Слике страница
PDF
ePub

H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

MAY 8, 1830.

Fourthly. That the consumers of manufactures have no right to complain, because the high duties have not increased their prices.

means, imparted a new spring to the industry and enter-mand for native raw materials, and consequently furnish a prise of her subjects. They are enabled, upon more ad- better market to those who raise them. vantageous terms, to enter into competition with all parts of the world. Their imports and exports have enormously augmented. They send their cottons to India, and their silks are smuggled into France, though they are under the necessity of importing from abroad the raw materials for

both of these manufactures.

Fifthly. That, as foreigners impose restrictions upon us, we ought to retaliate upon them, and particularly upon Great Britain, as she takes almost nothing from us.

1st. That, by adequate protection, manufactures would be permanently established, &c. &c.

It has frequently been asserted by the restrictionists, that they follow the example, not the precepts, of Great Britain, whose statesmen, they insist, inculcate the doc- The ability to sell cheap depends upon the price of the trines of free trade, merely to delude other nations. The raw material, the wages of labor, and the profits of stock. fact that there exists a party in the United States, which To place the argument of the restrictionists in the most enforces the growth of manufactures by high duties, is not favorable light, I will suppose that the raw material costs more certain, than that the practices of British statesmen less in America than it does in England, as is the case with were correspondent with their professions. What I have cotton. With this advantage, and the aid of protective already said, would be sufficient to confute the assertions duties, from twenty-five to one hundred and twenty-five of the restrictionists; but if additional proofs were requi- per cent., in consequence of both wages and the profits site, I would refer to the principle which is understood to of stock being about one hundred per cent. higher in this have been adopted by the Government, that no duty, in- country than they are in England, we annually import tended for protection, shall exceed thirty per cent.-to the from her cotton manufactures, which we should not do writings in Blackwood's Magazine, and other publications unless they were cheaper than our own. Our importation of a similar character-to the debates in the Parliament, of cotton from England, in the year ending the 30th Sepand particularly to a discussion in the House of Lords, in tember, 1828, amounted to nine million four hundred and February last, in which the avowed friends of prohibition eighty-eight thousand four hundred and thirty-one dollars. attribute the distresses of the country "to the pestilent If England, then, undersells us in an article, the raw maheresy of free trade." That all the ancient monopolies terial of which we have cheaper than she has, can we rival and restrictions have not been relinquished in Great her in other manufactures, the raw materials of which she¦ Britain, is true. It would be impolitic, and mischievous purchases as cheap or cheaper than we do? When cottons in the extreme, to introduce innovations otherwise than are produced cheaper in England than they are in the cautiously and gradually, where immense investments of United States, is it not folly to suppose that we can manucapital have been made, in numerous branches of industry, facture wool and iron cheaper than, or as cheap as the upon the faith of long established laws and usages. That English manufacturer, who buys his iron and his wool at ininnovations have been made, and that, their effects have comparatively lower rates than they can be obtained by our been to liberalize the commercial system of Great Britain, manufacturers? Is it not evident that, until population is must be made manifest to any one who will compare its as dense, capital as large, and wages and profits as low present situation with that which prevailed not more than in the United States as they are in Great Britain, she fifteen years ago. must continue to manufacture cheaper than we can! Is it I am not aware that the extension of our manufactures, not equally evident that, when we can manufacture as and the profits of the manufacturers, during non-inter- cheaply as England, no protective duties will be necessary course, embargo, and war, are relied upon as an argument to secure to our mauufacturers the monopoly of the doin favor of restriction. If, during these periods, manufac-mestic market? tures bad been cheap, there would have been strength in this argument, but such was not the case. The prosperity of the manufacturers was not participated in by the people. It was founded upon the general calamity. The prices which they obtained, and which they always will obtain where free competition is excluded, were so erroneous, that, although they were enriched, the consumers were impoverished. And, notwithstanding these golden harvests, when peace restored our intercourse with England, our manufactures were involved in embarrassments and distresses, from which they have never recovered, though aided by duties which were granted especially for their protection.

I have thus, I trust, satisfactorily shown that our manufacturers were prosperous and increasing under an unrestricted, and that they have always been depressed under a restricted system, excepting when they flourished, in consequence of the calamitous condition of the country. I will now proceed to the examination of the arguments and assertions which are principally relied upon by the advocates of the restrictive policy. They are as follows: First. That, by adequate protection, manufactures would be permanently established; that competition among the manufacturers would thus reduce prices to the minimum cost of production, when their domestic fabric, being exempt from the expenses of importation, would be cheaper than the foreign.

Secondly. That, by purchasing domestic manufactures, we encourage domestic instead of foreign industry, and thus augment the national wealth.

Thirdly. That domestic manufactures increase the de

2dly. That, by purchasing domestic manufactures, we encourage, &c. &c.

It is undeniable that, by the domestic exchange, the article purchased, and the product of the labor which pays for it, remain in the country, but it should be borne in mind, that, by the foreign exchange, we introduce valusble commodities which we had not before, and that we necessarily pay for them with the proceeds of American labor; consequently, if the buyer can procure them cheaper, he can, with the same quantity of labor, or the same amount of money, purchase more of the foreign than of the domestic manufacture. If he buys dearer in the home market, he loses the difference between the foreign and the home price; and though, by the domestic barter, the manufacturer may be a gainer, yet, as his gain is precisely equal to the buyer's loss, the national wealth is no more increased than if the exchange had never been made. But if a million of pounds of raw cotton could be exchanged in England for as great a quantity of cotton or woollen manufactures as would in the United States require a million and a half of pounds of raw cotton, then would the wealth of the United States be augmented in the same ratio, by the substitution of the domestic for the foreign exchange.

3dly. That domestic manufactures increase the demand &c. &c.

Admitting that the increase of manufactures, by withdrawing a portion of labor from the cultivation of the soil, might, to a certain extent, be of advantage to the agricul turist, it is yet problematical whether this advantage would not be more than counterbalanced, by the increased ex

[blocks in formation]

pense which he would be subjected to in the price of the implements of his labor, and of the woollens, cottons, and other articles which he consumes.

But the domestic manufactures of cotton, it is said by the restrictionists, must create an additional market for the raw cotton of the southern planter. This cannot be the case unless they increase its consumption. Even if there were no manufactories of cotton in the United States, the quantity which they at present furnish, would be manufactured in Europe, where, but for the protective system, as much of the fabric could be purchased by the grower of cotton for one thousand pounds of his raw material, as he can purchase in the domestic market for fifteen hundred or two thousand pounds.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] estimates the number of persons engaged in manufactures in the United States at about five hundred thousand, and he tells us that if they should abandon their business, the quantity of manufactures would be diminished, by which the demand for the raw material would be lessened as there are no unemployed laborers in England. From these premises, he concludes that the present low price of manufactures, particularly of woollens and cottons, is owing to the competition between the American and the English capitalists. The gentleman has forgotten the millions of paupers in England and Ireland, who are idle, not because they are unable or unwilling to work, but because they cannot get work. The pressure under which England suffers, is the want of a market for her products, not of laborers to produce them.

The southern grower of cotton is injured, in a variety of ways, by the American system: First. In common with the agriculturists, his expenses are increased by his being compelled to purchase dearer his implements of husbandry, and whatever he uses or consumes. Secondly. Although he sells his cotton at the same price to the American and to the foreign manufacturer, he pays to the former a higher price for his fabric Thirdly. If foreign manufactures of cotton could be imported into the United States, upon the payment of a moderate duty, their cheapness would cause a greater quantity of them to be purchased, by which the demand for the raw material of the planter would be largely increased.

I will here notice an argument of another gentleman from Massachusetts. [Mr. EVERETT] which appeared to me to be an extraordinary one. That gentleman stated that the protection given to sugar greatly increased the income of the sugar planter, and afforded him much more than a compensation for the duties which he paid upon imposts. Instead of this being an advantage to the southern States generally, it is strictly the reverse. The grower of cotton in South Carolina feels the tax upon sugar as sensibly as does the farmer in Maine or Massachusetts, and complains of it as one of the heaviest taxations of the tariff, by which contributions are forced from millions, to swell the coffers of two or three hundred sugar planters.

4thly. That the consumers of manufactures have no right to complain, &c. &c.

[H. OF R.

minimum, by the competition between American and British labor, he overlooked the very important fact which rendered his argument inapplicable-that the consumers were deprived of the benefit of this competition, by the high duties which are laid upon the manufactures which he purchases.

5thly. That, as foreigners impose restrictions upon us, &c. &c.

It is conceded by the restrictionists, that trade ought to be free, but they contend that, as other nations impose burdens upon our commerce, we ought to retaliate upon theirs. If, by subjecting the productions of foreigners to onerous duties, we could induce them to withdraw those restrictions which we complain of, it might, then, be advisable to resort to such an expedient; but, as we entertain no hopes of thus effecting this object, it surely would be better not to aggravate our own burdens by our own acts. If we cannot secure all the advantages of free trade, why not do so to the extent which is in our power! Great Britain levies customs upon our imports, and an excise upon internal consumption, for the sake of revenue, not of obstructing our commerce. We impose heavy duties upon imports, not for revenue, but to exclude cheaper foreign productions. Were our duties imposed bona fide, for revenue, which we required, however the impolicy of the measure might be censured, because it diminished instead of increasing the receipts at the custom-house, we yet should not condemn it as partial and unconstitutional. But, supposing the argument of the restrictionists, abstractly considered, to be correct, let us see upon what foundation their assertion stands, that Great Britain takes almost nothing from us. To show the amount of our imports from, and of our exports to, Great Britain and her dependencies, I will refer to the statements of the commerce and navigation of the United States, with which we are annually furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Total value of imports by the United States from Great Britain and her depen dencies, in the year ending 30th September, 1825,

Total value of exports from the United States to Great Britain and her dependen cies, during the same period,

Of these exports, those of the growth, produce &c. of the United States, amounted to

[ocr errors]

And those of foreign articles, to

[ocr errors]

Total value of imports by the United States from Great Britain and her dependencies in the year ending 30th September, 1826,

Total value of exports from the United States to Great Britain and her dependencies, during the same period,

If the duties upon manufactures did not increase their price, the manufacturers would consent to a repeal of the Of these exports, those of tariff now in force. Their sole object in raising the duties, the growth, produce, &c. of is to add them to the price of the article; and though from the United States, amountthe appreciation of money, the fall in the cost of raw ma-ed to terials, the improvement in machinery, and other causes, And those of foreign armanufacturers may sell as low or lower than they did when ticles, to the duties were less, yet, as we continue to import manufactures, and to pay the duties upon them, and as we give the same price for the domestic as for the foreign commodity, no proposition can be more incontrovertible, than if the duties were repealed, the price to the consumer would be diminished by the amount of those duties.

When the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] argued that the price of manufactures was reduced to its

Total value of imports by the United States from Great Britain and her dependencies, in the year ending 30th September, 1827,

Total value of exports from the United States to Great Britain and her de

$40,372,987

3,844,538

25,842,299

[ocr errors]

3,137,720

$42,394,812

44,217,525

32,212,356

28,980,019

33,056,374

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

ed, the reverse would be the case with the manufacturer. $32,870,465 Congress would then be called upon for large protective duties, on account of the free admission of our wheat into England, compelling the manufacturer to give higher wages to his workmen, whilst, from the same cause, the wages of the British operatives being diminished, the British manufacturer could undersell ours in a greater ratio than be can at present. Upon a principle strictly analogous to this, when the duties upon wool in England were reduced from six pence and three pence to a penny and a half-penny the pound, our manufacturers petitioned for, and obtained, an additional duty upon woollen manufactures.

35,591,484

Is it not evident that one restriction leads to another, until, at length, the whole labor of the nation is taken from the judgment and enterprise of individuals, and transferred to the arbitrary will of Congress? In France and England, and other European kingdoms, where trade is more or less 27,020,209 trammelled, protection is not limited to one class-it is extended to all, so that each branch of industry enjoys some compensation for the burdens which it bears. Whereas, in our republic, although it is notorious that the agricultural and the commercial interests are depressed, at least, in as great a degree as the manufacturing, the undivided aid of the Government is granted to the manufacturer. If this be policy or justice, then have these terms lost the meanings which have been, hitherto, annexed to them.

But it is peculiarly impressed upon us, that Great Britain excludes from her ports one great product, flour. What is the fact?

The total number of barrels of flour exported from the United States to all parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa, excepting to Great Britain and her dependencies, amounted, in the year, 1827, to

21,365

The number exported from the United States to Great Britain and her dependencies, during the same period, amounted to 252,766 The total number of barrels of flour exported from the United States to all parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa, excepting to Great Britain and her dependencies, amounted, in the year 1828, to

The number exported from the United States to Great Britain and her dependencies, during the same period, amounted

to

Unless I labor under an egregious error, I think it will be apparent, from what I have submitted to the consider ation of the committee, that we are prematurely rushing into a contest with Great Britain, in which we cannot but be sufferers. So long as she retains her immense capital, barrels. her abundant machinery, her overflowing population, and her consummate skill-so long as the cost of production, from these and other causes, is so much lower there than it barrels. is with us, her manufactures must be cheaper than ours. When the United States shall be in the condition in which Great Britain now is, they may contend with her manufacturers.

This must be the result of the moral and physical influ 21,573 barrels. ences of time. By artificial means, we may create domes tic manufactures adequate to our demands; but this can only be accomplished by partiality to the few, at the expense of the general welfare. Those manufactures which are adapted to our soil, our situation, and our wants, will be profitably pursued, provided the Government does not attempt to control them. Directed by the skill and ecoDomy of individuals, and the powerful incentives of inte rest and free competition, their progress would keep pace with the increase of our numbers and our wealth; but manufactures forced into precocious exertions by legisla tive bounties will either perish from unnatural stimulation, or flourish amidst the execrations of an oppressed, impoverished, and indignant people.

161,070 barrels. And yet it is alleged that Great Britain excludes our flour though we exported to her dominions, in 1827 and 1828, four hundred and thirteen thousand eight hundred and thirty-six barrels, and to the whole of Europe, Asia, and Africa, excepting Great Britain and her dependencies, only forty-two thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight barrels. The complaint of exclusion ought rather to be made against any European power than Great Britain.

Were our flour freely admitted into Great Britain, we greatly overrate the advantages which would result from it. In the year 1818, Great Britain permitted the unrestrained importation of wheat. The quantity which she imported in that year was one million six hundred and ninety-four thousand two hundred and sixty-one quarters, exceeding what it had ever been before, or has ever been since; and its average price per quarter was four pounds three shillings and eight pence sterling. Of the quantity imported, Great Britain received From Russia, Germany, Prussia,

Mr. DENNY next addressed the committee, and observed, that, after a long and arduous struggle, the protecting system had been fairly adopted, and the country had settled down in the belief that it had become the esta blished policy of the Government, and that all might rely upon it with safety. This belief, sir, has induced thousands of individuals, possessing skill, experience, and capital, to embark their all in manufactures, trusting to the good faith of the Government, that the protection afforded by the laws would not be withdrawn. The result to the country at large has been a beneficial one; the friends of the system have not been disappointed; their views have been sustained in every instance wherein its operation has been fairly tried, and time afforded for it to be fully unfolded. And the revenue of the country is derived under the same If large quantities of our wheat were exported to Great laws which are intended to provide protection for its domes Britain upon the payment of a moderate duty, its price tic industry. With these two great and prominent objects, would be higher in the United States. Its comparative revenue and protection, before us, what, I would ask, are we dearness would raise the wages of the American work called upon to do, by the amendment now under consider man; and thus, although the agriculturist might be benefit-ation, proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina !

- 242,628 quarters.
- 243,181
493,881

[ocr errors]

The United States, not more than 181,561 [See Appendix to Statistical Illustrations of the British Empire, page 26.]

[blocks in formation]

[Mr. McDUFFIE.] We are called upon, sir, to reverse the whole system of protection without duly considering the probable effects upon the revenue, and totally regardless of the injury to the community, and the ruinous consequences to all those who have confidently relied upon the legislation of this Government.

What reasons are urged for the important change proposed to be effected in the policy of the Government by this amendment? Are they of a constitutional character I believe few gentlemen will now seriously contend that to protect our own manufacturers and mechanics, the domestic industry of the country is unconstitutional. I think the question is settled, and well settled. We are told, sir, that the oppressed condition and sufferings of some of the southern States demand this change. It is strongly alleged that these sufferings have been produced by this system, and that its destruction will bring relief.

[H. of R.

stances, cotton should experience a decline in price? If, then, increased production and competition caused this result, which is the basis of all the complaints in the South, I beg gentlemen not to impute them to the tariff. Would a repeal of the tariff raise the price of cotton? Would it diminish the quantity in market, restrain competition, and render the land less productive? By no means. How, then, does it affect the price? Why, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McDUFFIE] has affirmed that the adoption of this measure by the Government has destroyed their commerce. This is an effect which I am wholly unable to discover. Surely, sir, Government has imposed no restrictions upon this commerce. It is unshackled, and as free as the winds which waft it across the ocean. No duty is laid upon their exports, and no impediment is laid in their way. But the gentleman [Mr. McDUFFIE] insisted that "a duty on imports was, in effect, a duty upon The gentlemen have depicted to us, truly and faithfully, the exports;" that "the duty was paid by the producer, I presume, the sufferings of some of the southern States, and not by the consumer." This argument is entirely new according to their own view. I am willing to take the to me; I have never heard it urged before; it belongs, I picture as it was presented, in all its strong coloring, and think, exclusively to the present Congress. Our constituwith all the highly finished and masterly touches which it tion declares that "no tax of duty shall be laid on articles has received. But I would ask the gentlemen whether it exported from any State;" and it grants to Congress the be quite certain that all this distress proceeds from the express power to lay imposts or duties on imported articause to which they ascribe it. Are there no other causes cles. Is it not clear, then, that the wise framers of that to be found nearer home, to which the distress and embar- instrument considered exports and imports so entirely disrassment described so feelingly may be justly attributed? tinct, that the former could not be affected by, or subject If there be, I entreat gentlemen to pause, and not to de- to, duties, restrictions, or regulations, imposed upon the stroy at one blow a system of vital importance to the latter? It is now said that where the exports are owned, country, since such destruction would do little or nothing there the imports, also, belong, and there the duties are to improve the condition of the South, while it would in-paid; that the southern States are the producers of nearly flict ruin upon thousands in all other portions of the Union. I am fully aware that in the South all are taught to believe that the evils under which they labor proceed from that mischievous measure called the tariff." If a bankruptcy happened, it was owing to the tariff." If a merchant made a bad speculation, it was the "tariff" which caused its failure. If a planter became embarrassed, and obliged to sell a slave to keep up his expensive establishment, it was the "tariff" pressed him.

[ocr errors]

oue-half the domestic exports, and that they consequently pay the greater portion of the revenue of the country; they, being the producers, pay the tax, and not the consumers. I shall not detain the committee, by going into a detailed examination of this argument; it has, in my humble opinion, been so completely refuted by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that I am almost ready to believe the gentleman himself is willing to abandon it. By observation alone, without argument, we may satisfy ourselves that It would be well for gentlemen to examine this subject the position assumed by the gentleman is not tenable. dispassionately. From the consideration which I have been Pass through the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio; visit the enabled to bestow upon it, there appears to my mind to be innumerable towns and villages which are scattered over another cause, to which all the evils complained of can be them; you will find them all well supplied with shops and traced, and which is of itself sufficient to produce the ef stores, in which every species of foreign merchandise is fects which, in the South, are charged upon the tariff. offered for sale. Where and by whom were the duties paid? This cause exists among themselves, and with themselves Certainly at the port of entry first, and by the importing is the remedy. It is admitted on all sides that the proxi- merchant, who adds the amount to the invoice price of mate cause of the distress alleged to prevail among the the articles; and, finally, the purchasers and consumers southern planters, is the diminished price of the great stain Pennsylvania and Ohio pay, in the price they give for ple commodity grown by them. This is sufficient to bring the merchandise, the duties, and all other charges, for a pressure upon the cultivators of cotton, which will be transportation, commission, &c. most severely felt by those who may be in debt, and those This has always been considered as the true state of who cannot diminish the expense of production. Similar the case, and the gentleman [Mr. McDUFFIE] himself has, effects were experienced in Pennsylvania, among the farm-on this very floor, not long since, advocated this doctrine. ers, when there happened a great diminution in the value of their agricultural produce, either from an abundant harvest or inconsiderable demand.

He may now have reasons satisfactory to himself for changing his opinion; but as the sentiments of that gentleman have always been received here with great attention and The great cause, then, of the embarrassments in the respect, and carry with them considerable weight, I will South, is to be found in the low price of cotton. And to take the liberty of reading, in part, as a reply to his arguwhat are we to attribute this reduction in value? The de- ment on the present occasion, his own sentiments, exmand for this article has not diminished; the consumption pressed on this floor upon another subject, and to which I of it has increased astonishingly within a few years. But ask the attention of the committee. In 1825, a debate when production becomes excessive, when it is not met arose in this House on a bill to provide for the continua. by a corresponding demand, the natural consequence is a tion of the Cumberland road. The gentleman from South reduction in price. Every day's experience proves this. Carolina [Mr. MCDUFFIE] addressed the Committee of the And what has occasioned this excess of production? This Whole in opposition to the bill; and, in the course of his is easily accounted for. Within a few years, a fine fertile, remarks, he asks, alluding to Kentucky, a tobacco proand extensive country, embracing millions of acres, has ducing State, "how was her portion of the revenue of been converted from a wilderness into cultivated fields, the General Government now paid!" He answers the white with cotton. A new and rich soil and innumerable question, "In the price of the articles of foreign growth competitors have augmented the production enormously. or manufacture which they consume." He was replied to Can we be surprised, then, that under such circum- by a distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, now a

"

H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

[MAY 8, 1830.

member of the other House, to whom the gentleman from | sions in every quarter of the globe, fruitful in all the South Carolina, [Mr. McDUFFIE] in reply, observed: productions which the earth can yield; look at her exten"The gentleman appears to have misconceived my argu- sive commercial, marine, and naval force; her capital, her ment with respect to drawing revenue from one part of perfection of machinery, and minute division of labor the country, and expending it in another; and, in his reply, reduced to a minimum price, and then tell me, what na Bets out with the doctrine that it is the consumer who pays tion could compete with her under a reciprocity system! the tax. Sir, we all know this. I should be ashamed, The advocates of free trade remind us that Great Britain indeed, standing, as I do, on this floor, if that doctrine has recently relaxed from the restrictive system, and rewere new to me. The consumer does pay the tax, but he pealed many of her laws imposing high duties. pays it in the price of the article." I make no comments, and leave it to the gentleman himself to reconcile these sentiments with the new doctrine which he now strenuously supports.

The gentleman, in his vehement and emphatic manner, declares, "you have destroyed the value of our cotton; it has fallen from thirty to ten cents per pound." And he afterwards says that "the price at Liverpool is the governing price of the world; we cannot change it." Here is discrepancy which I cannot reconcile. The price of cotton at Charleston is regulated by the price at Liverpool; and, if we cannot change it, how is it possible for our tariff to have effected the least reduction in the price of cotton at Charleston or Liverpool, or to have destroyed its value? Our measures cannot control the cotton market at Liverpool; it is regulated by the market of the world, not by the price and consumption of cotton goods in the United States. This is a small matter, comparatively; it is the demand throughout the world which either depresses or enhances the value of the cotton manufactures of Great Britain, and this has a direct influence on the price of the raw material.

When we look at the immense quantity of the raw material now thrown into market from various parts of the world, that from the United States having increased in the last year from one hundred millions of pounds to about three hundred millions, nearly the whole of which is sent to the Liverpool market; and when we take into consideration the almost minimum value to which the British cotton manufactures are reduced, can any one hesitate to believe that the causes are abundantly. sufficient to create the distress among the producers, of which the gentleman complained Competition invariably reduces the price, and tends to over-production. What has brought the British goods to the low price they now bear, and their 'operatives" to the minimum point of subsistence? Competition among the growers of the raw material, in different parts of the world, depending upon the same market, and increased and overstrained competition among the

66

manufacturers.

True, sir; but what does it amount to Nothing more than this-establishing what are called "prohibitory duties," in lieu of absolute prohibition. The effect is the same. Has she established free trade! No, sir; there is too much wisdom in her councils to commit an act which would ruin her agriculture, and bring distress and embar rassment into every part of the kingdom. What has she done? A large amount of nominal duties has been repealed, or, rather, the rate of duty has been lowered in many instances, but only in those cases where the duty yet operates at least as prohibitory; so that her system, which is by some miscalled free trade, 18 still restrictive and protective. We may be led astray by British doetrines of political economy, but we cannot be deceived by their practice and example.

Mr. Huskisson, the great father of what some gentlemen have called, on this floor, the free trade system, expressly claims that his is a protecting system. He well knows, that, under this system, the manufactures of Great Britain have been brought to perfection; her commerce and navigation increased beyond a parallel; and, if adopted and persevered in in our country, will build up our manufactures, increase our home trade, our wealth and power, and eventually establish us as the great rivals of the British in every market. What are we to understand by Mr. Huskisson's system of free trade! He tells-I quote his own language:

"Free trade, not in the sense in which some persons understand the term, but free trade from all duties excepting those which are necessary to give the trades of different countries an equal footing in the markets, and to protect them from the exclusive advantages which many nations would wish to establish in their own favor."

Again, he says: "I do not know why protecting duties | should not be granted to a certain degree on the produc tions of this country, or upon whatever may be produced by British skill, or by the application of British capital."

"The principle is to countervail the advantage that other countries may have, so that the products of each may enter the different markets upon equal terms. To The British, in the markets of the world, now meet establish a uniform tariff for the whole, (foreign counwith competitors from all nations. Every nation which tries,) and to reduce that tariff to the lowest degree conhas any regard to its own independence and internal pros-sistent in each particular article with the two legitimate perity, has adopted measures to protect and encourage its objects of all duties, either the collection of the necessary own commerce, navigation, and domestic industry. This public revenue, or the protection requisite for the maintenpolicy has, in some degree, affected the state of the Briance of our own internal industry; these are the principles tish manufactures. The workshops of the world are no according to which our new book of rates is formed." longer to be confined to Birmingham, to Manchester, to Leeds, and to Sheffield. The British statesmen are aware of the change which is in progress, and are fearful of the consequences. Hence it is now their policy to keep things stationary; to endeavor to persuade all other nations "to let things alone." If these endeavors should prevail, the British then will maintain the superiority they now possess, and other nations will make no progress, but continue dependent.

Protection, we find, is the basis of Mr. H.'s system of free trade. Do we, the advocates of restriction, as we are called, contend for any thing more! All we ask for is protection of our own internal industry. I go no further than the principles according to which Mr. Huskisson bas arranged his new book of rates; and when he abandons them, he abandons the protection of internal industry, and with it the best interests of his country. We have expe rienced the benefits of the protecting system in our own country. It has built up our navigation interest, (an important interest which I hope never to see crippled by the reciprocity system,) and will push forward our manufac tures until we shall become completely independent.

This is one object to be accomplished by the free trade clamor, and reciprocity treaties. And I trust, sir, that our Government will never be beguiled into the reciprocity system with Great Britain; it would be fatal to our best prospects. If we were upon an equality with her in It was ingeniously urged by the gentleman from South power, in wealth, in continental influence, perhaps no Carolina, [Mr. McDUFFIE] that the two millions of people disadvantage might ensue to us under such a system. in the cotton, rice, and tobacco producing States, paid But, sir, look at her innumerable maritime posses-about two-thirds of the whole revenue of the United States.

« ПретходнаНастави »