be no objection on any side of the House to an enlargement of the lists of free articles and a reduction or abolition of duty upon many of the articles which enter into the composition of manu factures; for, in the first place, my Whig friends are aware that that will be a species of incidental, legitimate protection, of which the other side of the House cannot complain."

The gentleman is mistaken; we do complain and will complain of any such protection:

"And my Democratic friends will be aware that whatever contemplates a reduction of the revenue in any form, if it be to reduce the price of the manufactured article consumed, as they contend it does, is a proposition which has already met with favor, and which in its details cannot but be admitted into favor by them again."

Ho. OF REPS.

sold for ninety-five cents afterwards. But this saving of price to the consumer could not be effected without considerable loss to the people in other respects, which I will proceed to explain.

Let me suppose that our consumption of a particular kind of manufactures amounts to two hundred dollars, one half of them being made in this country, and the other half imported from abroad. Each article sells for one dollar. The price of the American article is composed of two elements; the cost, ninety-five cents, and the duty upon the raw material entering into its composition, amounting to five per cent., together making one dollar. The elements of price in the foreign article are cost, seventy cents, and duty thirty cents. Now, sir, the abolition of the duty of five per cent., by placing the raw material on the free list, will enable the American manufacturer to sell the article at ninety-five cents instead of a dollar, which must continue to be the price of the foreign article, and ne thus gets rid of competition from abroad, and monopolizes the market. For the foreign article will not be imported if it cannot be sold without loss; and as the cost and duty together amount to one dollar, it cannot, without loss, be sold for ninety-five cents.

Now, sir, the people, it is true, gain five per cent. on each hundred dollars of value, making on the whole consumption of two hundred dollars a gain of ten dollars. But what do they lose? They lose in their revenue five per cent., or five dollars, from the abolition of the duty which they get from the raw material used in making the domestic manufactures; and they also lose the thirty per cent., or thirty dollars, which they levied upon the hundred dollars worth of foreign articles imported. The gain to the people, as consumers, is ten dollars; the loss to the Treasury of the people, which of course is their own loss, is thirty-five dollars. Now, sir, I am not willing to save to the people ten dollars at the cost of thirty five dollars. We should reduce the duty upon manufactured fabrics in precisely the same proportion that we reduce it upon the raw material, otherwise there will be no balancing of the loss and gain. If at the same time that you abolish the five per cent. duty on the raw material you reduce the duty correspondingly upon the imported manufactures, then the loss to the revenue will be compensated by the gain to the people in the consumption of the article. To abolish the duty upon the raw material without a corresponding reduction upon imported fabrics, would be precisely equivalent to an appropriation of the amount of the duty out of the Treasury, to be bestowed in bounties to the manufacturers, to sustain them against foreign competition.

This view of the case leads me to notice the argument submitted yesterday by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. JONES,] who said that it made no difference to the people of the country whether, when money was to be raised, you selected two articles and imposed an equal duty on each, or whether you exempted one altogether, and imposed a double duty upon the other. Sir, in addition to the answers given by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] and my colleague, [Mr. MEADE,] I suggest another, and it is this: That the very object of the imposition of the double duty upon one article is to give protection to similar articles of domestic manufacture, by preventing, orat least diminishing, the importation of those foreign articles that would come into competition with them. If this were not the object, there would be Now, I admit that the gentleman from New York no reason for it at all; and if this object were not is entirely right in supposing that by placing on the to some extent accomplished, it would not be atfree list the various articles which enter into the tempted. The result, then, is, that instead of colcomposition of domestic manufactures, you will lecting the whole amount of duty as before, you probably reduce the prices of the manufactured exclude, perhaps, half the articles formerly imarticles. In that respect the people of the country, ported, and, of course, get only half the duty. If, as consumers of those articles, will perhaps save after subjecting an article to a double duty, you consomething; but they will be losers to a very great tinued to import the same quantity as before, you extent in a particular to which the gentleman has would undoubtedly collect the same revenue by not referred, if the duty should be abolished upon putting the whole burden upon one article and exdye-stuffs, and the raw material entering into the empting the other, as when you divided it between composition of domestic fabrics. Suppose the the two. But, as I have shown, the effect will be existing duty of five per cent. on dye-stuffs to to diminish the importation, and, of course, to amount to five per cent. of the cost of the manufac-diminish the revenue; and you will then be subtured article. It is unquestionably true that by the abolition of this duty the price of the article might, and perhaps would, be reduced five per cent. If it sold for one dollar before, it could be

jected to the necessity of imposing new taxes upon some new subject of taxation to make up the deficiency.

Mr. JONES, of Pennsylvania, (interposing.)