« AnteriorContinuar »
H. OF R.)
(May 12, 1830.
advice pot asked for, I would say, that, wbenever he at- and for whose judgments and opinions I entertain the tempts to extract bis sallies of wit from a record the most greatest respect. Under these circumstances, my course awful nud instructive that the inind of man can con- may seem singular to some, and I therefore desire to state template, he will exhibit himself in bad taste before a the reasons which not only ioduce, but oblige me to take it
. christian audience. But if satire was intended, and the My first objection rests upon general principles. The real, gentleman meant both to assail me, and, at the same time, absolute neeessaries of life ought not to be taxed, unless to give us a sample of his magnanimity, he was signally there be some strong and urgent necessity for it; and then successful. Having cast his arrow across the ball at me, no longer than the necessity for the tax continues. Here he most magnanimously demanded the previous question; the tax on salt is uppecessary ; tbe revenue is abundant which would sbut my mouth from this explanation, and without it. from a reply.
Salt is an absolute, natural, and real necessary of life Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, rose, and observed that in other things may, from use, be thought necessary, as tes, all the debate he had beard nothing new on the question; coffee, sugar; but salt is, in its nature, a real necessary to and, as further debate could be of no use, be moved to lay life-and one without which life and bealth cannot be the motion for reconsideration on the table, and demanded maintained. It is absolutely necessary to animal life the yeas and nays on the question; but withdrew bis mo- and health. Horses, cattle, and sheep must be fed with tion at the request of
it; aud immense numbers of them die yearly for the want Mr. McCoy, who promised to renew it when he had of a sufficient quantity of it. On such an article, is it pro, made a few remarks in favor of adhering to the reduction per tben, to retain a duty of twenty, cents on a busbel? of the salt duty. Having done so, be renewed the motion More salt should be used: more would be used if it was made by Mr. THOMPSON ; and
cheaper, and it should be made as cheap as possible, by The question being put on laying the motiou to recon- freeing it from taxation. sider on the table, it was decided in the negative : yeas, 95 The poor man, for himself, bis wife, and bis cbildren, -nays, 102.
must consume of salt, and pay of his tax, as much as the Mr. POLK made some remarks in favor of the reduc rich man, for himself, bis wife, and children and as the tion, and explanatory of the bistory of the duty on salt laid poor mau's family is often the most numerous, he must from time to time; and believing that enough had been pay the most of the tax. You make bim pay the more, said, pro and con, and as much as the time of the House exactly in proportion as he is less able than the rich man. could afford, he concluded by calling for the previous This is contrary to all priociple. Taxes should be levied question.
ou men according to their ability to pay. Is it too much Mr. WAYNE moved a call of the House ; but the motion to relieve the poor man, by reducing this tax at first to fifwas not sustained.
teen, and afterwards to ten cents on a bushel I do not The motion for the previous question was seconded by a say these things to court popularity with the poor. I say majority of the House; and
them because eternal justice proclaims them to be right, The question being taken by yeas and nays on the call whether they be popular or unpopular, of Mr. CAMBRELENG, it was carried—171 to 25. A few duys since, we passed a bill reducing the duties
The main question (being on the motion to reconsider op tea and coffee, because these are supposed to bave bpthe vote on the amendment reducing the duty on salt) come necessaries, and are used by the poor as well as by was then put, and decided in the affirmative by the follow- the rich. There were only six votes against tbat bill; ing vote: yeas, 102—nays, 97.
and will any gentleman tell me that salt is less a necessary The question then recurring on the amendinent propos- than tea, coffee, or cocoa, or less consumed by the poor ! ing to reduce the duty on salt,
On principle, therefore, salt, as a natural decessary of Mr. McDUFFIE modified the amendment so as to defer life, ought not to have been taxed twenty cents a bushel, the reduction to fifteen cents to the 1st of Septembe or two or three times as much as its foreign cost; and the 1831, and the reduction to ten cents from and after the reduction of the tax to ten cent's a busbel is but slow and 31st of December, 1832.
partial justice to the public, as the tax will still be equal The debate was now renewed, and continued with unto the expense of making a bushel of salt at the Saliva, or abated animation and occasional pungency during several any good salt works. hours.
It is said that the reduction of this salt tax will be a seMessrs. CAMBRELENG, DRAYTON, BARRINGER, rious injury to the State from which I come. If I believed ANGEL, SEMMES, CRAIG, of Virginia, JENNINGS, this, I would be the last man to vote for it. I can have no WILDE, and LEA advocated the amendment, and the inducement to wrong that State--my home is there my propriety of reducing the duty; and Messrs. SPENCER, friends are there-all my interest and all my attachments of New York, MALLARY, STORRS, of New York, IR- are there and I can only wish her prosperity. I hope to VIN, of Ohio, TEST, DAVIS, of Massachusetts, and show, as I am satisfied is the fact, tbat the State cannot REED opposed the amendment for various reasons ; some, lose by the reduction of this tax, which will profit erery because they were opposed to the reduction as impolitic, citizen of that State. and would not diminish the price to the consumer; others, At present, New York herself levies an excise duty of that it was improper, convected with this bill; others, twelve and a half cents on every bushel of salt manufacthat it would put the bill itself in jeopardy, though they tured at the salt works in that State. My colleagues al. were not opposed to the repeal of the duty, if it were an lege that, in this manner, the State, by a tax upon ber citiunconnected proposition. For the reason last mentioned, zens, raises a revenue of about one hundred and fifty-seven Messrs. RAMSEY and MILLER stated they should vote thousand dollars towards her canal fund: that, if the Unitnow against the amendment, although they yesterday voted ed States reduce their duty on imported salt to ten cents a for it.
bushel, the State, in order to save the manufacturer, will [The following were the remarks of Messrs. ANGEL be obliged to reduce her duty on domestic salt, and, instead and LEA]
of this revenue, impose a direct tax to pay her canal debt. Mr. ANGEL said, he must crave the indulgence of the Every part of this deserves examination. House for a few moments, while he would state briefly the If the United States reduce the duty on this article, it reasons which would govern bis vote on this occasion. I am will save exactly so much to every citizen who uses foreign [said Mr. A.] the more disposed to do this, because I am salt; and the State will undoubtedly amend her laws and constrained to differ from many of my colleagues ; those constitution so as to reduce her tax on salt, wbich will be a with whom I bave generally acted, whom I greatly esteem / saving to that amouut to every citized who uses domestic salt,
MAY 12, 1830.)
(H. or R.
If by these means the caval fund loses one hundred and contained many provisions which they desired to secure ; fifty-seven thousand dollars, do not the citizens of the they wished to abolish the old council of appointment, to State gain it by their exemption from the payment of the reform the judiciary, and to extend the right of suffrage. tax? Because, after all, very little of this salt tax is col. They were told, and regarded it as a pledge, or promise, lected from the citizens of other States. Is it not nearly that the canals would go on successfully, soon be comall paid by the citizens of New York? Do they not con- pleted, and the tolls would be more than sufficient to exsume more than nine-tenths of all the salt manufactured tinguish the debt; and that, as soon as a little experience in the State! What can a State gain by taking from the could be bad on the subject, this salt tax should be reduced citizen his earnings and property by taxation ? When or repealed. They believed this, and adopted the constitugentleman talk of enriching the State by taxing the peo- tion; but if they had been told that this tax must be perple, do they think that taxes do not make the people poor. petual
, they would have rejected the tax and constitution If the salt tax costs the people who pay it nothing, by in- together. If this tax of twelve and a hulf cents on a bushel creasing it four or five fold, you might, according to their of salt, in favor of the canal fund, had been the only amendargument, make the State very rich, and pay off the canal ment proposed to the constitution, would not the people, I debt in a few years without injury to any body. ask my colleague, have rejected it by an almost unanimous
Let us look at the other side of the picture-take away vote ? the tax, the doing of which, gentlemen say, will impover The State salt tax, like the United States salt tax, is ish the State, and then see what will be the condition of very unequal and unjust--a repeal or reduction of both is the citizens. If the State loses one hundred and fifty-se- called for by the in!erest of the people. ven thousand dollars by the abolition of the tax, it as cer The New York cabal debt is the debt of the whole tainly follows that the citizens gain the same amount. The State. The salt tax there is thrown into the canal fund to State is the corporation-the citizens are its members; and pay that debt. But the State salt tax is'not paid by all the when the members are required to pay a sum for the com- people of the State, but only by about two-thirds of them. mon benefit, the share required of each should be in pro- or these, many are obliged to pay who use the canals but portion to his amount of stock in the company. This is little, and wbo are rather injured than benefited by them: plain; it is every day's practice in the pecuniary regula- The other third of the population of the State consumes tions of corporate bodies; and what Government would limported salt; pays nothing into the canal fund; but pays ever charter a company with authority to compel the holder i twenty cents a bushel on salt to the United States. Thus of one share to pay as high a tax as he who holds twenty the people of that State are taxed, (two-thirds of them,) shares! This is the operation of the present salt tax. say one hundred and fifty thousand dollars towards the caThe poor man not worth a dollar, pays as much towards pal fund: and to enable the State to tax these two-tbirds to its
aggregate amount as the wealthiest man amongst us. that amount, my colleague would compel the other third
If, as is conceded on all bands, the State must and will to pay twenty cents on every bushel of salt they consume, reduce ber salt tax, if the United States reduce theirs, into the treasury, to be laid out in internal improvements bow can the manufacturer be injured by it? Foreign salt in other States. Here is a double taxation; and one part will cost abroad some six or ten cents; to this there must of the State is to be employed as the instrument to fix this be added freight, insurance, and importers' profit, and the tax on the other, instead of joining, as I think they should, United States duty will still remain ten cents
. The price to reduce both taxes. If the tax were reduced, all would of domestic salt, free from the State tax would be only ten get their salt cheaper than they now do. If the United cents or less at the salt works. It is therefore utterly im. States tax on salt be reduced ten cents, that of the State possible that the foreign salt should ever compete with the will follow, and every consumer will obtain his salt ten domestic salt, unless the State should obstinately refuse to cents cheaper than lie would if the tax were continued. relieve its citizens from this burden--and there is not the And yet I am told that the people of New York will be least foundation for supposing that the State would delay injured by reducing their taxes! I have yet to learn that to perform a duty so agreeable and profitable to her citi men grow rich by being taxed, or that they become wealthy
hy having their money taken from them. I bare heard If the State tax on salt was reduced, (as it would imme- much said upon this floor in favor of beavy taxation-I Jiately be in effect, and shortly in form, the salt manufac- bave heard gentlemen say that it would replenish the stores turers could sell at the works for ten cents a bushel, in- and increase the wealth of the country; that the individuals stead of the present price of twenty-two and a half cents, composing the nation would be enriched and rendered including the State tax. More of it would be carried east, bappy by it. It would seem from their doctrine that an and sold in Vermont, and in the Hudson river and Mohawk extravagant system of taxation was a kind of curnucopia counties-more would go west on the canal, and find a provided by the magic of Government, to supply the wants market, in west Pepusylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Canada and gratify the avarice of every class of citizens. Sir, I -more would go porth, on the capal to Oswego, and find a cannot understand this kind of logic; but when I am brought market in our worthern counties and in Canada. In this to believe as those gentlemen do, then I will vote with mapper, the salt market for our manufacturer would be en them, and not before. I have spent my days with the peolarged, and bis profits increased; while the price to cod- ple of New York, and will never injure them. I know sumers would be reduced, and the increase of transporta. they do not deserve it. They have borne burdens withtion of the salt, and of the pay for it on the capals, would out murmur. Can any man complain that I injure him, by the increase of tolls go far towards remunerating the when I wish to reduce bis taxes ? canal fund for the loss it would sustain by a reduction of Sir, I represent a farming district. My colleague (Mr. tbe salt duty.
Stoers) seemed to think that the gentleman from New At the time the constitution of our State was amended, York (Mr. CAMBRELENG] knew nothing about the inteand this salt tax was pledged to the canal fund, the canals rests of the agriculturist, because he comes from a city. I were unfinished ; and I do not war with the convention for am, in part, a farmer myself—I was brought up at the their endeavors to secure the credit of the State. Still plough— I know the worth of a dollar, for bave labored the people, many of them, objected to the constitution-- with my hands to earn it. Through life my associations they demurred to the salt tax. At that time I was with bave been with those who procured their livelihood by them; and can speak of the opinions of many in the west-bouest labor-my life has been spent with a people who ern part of the State, from personal observation. The earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, and I know constitution was presented as a whole, and the people were and understand their feeliogs and their interests
. My obliged to adopt it as a whole, or reject it altogether. It constituents are industrious farmers-they pursue the path
H. OF R.]
[May 12, 1830.
of honesty, and avoid all juggling speculations. They pay that, if the account should now be taken between the New their debts and their taxes tvo; and they well know what York canals and western Vermont, western Pennsylvania
, labor it costs to meet all the exactions upon them. Such Ohio, and Micbigan, they would be found indebted to New are the men for whom I go, and such are the men whose York for the reduction which ber canals bave effected in interests should be protected—and I know of no better their transportation," thousands, and bundreds of thouway to protect them, than to relieve them, if I can, from sands." Yes, sir, I appeal to every honest man, let him this taxation.
reside where he may, ought not they who enjoy the bene This
State salt tax is peculiarly oppressive upon my disfits of these canals to pay for their construction and repair ! trict. That district can use the canals but very little, and Would any man partake of the banquet, and meanly skulk they are believed rather to bave injured thao benefited it. off and leave others to pay the bill 1 If Vermont, PennsylBe this as it may, such is the opinion of many good judges vania, Ohio, and Michigan bave had, and will forever have, of the value of property; and it is certain that many busi- profils
, “ thousands, and hundreds of thousands," as my Dess men bave been drawn from that county to the canals, colleague (Mr. STOBRS) says, in their cheaper transportawith considerable capital; and that the prices of real es- tion, would they could they decline such a moderate in tate, and other articles in the market, have greatly deprecrease of the capal tolls as would supply this deficiency, in ciated. Meanwhile, that district, which is a single county, the event of their being ang ! I think they could pot-my consumes more than thirty-five thousand bushels of do- constituents will freely pay the increased tolls-it would mestic salt, and thus pays into the canal fund a tax of from be a pitiful increase. The tolls are now more than eight four thousand dollars to six thousand dollars a year; and at hundred thousand dollars, and an increase of one dollar the same time every citizen of the county who transports and fifty cents on each bundred dollars of the present tolls any one article on the canal, must pay as great tolls as those would replenish the fund. who, residing elsewhere, either enjoy greater benefits from For these reasons, and others which I cannot now detail, the canal, or pay nothing of this salt tax, My constituents I ain of opinion that the salt tax of the United States ought are willing to pay any rate of tolls necessary to the canal to be reduced, as an act of justice and sound policy to all fund, so far as they use the capal—they are willing to pay the citizens of the United States. I believe, too, it will for wbatever they use; but it is unjust to tax them with lead to a reduction of the New York State excise on salt, burdens which, though beneficial to others, are only inju: beneficial to all the consumers of domestic salt manufacrious to themselves. And I wish to reduce the United tured in that State, and ultimately extending the market States tax on salt, as the only and best means of procuring for that article, and, therefore, beneficial to the manufacthat reduction of the State duty on salt, which our agri- turers of it. cultural and laboring population every where desire and Some believe that to tax is the best mode to improve deserve.
the wealth and riches of men ; but I believe taxes to be the But, sir, my colleague, [Mr. STORRS) to deter the New worst enemies to industry. A tax which indiscriminately York delegation from voting for the reduction of this salt presses upon the weak and the strong; which adds to the tax, declares that that reduction will drive the State of New miseries of poverty; which takes from the food of the hucYork to a land tax, to supply the place of this salt tax to gry, and diminishes the scanty stores of the needy; which the canal fund. What an odious argument! What is this lays the widow and the orphan under contribution, and but to say to the citizens of the State of New York, if you preys upon the substance of the balt, the maimed, and the rid yourselves of the salt tax, the yoke of a land tax shall blind, is unworthy of the countenance of a free and liberal be fixed on your necks ? Shall I use such an insulting ar-Government. The small sum of twenty cents, exacted by gument to the citizens of my district ? Shall any man say the Government of the citizen, as the price of bis license to them, you shall bear either a salt tax or a land tax ? Sir, to use a bushel of salt, may appear trifling and of little they ought to bear peither.
consequence to gentlemen enjoying bigh salaries, or draw And, sir, is it true—is there a shadow of truth in it, that ing ample wages in the service of the Government; but to the loss of this salt tax will ruin the great State of New the poor laborer, whose wages are less than fifty cents per York, and drive her to a lavd tax to support the Erie and day, this tax is onerous, and he feels and groans under the Champlain canals ? These are the best canals in America; weight of it. I am not the friend of useless taxation, and, are located on the easiest and cheapest routes-connect so long as I enjoy a seat upon this floor, it shall not receive the most extensive natural navigations on this whole vast my support. continent, traverse the most fertile districts, and bear on These are my sentiments, and I should be a bypocrite if their bosoms the industry and products of every clime, and I concealed thein. Popular or unpopular, they have their of millions of people. After boasting, as he did, a few source in an bonest conviction of their rectitude. Let them days since, of the utility and profits of these the most use- put me up, or put me down, I will abide by them. ful works of the age, shall he tell us, and ask us to believe Mr. LEA said he did not rise to make a speech, but to hiin, that these canals
, such as I have described them, can ask for the reading of two letters, which he bad in his band, not support and pay for themselves; that they are so lame, contained in a document reported to this House by the
Seimpotent, and feeble, that the loss of this excise of twelve cretary of the Treasury during the present session of Cooand a half cents on a bushel of salt, extorted alike from gress. These letters are from gentlemen of first respectabilithe rich and the poor, will force New York to burden her ty,* one of them interested in the salt works referred to and citizens with a land 'tax to support them ? What, sir, a the other intimately acquainted with those concerns. They direct tax to support the best canals in the world! Is this speak of the salt works on Holston river, in Virginia, and give true! How does it tally with that gentleman's arguments us some facts worthy of our attention, when boporable genin favor of internal improvements ? Did he not, a few days tlemen tell us here that the present duty of twenty cents a since, entertain us with a discourse to prove how yery pro- bushel on foreign salt is necessary to protect our domestic fitable these works are, and how soon they would pay for manufactures, and even argue gravely that salt is cheaper themselves ? And now, forsooth, the State of New York on account of the duty. We are told that some salt works is to be ruined by the reduction of the tax on foreign salt will be destroyed if the duty should be repealed. And to ten cents, which still leaves the enormous duty of one what of that? If they cannot make as cheap as others let hundred per cent. on that necessary article of life. them go. Must the whole community bear a grievous tax,
But let me quiet the gentleman's unbappy rms. He in order to keep up a few dull and unprofitable salt woršs, has himself hinted at the manner in which, if the State lose when there are others in the country, that could make more the salt tax, it can easily, and without injustice, supply the deficioncy of the canal fund. That gentleman has told us * Francis Smith, Esq. Charles C. Johnstop, Esq.
May 12, 1830.)
(H. or R.
than enough at half the amount of the present duty ? What to the House: Is it in the power of the Congress of the do these letters tell us ! One of them says salt is made at United States to impose burdens upon their fellow-citizens, a bout twenty-five cents a bushel, and might be made at and thereby abridge all their pleasures and curtail the twelve and a half; the other says it is made at sixteen or fruits of their industry, on mere principles of natural jusseventeen ceats, and might be made for six and a fourtb, tice! Or bave they this power from the construction of and the quantity might be extended to meet any demand an instrument agreed to by the States of this Unioo, and of the whole Union. One of the letters says the price, at conferring such a power! None will contend, I presume, the works, has been for several years, one dollar for fifty that the authority is derived from a natural right. Sir, pounds! I live in a country supplied from this source, and the very beasts have a right to rove over the plain, to seek know the cost of this same salt as it progresses down the for pasture wherever they can find it, and drink of every rivers Holston and Tennessee, increasing from one dollar to brook they meet in their way; and are not men by nature one and a half and two dollars a bushel of fifty pounds, as free as they ! Surely, sir. And bas, then, a collection of until competition of foreign and other domestic salt, below men, unauthorized by me, a right to put their bands in my the Muscle shoals, reduces the price to sixty-two and a half pocket
, and take my money, to sustain another who bas no cents, little more than half the price where it started! Is just claim to the fruit of my toil? They have not. It is this po monopoly? Do these works Deed a protecting duty ? apparent, then, that as this is not a natural right, if it exists Must they have a bounty of twenty cents duty imposed at all
, it must be acquired. In order to judge whether it on foreign salt, to keep it from interfering with the mar. has been conferred upon Congress or not, our only resort ket, in order that these manufacturers may be able to sell must be to the charter agreed on by the States, and there at a living price! But the friends of the protecting system we shall see how far this power of taxation is carried. The seem alarmed lest the reduction of this duty should eadan- question is, wbat power has Congress on this subject by ger other parts of the tariff. Aye, indeed, is it all of a the Constitution of the United States It is far from my piecei And are these its principles i and this a specimeu intention to oppose any constitutional power, and I do beof the whole ! I am glad to hear gentlemen tell us that lieve that the power to levy taxes with a view to revenue this odious salt tax is a true test of the “ American sys- is a constitutional power. Even the much-abused States tem," and let them refuse to repeal this duty, and abide of North and South Carolina, and Georgia, will not hesitbat test I Ask that the letters be read.
tate to make the same admission. They all admit your The question at leugth being put on the amendment, it power to lay taxes with a view to replenish the treasury. was negatived by the following vote: yeas, 98-Days, 102. But what is the fact now 1 I say you bave usurped a power So the amendment was rejected.
never conferred upon you, and which you cannot claim as The question then recurring on the substitute to the a natural right-the power of grinding the face of the original bill agreed to in Committee of the Whole, poor for the benefit of the rich. Regardless of the cries
Mr. POLK called for a division of the question, so as of the unprotected and helpless, you hold over them, withto leave for separate decision the section containing the out mercy, the iron rod of the oppressor. This, in my amendment respecting the duty on iron, offered in Com- opinion, involves the whole principle of your constitutional mittee of the Whole by Messrs. Soort and Howard; right, and touches especially a question in relation to the and, after some explanatory remarks by Mr. P. and some West, which must utterly forbid me to vote for it. I bere passages between him and Mr. STERIGERE OR a point of publicly avow that I believe this House bas no power order,
under the constitution to prosecute what is called the pro:
The question was put on all the sections of the substi- tecting system ; in other words, that it has no power to tute, excepting that above mentioned, and agreed to by thrust its hands into a thousand pockets for the purpose of yeas and nays : yeas, 185-Days, 11.
keeping up the fullness and splendor of one. Šir, permit The question then came up on the amendment of Mr. me to ask what was originally the object of the confederaScott, as amended by the proviso of Mr. HOWARD. tion of these States. Was it that the isolated interest of
Mr. SCOTT defended his amendment against some ob- one single State should predominate over that of all the jections of Mr. Polk.
rest? Surely not. The interests of these States are exMr. WICKLIFFE suggested, that, instead of calling the ceedingly diversified. Their inhabitants are in very difyeas and nays on both branches of the amendment, it ferent situations, engaged in different pursuits, inbabiting would save time if Mr. Scort would move to strike out a diversity of climate and of soil
. Some parts of our counMr. Howard's proviso.
try abound in bemp, others in iron, others in cotton, Mr. BUCHANAN advised bis colleague, to adopt this others in sugar cane, and you never can fix on a system of course, for the reason, also, that, by giving up a part, he taxation in which all will agree, unless it is done under the would be more likely to obtain the other portion of the immediate pressure of an existing war, when sectional inamendment.
terests are forgotten, and all burn with a noble zeal to de| Mr. SCOTT yielded to the suggestion, and moved to fend the stars and stripes of the national banner. strike from the amendment the proviso adopted in com The great object of the confederation was to provide mittee, on the motion of Mr. HOWARD.
for the general defence and common welfare. It never Mr. BROWN opposed making the distinction; and was intended that the majority should oppress and de
Mr. WAYNE advocated Mr. HOWARD's proviso, and spoil the minority. We bave in Kentucky a constitution opposed the motion to strike it out.
which guaranties to every individual certain rights as The question being put on striking out the proviso, it being unalienable, and I, as an American citizen, have a was negatived by yeas and naye : yeas, 46--Days, 140. claim to these rights, and may insist upon them in my own
Mr. CHILTON moved to include in the amendment im- case, though all the rest of my fellow-citizens should bave ported iron“ used for axes, boes, or ploughs, or for any given them up. For what were constitutions made or other purpose of agriculture," and, in support of his mo- why do we contend with so much earnestness on this floor, tion, said as follows:
as to their true intent and meaning? Surely the object of Mr. C. remarked that the principles of justice must, them is to protect all. The intention was, that all should as he conceived, belong to one of two classes, either equally contribute to the common defence. Was it the such as were natural and inflexible, being founded in the object of our Government that the poor shall fight, and nature of things, or guch as rest upon a civil compact. the rich roll in luxory! Sir, the poor man cannot get a Now, sir, (said Mr. C. 1 I affirm that the principles in this substitute ; he must turn out in his own person ; and I hill involve specifically the distinction I have just alluded know some poor men who in the last war left behind them to. In order to test them, I propose these two questions their wives, children, friends, home, and all they held
H. OF R.
[May 12, 1830
dear, for sixty dollars. What, sir, in a time of profound |per bushel
. It increased little by little, till it is now from peace, shall we be enacting a general tariff of duties ? one dollar and twenty-five cents to one dollar and fifty That I always advocated the doctrine of putting an end cents. Why? Not from any scarcity of the article, but to taxes and burdens the moment they ceased to be of ab- from the effect of an awful monopoly, which is grinding the solute necessity, will be recollected by all who have done poor literally to death. I hope the House will look joto me the honor to listen whenever I have raised my voice on that subject. The question on this bill is finally to settle this floor. I have repeatedly argued in favor of reducing the hopes of the South and the West. I wish it understood the tax upou salt; and I am now equally opposed to any by my constituents. know that these considerations some increase of the tax upon iron. It will readily be discovered times have little weight here, but it may open the eyes of that iron presents as good a subject for monopoly as salt. some who have been deceived. I acknowledge the powe Every farmer must have it. It enters into the composi- of this Government to levy duties for all just purposes of tion of his knife and fork, of his axe, his plough, his hoe, revenue, and, in time of war, to lay direct taxes; but I ecohis harrow, his sickle, bis scythe, his ox-chain; in a word, sider a direct tax as more just than this. One individual of all the tools and implements by which he is able to turn may abound in casb, and yet bear searce any burden; the stubborn glebe, to reap down his fields, and to subdue while another has a wife and a numerous family of ebildren. the soil. He must have it, or starve. Now, sir, why shall we all, of course, consumers of salt. Sir, look at the effect of give relief on this subject to the wealtby gentlemen who this system. What is it! Your peace áud happiness a: form a railroad company, and deny it to the bumble corn lately disturbed by the rude footsteps of bostile invaders And tobacoo grower! Sir, I cannot fail to notice an argu, and the calamities of war. This very spot where we con ment on which great stress is laid, that this bill is intended sit calmly consulting for the public good, was then polluted solely and exclusively to eoforce the collection of the re- by the foot of the ebemy: The effect was that the South venue as it was laid by the tariff bill of 1828, and not to and the West advanced like brothers at your call; they lay any additional duty. No alteration was to be made. marched from their homes to your defence, and fought The duties were to be neither increased por diminished. their way, not literally but figuratively, through seas of The humble individual who had had the price upon bis salt blood. In the time of danger, we fought, and bled, and increased from twenty-five cents to one dollar and fifty fell side by side. This shows the deep cause of complast cents, was to be wholly disregarded. Now, sir, in my dis- which alone could rouse the South to resistance. This bill trict, which consists of twelve counties, there is not one might with propriety be entitled a bill for the oppression establishment for the manufacture of salt, while there are of the South. 'On this ground I oppose it. But if it can several manufactories of iron. When, then, I see a bill be so sbaped as to do no more than enforce the revenue before me, which grants no relief on a prime necessary of Jaws, I will vote in its favor. life, but diminishes the duty on an article which all admit [M. C. added a few words more, which were lost by the to be profitable, can any man expect me to vote for reporter.] it! Besides, sir, the people of the United States, when this He concluded by asking for the yeas and pays on hi administration came into power, looked with fond antici- amendment, but they were not granted, and the amend pation to this epoch as one in which all unnecessary offices ment was negatived-yeas, 57. were to be dispensed with, and no new offices were to be Mr. DRAYTON then moved to add to the amendment created. Yet, what is provided by this bill! A large an admendment, providing for å repeal, after December number of new offices are created, with heavy salaries, for next, of the duty laid on imported slates by the tariff the purpose of guarding against frauds! What does this 1828, and he exhibited a number of reasons and several prove! It is admitted that, before 1828, the revenue de facts in support of his amendmevt. rived from duties exceeded the amount of what it is at Mr. BUCHANAN made å statement of facts relatin present. In the name of common sense, theo, will any man to the abundant supply of slates which Pennsylvania fur say that to collect less revenue more officers are needed ? nished, to show the inexpediency of the amendment. I insist that the general principle of the system is wrong. Mr. CARSON replied to Mr. B., and controverted tb! Taxes ought never to be laid except for the general de propriety of allowing a profit of three hundred per cent fence. This thing of taxing some for the protection of oth- to the workers of slate in the United States, and Mr. ers, I am utterly against. It is calculated to rob one thou- HUNT and Mr. IHRIE sustained the statement of Mr. B. sand nine bundred and pinety-nine përsons, in order to to show the capacity of the country to supply plenty of sustain the splendor and gratify the cupidity of one mono- blate, but the business could not be prosecuted without the polist or manufacturer. Contrast the number of manu- protecting duty. facturers with the amount of the population of the United Mr. DRAYTON replied to all the objections, to show States, and you will find the disproportion as striking as that the duty was overous and improper. any contrast that can exist upon earth. And shall we tax The question being then put, the amendment was reall these for the purpose of building up one or two! Ijected-yeas, 65. we may tax the people for the protection of manufactures, Mr. TUCKER rose to move an amendment, in which why may we not for the protectiou of agriculture ! The he said he was in carnest; it was, that, after June next, two interests are inseparable; and, on the same principle, the duty on molasses be reduced to five cents a gallos we may give encouragement to both. But we ought not to He confessed that be bad, when the noxious tariff law of encourage either at the expense of its neighbor. Suppose 1825 was before the House, voted for the bigb duty on me settled on a farm which I manage badly; my next molasses, in hopes of killing the bill; he thought be could neighbor is prudent and industrious, and be raises one make good come out of evil, but he was deceived. He thousand busbels of Indian corn, while I make three hun did not think the friends of that bill would swallow the dred busbels of wheat. Shall I go to the
county court or molasses, but he was disappointed. As he, however, bad legislature, and say, I pray you to lay a duty of twenty or aided to put on the duty, he now, wisbed to try to take it thirty cents per bushel on my neighbor's corn, to enable off, and he asked for the yeas and days on the question, me to monopolize the market i Sir, iron, salt, wheat, and but they were refused by the House; and corn are in one respect all alike, they are all necessaries The amendment was negatived, without a division. of life; and is there a man in these United States whose Mr. DRAYTON then moved that, after the 30th of June sense does not revolt at such an ides? Shall we tax the next, the same dutý now imposed on a ton of slates be ima i poor man because be happens to be in the neighborhood posed on one thousand slates, for reasons which he explait of a nabob? The article of salt is a proof of this. Be-ed; but the motion was negatived. fore 1828, sale in my district was sold at twenty-five cents The question was then put on the amendment of Mr