FER. 21, 1837.] Reduction of the Tariff. [SENATE. prepared himself to move to strike out any part of houn, Clay, Clayton, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, the bill. Mr. CALHOUN said he believed there would be no dispute about the reduction on a large proportion of the articles; the others would be indicated by the discussion on the bill. Mr. WALKER said he should vote against the motion to take up the bill, because he hoped the Senate would take up to-day the subject of recognising the independence of Texas. Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, NAYS--Messrs. Buchanan, Kent, McKean, Robbins, Mr. CALHOUN preferred to try first the question on Mr. WRIGHT's motion; and, if that should fail, the ques-duced, and the great injury inflicted on our own estabtion on Texas might then be tried. Mr. WRIGHT said if the subject was doubtful in the minds of a majority of the Senate, he was not disposed to worry the body. He would regard the refusal to take up the bill now as amounting to a refusal to act upon it at the present session. He would, therefore, ask for the yeas and nays on the question; which were ordered. Mr. CLAY said he should certainly vote for taking up the bill now, after what Mr. W. had said, because a bill passed the Senate at the last session for reducing the duties on all the articles enumerated in this bill, with three or four exceptions. He wished, moreover, to know what was the intention of Mr. W. and other Senators on this subject, and to ascertain whether they really intended to preserve the general policy of the compromise. Mr. WEBSTER said he considered it as very important that the bill should be taken up. He deemed it the indispensable duty of Congress to reduce the tariff so far as it could be done without interfering with protect ed articles. Mr. CALHOUN, also, urged the importance of taking up the bill now, and hastening its progress. Mr. WRIGHT laid before the Senate a letter from Ellicott & Co., on the subject of the manufacture of chemicals, the small amount of duty that would be relishments, by making free of duty the articles of aquafortis, muriatic acid, bichromate of potash, chromate of potash, prussiate of potash, tartaric acid, Prussian blue, calomel, sulphate of magnesia, sulphate of quinine, Rochelle salts, and tartar emetic. Mr. WEBSTER, after a few brief remarks on the impropriety of taking off the duty on these articles without further information, moved to strike them out of the bill. [The bill proposes to admit them free of duty.] Mr. SEVIER wished to except the articles of calomel, quinine, and salts, as being the only ones in which his constituents had an interest; they took large quantities of them. After a short debate, in which Messrs. KNIGHT, KENT, DAVIS, LINN, CLAY, BUCHANAN, SEVIER, and CALHOUN, took part, the question was put on striking out the residue of these articles, with the exception of calomel, salts, and quinine, and agreed to. these, (i. e. retaining the present duty upon them,) it The question being put separately on striking out was decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Kent, Knight, McKean, Norvell, Prentiss, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster--19. NAYS--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Calhoun, Clayton, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Tipton, Walker, Wright--24. Mr. BUCHANAN said the Legislature of Pennsylvania had instructed him and his colleague on this subject; and although the instructions had not yet arrived, he knew this morning that they had passed, and that they instructed them to vote against any reduction of the tariff as it was established in March, 1833, on the principle that to touch this subject at all might endanger their interests. Mr. B. confessed, though he held the opinions of the Legislature in high respect, that, had it not been for these instructions, he should have voted to take off the duties entirely, so far as it would not interfere with protection, and would not violate the compromise act; and he would have done it on the principle of throwing useless lumber overboard, for the purpose of saving the valuable part of the cargo. But he now felt bound to act according to his instructions, and would certainly bow to them with the utmost deference and respect. Mr. CLAY said he hardly thought the Legislature of Pennsylvania had gone so far as the Senator supposed. The compromise act had expressly provided that, if there should be any deficiency in the revenue, it should be made up by increasing the duty on articles below 20 per cent.; and, on the other hand, if there should be an excess of revenue, it should be remedied by a reduction on articles below 20 per cent.; so that, with the exception of three or four articles, this bill was in entire accord-abled to maintain their ground under the general reance with the compromise act. And, so far from injur-duction then proposed. Mr. D. said that this was an ining the manufacturing interest, Mr. C. believed it would be beneficial to it. They therefore ought not to hesitate to take up the bill, and pass those parts of it which would not interfere with protection. Mr. BUCHANAN said he was very much indebted to the gentleman for his commentary on Mr. B's instructions; but, under his favor, he would construe them for himself. [Mr. B. here read the instructions, which were clear, explicit, and imperative.] The question on taking up the bill was now tried, and carried in the affirmatve, as follows: So they were retained in the bill as free of duty. Mr. DAVIS moved to strike out the article of worsted yarn, so as thereby to retain the present protecting duty on that article. He stated that the present duty fixed by law was twenty per cent., and he bad letters in his possession to prove that there were large manufacturing establishments, in which great amounts of capital had been embarked in the making of worsted yarn. An important discovery in the manner of combing wool had enabled this branch of manufactures to flourish under the protecting duty of twenty per cent. Large investments had, in consequence, been made, in the expectation that that protection would not be withdrawn. The article produced was used principally for the warp in carpeting. The individuals concerned represented that, if the present duty should remain undisturbed till the year 1842, they should after that be en terest of some importance to the country, and one which he considered as entitled to protection. If the duty under which it had grown up should now at once be taken off, he feared that it would suffer great injury, if not entire destruction. He did not know that even under the protection it had enjoyed it would have been able to realize any profit, or even to maintain its ground at all, had it not been for a great improvement which had recently been discovered in the process of wool combing. Mr. D. sent to the Secretary's table one of the letters which he had received on this subject, and which was ac YEAS--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Brown, Cal-cordingly read to the Senate. Mr. CUTHBERT wished to ask one question, and it was this was it the design of gentlemen to pursue the protective system as it now stood, or to place new articles under protection? A short time ago, this article of worsted yarn was not among the protected articles at all; but it having been asserted that the article could be made in this country, this duty of twenty per cent. had been imposed as protection. He desired to know what was the construction which Senators attached to the compromise act. Was the construction this: that whenever an article, which had been among those protected, could be made here, it was to be protected as of course? Was this the manner in which the tariff was to be reduced? In this case, the production of a single letter from an individual interested in this manufacture seemed to be thought sufficient to produce the impression that its protection ought to be continued. If this course was to be sanctioned, the protective system would not only continue in all the strength it now possessed, but would even be extended. It was only to bring forward a single letter, to show that an article could be made in this country, and it was to be protected of course. As to this particular article of worsted yarn, the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] was no doubt much better acquainted with it than Mr. C. There was one point on which he wished to be informed: were all articles manufactured from worsted yarn at present imported free of duty? [FEB. 21, 1837. worsted composed the greater part. He was told that the present article of worsted yarn was chiefly employed in the manufacture of carpets; that the construction at the custom-house had been that it was not included among the free articles. Mr. W. was unacquainted with the details of the subject, and had no personal knowledge of the matter. It appeared to him, however, that, notwithstanding there might exist a pretty strong claim on the part of a single manufacture, the article ought not to be stricken out, but should be free from duty, like the goods made from it. Mr. DAVIS said he had but little to add. He was aware that worsted stuff goods were free of duty, but there had a class of them been introduced which were composed in part of worsted and in part of wool, which were not free, but paid a duty. The chief object for which this worsted yarn was manufactured was the warp in the manufacture of carpets. The carpet manufacture had long been established in this country, and it prevailed extensively in several of the States. Congress, for its protection, had imposed a heavy square-yard duty. Worsted yarn paid a duty of 20 per cent., and he did not know why it was not as fair an object of protection as if it paid 40. He could not see that it was a good reason for overthrowing a particular branch of manufactures, that the duty upon it was but small. He admitted that this manufacture had been lately prosecuted with new vigor; but neither could he perceive that this was a reason why it should be no longer protected. He was not for introducing a new set of protected articles; but if the Senate should think that, in consistency with the principles of the compromise, they could retain the exist Mr. PRESTON inquired of the chairman of the Coming duty on this manufacture of worsted yarn, he should mittee on Finance, what was the present duty on worstbe happy. ed yarn? Mr. DAVIS replied that a part were, but not all. Mr. CUTHBERT then observed that, if Congress protected worsted yarn, it would of course protect articles made from worsted yarn. Mr. WRIGHT replied that the duty now fixed by law was 20 per cent. ad valorem. The amount imported came to $261,626, on which the duty paid was $52,325. Mr. W. added that it had been the understanding of the Committee on Finance that worsted stuff goods of all sorts were free of duty, and they saw no sufficient reason why worsted yarn should pay a duty, while goods manufactured from it paid none; and hence (the general object being to reduce the revenue) the committee had inserted worsted yarn among the articles which it was proposed to make free. Mr. PRESTON was opposed to reducing the duties on any article included within the provisions of the compromise. If circumstances rendered a reduction of the revenue indispensable, it should be made on articles not comprehended in that arrangement. He was opposed to any departure from this principle in the present bill. Let the enumerated articles be protected as in the com promise act. In that he should fully acquiesce; but when the duty was less than 20 per cent. he could not agree to it; and if a new enumeration of protected articles was to be made, he should be utterly opposed to it. He should vote against striking out this article from the bill. Let the committee do what they would, the reduction would be scarce sufficient to bring down the reve nue to the wants of the Government. But as this article paid a duty of 50,000 dollars, making it free will produce a considerable reduction. Mr. GRUNDY observed that this matter had been treated by some gentlemen as comparatively unimpor tant; but to him, in the attitude in which he stood, it was a matter of great import. He had voted for the compromise act, and had personally contributed to its passage, as much perhaps as any other member of the Senate; and he considered that its provisions formed the great bulwarks both of the manufacturing and the agricultural interests. He wished, if it were possible, that they might remain undisturbed; and if gentlemen were resolved to break through the arrangements then made, by taking off the duties then agreed upon, they ought to remember that it is a rule which will work both ways. If one side was to be absolved from the agreement, the other side would claim to be absolved also; and thus the whole subject of the protecting system would again be thrown open. It was the understanding of those who advocated the compromise bill that articles paying a duty of 20 per cent. were to remain undisturb ed, while in regard to those paying less than 20 per cent. the action of Congress was to be left free, and the duties might be raised or diminished, according as the revenue of the country should prove defective or redundant. Mr. DAVIS here stated that the article of worsted yarn was not one of those under 20 per cent. It paid 20 per cent., and so was included in the compromise. Mr. GRUNDY then said that he should be against taking off the duty. As long as there was a manufacture in the United States which required protection, he was against reducing the duties fixed for the compromise, until the experiment had been fully made of reducing the revenue in some other mode. But if, after every practicable experiment, it should be found that the rev enue could not be reduced without touching these articles also, he should then, to avoid a greater evil, reluc He hoped, as each article in this bill came up successively for discussion, the chairman of the Committee on Finance would apprize the Senate whether it did or did not pay a duty of 20 per cent. or Mr. WRIGHT said that the general object sought by the Committee on Finance, in reporting this bill, was to reduce the revenue as far as possible in conformity with the principles of the compromise. The fourth section of the compromise bill enumerated certain articles which were to be free of duty; in addition to those included in the tariff law; among which were bleached and un-tantly yield his assent. bleached linen, worsted stuff goods, and manufactures of silk and worsted. Mr. W. had been under the impression that this clause made free all goods in which more, as Mr. G's vote would in all cases be governed by that consideration. If the article paid less than 20 per cent., he would vote to make it free; but if not, he would vote to retain the duty. [SENATE. extensively used in the same way-in lamps, for example, and in many operations of manufactures. At the time the compromise act was passed, the case of this article had been thoroughly examined, and the House of Representatives had in consequence reversed its action, and raised the duty after having reduced it. Mr. D. was as anxious as any other gentleman to remove this duty, if it could be done with safety and propriety; but he was not now in possession of such information as would warrant him to believe that it could. The question being now taken on striking out the article (worsted yarn) from the list of those which were to be made free of duty, it was carried: Ayes 23. So the article was stricken out. Mr. DAVIS moved to strike out from the list of free articles that of olive oil. Mr. D. stated that this article, at present, paid a duty of twenty cents Mr. WRIGHT said that the remarks of the Senator per gallon. There had been a discussion of con- from Connecticut seemed to call upon him for a word of siderable length, and a similar motion, at a former ses- explanation. The Senator misunderstood the principle sion. The duty had been reduced, but, after considera- on which the Committee on Finance had proceeded in tion, the House of Representatives had restored it again, constructing this bill. It was their desire carefully to lest the reduction might interfere with the whaling in- guard as well those interests which were covered by terest. Mr. D. said he hoped it might turn out, on a duties below twenty per cent. as above; but they felt full examination, that the present duty would bear re- themselves more at liberty to go into an examination duction, but, as at present informed, he was not autho- where the duty was under twenty per cent., and on arrized to say that such was the case; and, to avoid all dan- ticles protected. It was now said, and Mr. W. was not ger of injury to the important interests involved in the prepared to contradict the assertion, that the removal of whale fishery, he had judged it proper to move to strike the duty on olive oil might prove injurious to the whathis article out of the bill. The duty upon it amountedling interest. The committee certainly had no disposito more than 20 per cent. tion to interfere with that important branch of industry. The article of whalebone paid no more than 12 per cent., yet they had abstained from inserting that in the bill, because it was connected with the whale fishery. Mr. W. considered the whaling interest as one of all others the most clearly deserving the protection of the Government. The nation was deeply interested in it, as a school for our seamen and a nursery for the navy. They did not understand that rescinding the duty on olive oil would at all affect this interest; and Mr. W. regretted that neither himself nor the Senator from Massachusetts was in possession of more distinct information on the subject. Mr. NILES observed that the principle which had been advanced in the course of this debate, that all duties below twenty per cent. might be stricken out, as not being embraced in the compromise, was of all others the most unjust, and even preposterous. Were all interests to be disregarded, and wantonly destroyed, because they were not included in the compromise act? There existed many interests in the country whose protecting duty was below twenty per cent., which were vastly more entitled to the favorable notice of the Government than some others, which enjoyed a far higher protection. He believed that Congress ought to hesitate to reduce the duties, from a mere apprehension of a surplus in the Treasury, in cases where a small duty operated as a complete protection. The complaint which had roused the South to indignation was not directed against these small duties, but against that great mountain of enormous imposts which was laid by Congress in 1824 and 1828. But olive oil enjoyed a protection of more than twenty per cent., and therefore some gentlemen argued that it ought not to be included in this bill. But would the removal of the duty from this article affect any other interest which had a just claim for protection? The Senator from Massachusetts had argued that the retaining of this duty would be very beneficial to another article. This was certainly going a great way. Whale oil was entirely a different interest; and it was extending the protective principle further than it had ever before been proposed, to lay a tax on one article in order to protect another. If olive oil was produced in this country, he should then be in favor of protecting it by a duty. But he could not consent to tax olive oil, with a view to protect the whale fishery. Mr. DAVIS said he hardly knew whether the Senator from Connecticut aimed his remarks at him, in what he said respecting a duty being retained because it was over twenty per cent. Mr. D. had said no such thing. He had not argued that this article should be stricken out because the duty upon it exceeded twenty per cent., but he had stated such to be the fact, for the information of the Senate, and that they might be informed of the true ground on which they were proceeding. He concurred with the Senator from Connecticut in the belief that there were many articles, the duty on which was below twenty per cent., which deserved very careful consideration. He was aware, too, that the last argument which had been urged by that gentleman was often well founded, but it was not always true; and in this case it did so happen that both whale and olive oil were If no Mr. CUTHBERT said that if the Senator from Massachusetts could present to the Senate information which would enlighten them on this subject, he should be glad if he would do so. Was it a fact that the use of olive oil did compete with the interests of the whale fishery? At the first blush he should say it could not be so. The United States raise no olive trees, and the two articles of whale oil and olive oil were certainly very different from each other. One was a fine article of use in diet, while the other was quite the reverse. further information was laid before the Senate, he should think that olive oil ought not to be stricken out of the bill; but if further information should show that to make it a free article would injure the whaling interest, then the duty ought not to be reduced. Some Senators contended that when the duty was above twenty per cent. it must not be touched; others argued that when it was below twenty per cent. it was wrong to interfere with it. Thus, it was evident that the whole attempt to reduce the revenue would prove futile. There was to be no honest, sincere, and strenuous effort at reduction. While, on the one hand, it was pleaded that the Senate must not reduce the tariff, because of the compromise of 1833, he heard nothing of any pledge that the tariff was not to be augmented, because of the compromise. There was evidently gross partiality in the manner in which the compromise was to be construed. As to this article of olive oil, he should like to receive some further information. Mr. DAVIS said that he would cheerfully give such information as he possessed. Whale oil was commonly used in lamps, and in some processes of the manufacture of woollen goods, while, for both purposes, olive oil was likewise employed. There were many other uses for oil, in which both kinds were not equally proper. Olive oil, for instance, was used in the manufacture of fine soap, while whale oil would not answer for that SENATE.] Reduction of the Tariff. purpose. He should not go into the details. The whole subject had been fully investigated in 1832, when the existing duty on olive oil had been fixed, and he was not aware of any change which had since taken place to render it excessive or improper. The question being now put, the motion to strike out olive oil from the list of free articles was rejected: Ayes 15, noes 19. [At a subsequent period of the session this vote was reversed, and the motion finally prevailed; but, as the whole bill was lost in the House of Representatives, the duty remains, of course, as it stood before.] Mr. WALL moved to strike out the articles of China and porcelain, earthen, and stone ware. Mr. W., in support of his motion, read a long report on the subject of the protection of this manufacture, and accompanied it by some remarks. He stated the duty to be twenty per cent. Mr. WRIGHT said that, when the bill had been reported, the committee had been unaware of any important establishment existing in this country for the manufacture of porcelain. Since then, however, they had received a very plain and proper letter from the proprietors of a large establishment in Jersey city, in which there had been invested a capital of $150,000. He should read a portion of this letter, in order to show the importance of this one establishment. He was not, however, aware of the existence of any other. The amount of porcelain and stone ware imported in 1835 was $1,697,000, which paid a duty to the Government of $340,000. He submitted to the Senate whether a duty to this amount should be continued for the protection of a single establishment. For himself, he expressed no opinion. Every Senator would form his own judgment. Here was a worthy manufacturing establishment, in which a large capital had been invested, and which seemed to be in successful operation. Of the amount of ware which had been made there he was not informed. Mr. CALHOUN observed that his position as a Southern Senator was different from many of the gentlemen who, with himself, were desirous of a reduction in the revenue. According to the compromise bill of 1833, the tariff duties were gradually going off, and they were all to come down to 20 per cent. by the year 1842. If the amount of imports did not interrupt the operation, it would take off two millions of revenue annually. And he would now tell Southern gentlemen on all sides, that no paltry advantage to be derived from striking out $50,000 on this article, and $100,000 on that, should ever induce him to give up the advantages to be derived to the South from a regard to the compromise law; and let him say to Southern gentlemen generally, that they will greatly injure themselves, if, from any such temptations, they should be induced to yield up their strong. hold. Senators who are now new in their seats would find, from sad experience, how hard, how very hard a thing it was to get duties taken off when they had once been imposed. He had himself been greatly surprised, in the outset of his public career, when an old and experienced statesman had told him that it was a much easier thing in Congress to lay duties on the people than to take them off. If Southern gentlemen were now guilty of the egregious folly of yielding up the compromise bill by the little petty temptation of repealing a small amount of duties, they would have ample leisure for repentance. Gentlemen on the other side now called upon them rot to disturb the compromise, declaring, at the same time, that they understood themselves as pledged to its observance. Mr. C. would respond to the call, and hoped that the response would be general. For his own part, he held that there was no pledge on the part of the South; and, when the compromise bill passed, he had expressly told all the [FEB. 21, 1837. Senators present that he held himself perfectly free from all pledge on the subject, and that he might advo cate a further reduction, or not, according to circumstances. He was now prepared to stand upon that bill, and not to disturb it. He should not interfere with the advantage which the Northern States were now deriving from it; and hereafter, when the time came that the South, in its turn, was to reap the benefit, he should, in all fairness, claim a similar observance on the part of the North. As to the duties under 20 per cent., if the friends of the tariff would say that they could not, with propriety, be removed, Mr. C. would say retain them; but if they could be reduced, or altogether abolished, he should rejoice. This was the position he had deliberately taken. He felt it to be both strong and honorable; and he was fully persuaded that it was such a position as would, upon the whole, be found most for the interest of the Southern States. Mr. BUCHANAN said that he understood the principle of the bill to be to reduce the duties on such articles as would not interfere with those protected. If that was its principle, it had his cordial approbation. He believed that the interests of the manufacturers themselves required the duties, in some cases, to be reduced. But as to the article now in question, the manufacture of it had been commenced on the faith of the continuance of the existing protection, and it came fairly within the compromise. The question was not whether many factories of this species of ware existed or not-because the principles of the compromise were submitted to the option of the people. They had been well understood by the whole nation, and universally approved; and, were he engaged in this branch of business, he should expect and claim the protection of the compromise blil, and should deem it a violation of the public faith should the existing duty be removed. Mr. B. concurred with the Senator from South Carolina in his desire that the compromise should stand undisturbed. The purpose, however, for which he had now risen was to give the Senate some information in regard to a manufactory of China ware, entirely distinct from that in Jersey city, which he believed was confined to porcelain or queensware. This was solely for China. The proper material for the construc tion of China ware of the finest quality had been some years since discovered in the State of Pennsylvania, and an amiable and estimable man, formerly a member of the other House, and well known to many Senators, [Mr B. was understood to refer to Judge Hemphill, of Philadelphia,] had embarked nearly his whole forture in the enterprise. He took pride and pleasure in bring ing the manufacture to a high degree of perfection, and he had succeeded in the production of ware as beautiful in all respects as any imported. The manufacture had been commenced under favorable auspices, and Mr. B. believed still continued to prosper. He thought that the protecting duty ought to be suffered to remain. It was not right to say that, because there were but two or three hundred thousand dollars embarked in this branch of business, it was nothing; and the manufactnre might be ruined and crushed, because it was comparatively in its infancy. He hoped that the amendment which had been offered by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WALL] would prevail, and that the principles of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] would govern the legislation of the Senate. Mr. WEBSTER had risen to observe that it would be wise in the Senate to be cautious in the course they should now adopt. They had passed a bill the last year reducing the duties on some articles of domestic manufacture, which were completely out of the reach of foreign competition; and it had encountered no opposition. But he thought the country was not now prepared for a bill which should go beyond that class of manufactures. On the present occasion, so great was the dearth of information, that the Senator at the head of the Finance Committee, who introduced the bill, had found himself obliged to state that, when this article was inserted, he was entirely ignorant of the existence of any domestic establishment of the kind with which it would interfere. Gentlemen, one after another, were rising in their places and stating isolated facts-each of which had an important bearing on the provision proposed to be inserted in the bill. Considering, then, the admitted want of information, which was indispensable to an enlightened discharge of their duty; considering, too, the very short period which had elapsed since the introduction of the bill, and still more the great importance of getting some bill passed which should reduce the duty on articles that would not interfere with our own domestic industry; and taking into view the late period of the session, and the opposition which must be elicited by persisting in a course of this kind, he thought it, on the whole, to be prudent to leave out of the bill all those items which were in a considerable degree doubtful, and confine it to such alone as would interfere with none of our own great interests. Why should not such a course be adopt ed? Why would not the committee confine themselves to a plain and obvious path' Mr. W. said that he had made these observations more with a reference to the bill in general than to the particular item now under discussion. He wanted some bill of the kind to pass, but he wanted it to stop short of our own manufactures. A bill of this character would be attended with good results. But as certainly as clauses should be introduced which attacked our own domestic interests, they would raise the opposition of the respective delegations in the other House representing the States more immediately concerned, and thus the bill would in all likelihood be defeated. As to this particular item of porcelain, he thought it presented a pretty strong case. The amount of duty, to be sure, was large, but it was now found that there existed several important domestic establishments-he heard it said around him that there were at least some half dozen of themto whose protection it was indispensable. Mr. CUTHBERT inquired what interests were in. tended to be protected by the compromise bill? According to his understanding, that bill had been designed to cover those, and those only, which were then in existence. It was never intended to protect interests which did not then exist, and which were to be created by the protection provided for them. And would gentlemen vote for the continuance of duties to protect interests of this last description? Whenever they raised up a new manufacture by the force of protecting duties, they prejudiced those which already existed. To do so was not to act on the policy of the compromise, but in direct violation of it. Did Senators owe but one duty to the Government? Had they nothing else to look to but the protection of certain manufacturing establishments? He denied it; they had another and most important duty to perform; and that was, to bring down the revenue to the actual wants of the Government. And, in discharge of this great duty to the whole country, was the existence of a single manufacturing establishment to present an insuperable obstacle? He denied it. He must go on, and perform the duty he owed to the country at large, and let the interests of a few individuals give way. He had heard no Senator, in the course of this debate, while urging the obligation of the compromise, pretend to say that it was any obstacle to the raising of duties, but only to the lowering of them. Mr. CALHOUN replied, that it was not pretended that the compromise act had any irresistible binding force beyond that of other laws; but both honor and in terest called upon him to insist on the advantages which VOL. XIII.-56 [SENATE. would accrue from its observance. He had declared his intention to stand by it, and he construed the silence of gentlemen on the other side as a pledge that they would do the same. He was sure that the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] must well remember that he had insisted that all articles the duties of which were below 20 per cent. should be made free, if it could safely be done; but as it appeared that there were some establish. ments just coming into being, to whom the protecting duty was very important, he should not be for disturbing it. He was for respecting both sides of the agree ment. Mr. CLAY observed that he thought that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. CUTHBERT] must perceive that the rule he had laid down was too narrow; namely, that the protection afforded by the law of 1833, commonly denominated the compromise act, should be limited to the interests which then existed, and must not be extended to any which had sprung up since. Now, what was the aim of the great system of protective policy? Was it not the introduction from abroad of all those branches of man. ufacture which conduced to the national prosperity, that they might be planted and might flourish upon our own soil? Now, almost all these branches of domestic industry had been largely extended since 1833. Were our extensive cotton mills, for instance, any the less worthy of protection because they had grown to their present perfection since that time? There were many articles not enumerated in that act, which were nevertheless included in its principle. The act established a rule, and laid a foundation by which duties were to be regulated. All those articles on which the duty was 20 per cent. and above, were to remain under their present protection till the year 1842. What was contemplated by such a provision? None, surely, could dream that there was to be a change in the law till the year 1842 arrived. This was undeniably the understanding of both parties at the time, and, he might add, the understanding of the nation generally. The law had every where been received with plaudits and the utmost demonstration of joy. The people accordingly had gone to work and erected their establishments on the faith of this agreement; and these establishments were as much within the spirit and letter of the law as if they had existed when the law was passed, so that the question which had been stated by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GRUNDY] was the true question. If the duty on any article was 20 per cent. or above, Congress could not touch that article till the year 1842, if it regarded the compromise. If the du ty was below 20 per cent., then it might be touched and abolished altogether, provided such a measure did not interfere with important interests of the country. As to the propriety of adhering to the compromise, Mr. C. had no doubt or hesitation. He went for adhering to it. The country expected this. They reposed upon it, and it should be regarded with that respect which was extended to all other compromises. The constitution itself was one; and yet all profess to hold it sacred. The Missouri question was another. The law in that case had no more binding force than any other act of Congress; but who would think of disturbing the compromise which it imbodied? Would any body repeal that act? Would the South repeal it, which contended they were the weaker interest on that question? The same consideration applied to the tariff. Would the South, who were the weaker interest upon the tariff question, consent to give up the compromise? Did they not perceive that the moment they did this the whole question of protective policy was again thrown open, and that the same causes which bad produced the tariff laws of 1824 and 1828 would come into operation, and would lead to the passing of another tariff law? It was clearly the interest of all parties concerned to adhere to that compromise. |