legitimate wants of the Government. This opinion_certainly prevailed at the last session of Congress, so far as he was able to judge. And what, he would inquire, was the reason, and almost the sole reason, for not doing it? Was it not asserted that the compromise act, which resulted from the movement of South Carolina, had imposed an obligation on Congress not to act while it was in force? This, certainly, was the main argument against legislation to reduce the duties. He believed but for that even the most enthusiastic advocates of high protecting duties would not have ventured to advocate the continuance of the law by which the present immense amount of surplus revenue was raised. He would repeat, then, that it might be well questioned whether the movement of South Carolina had not, in some degree, prejudiced Southern interests, from the effect of the compromise act, which had resulted from it, to delay the reduction of the tariff down to a revenue standard. The Senator had warned those representing Southern States in this body not to vote for a reduction of the duties provided for by the bill then before them, because, in doing so, he thinks they will lose the favorable position at this time occupied by the South under the present system, and invite another attempt to increase the tariff. Mr. B. did not perceive any ground for the indulgence of such apprehensions. The national debt had been some time since paid off, and a large amount of surplus revenue was annually coming into the Treasury. He could not for a moment believe that any administration would ever venture so dangerous an experiment as to propose an increase of duties under such circumstances. He had always entertained the opinion that the act of 1833 should not be touched for light or trifling causes. As a Senator from a Southern State, he would not have volunteered a proposition to act on this subject; but as it had been brought before them, and as very clear indications, in his opinion, had been given, from a large portion of the people of the North, that some reduction ought to be made, he considered the aspect of the question materially changed. The friends of reduction were not on that floor confined to those representing Southern States; but many gentlemen, from each of the great divisions of the Union, were found concurring in the opinion that it was necessary. When this sentiment had taken such strong hold of the public mind, as well in a large portion of the North as elsewhere, he could not see any impropriety in legislating with a view to lessen the public burdens, at this time so unnecessarily continued. As one of those representing a Southern State, he did not consider that he should discharge his duty if he were, under existing circumstances, to refuse his aid in voting to abolish the duty on salt; an article so essential to every class of citizens, and more especially to those engaged in agricultural pursuits. If, however, (said Mr. B.,) this view of the subject is irreconcileable with a proper consideration of the compromise act, there was another obligation of still higher authority, and entitled to more sacred observance, than any which could possibly result from a mere legislative enactment, that challenged their respect. He alluded to the constitution of the United States, from which was derived our power to impose taxes, in the shape of duties or otherwise. He contended that Congress had no right to raise money by any species of taxation, except only for the purpose of carrying into effect the powers granted to the General Government by that instrument. They were annually raising a great deal more money than was required for those purposes. Was there not, then, a constitutional obligation resting on them to reduce the duties to the wants of the Government, which was paramount to any and to every other consideration? While, therefore, gentlemen were urging the claims of the compromise act to such sacred regard, he trusted VOL. XIII.-58 [SENATE. that they would remember that the constitution of the United States deserved infinitely more their regard and respect, in guiding us in our deliberations here. Mr B. expressed his regret that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] had deemed it proper to make what was, in his opinion, such an uncalled for and unwarrantable denunciation against those of their Northern friends who had come forward as the advocates of a reduction of duties on this occasion. If some of these gentlemen had occupied the position in 1828, in relation to the tariff, which had been said and charged against them, the country had the gratification now to see and know that they, at least, had changed for the better, while some of those representing a portion of the South upon this floor, and who were now opposing some of the proposed reductions, had, in that respect, somewhat deteriorated. The Senator from South Carolina, in his opinion, in opposing a reduction of duties, by so doing contributed to keep up the system, and, in that manner, indirectly supported the tariff principle. It would seem, therefore, that the relative positions of gentlemen had under. gone some change in the progress of events. [Mr. CALHOUN. Am I to understand the Senator to say that I have changed my sentiments in relation to the tariff?] Mr. B. resumed. What he intended to say, and what he had distinctly said, was, that those who are now charged with having, in 1828, been friends of the tariff, at any rate had now given indications in favor of relaxing the present system of duties, while gentlemen who were hitherto opposed to the system were at present against a reduction of the duties. He could not exactly say what their sentiments were, but only what their course was bere. Whether their sentiments had undergone any change, it was not for him to say; but he repeated that, so far as their actions were concerned, it seemed certain to him that the gentlemen were not as hostile to the system as they had been on some former occasions. Mr. CALHOUN observed, in reply, that the mode in which the Senator from North Carolina reasoned went to hold up Mr. C. to the country as being opposed to the reduction of the tariff. Mr. C. protested against such an interpretation of his course. He was, and always had been, decidedly in favor of a reduction, and he voted against the present motions expressly from his ut. ter aversion to the whole tariff system. He believed that the small reductions now proposed, by unsettling the compromise, would bring back the system in its whole extent; but he had not the slightest faith on earth that the party who had brought forward this bill ever intended to pass it. If they had really been in earnest in desiring that a bill of this character should become a law, why had these disputed items been put into the bill? The great body of the reductions in the bill were without dispute, and might have been passed in ten min utes; why, then, had these others been put in? Was not the design plain and palpable? Who expected that there would be any reduction in the revenue? And because he would not give a vote which, while it would tell on nothing at all, would go to commit his State to break the compromise, was he to be held up as opposed to the reduction of the tariff? The Senator from North Carolina himself could not but see that Mr. C's position showed and proved that he was as much opposed to the tariff as he had ever been. He had never retrograded a single inch. Mr. BROWN said that he was not aware that he had at all misrepresented the Senator from South Carolina. In what he had said he had alluded to certain language in that gentleman's speech, which he thought was rather sharp towards those Southern Senators who had voted for this bill. Mr. B. had been called upon to give his reasons why he was in favor of the abolition of the duty on salt; and, in so doing, he had taken occasion to ob serve that the Senator from South Carolina had advocated the retention of the existing duties; that he bad opposed any infraction of the compromise, and had advocated doctrines which, in Mr. B's opinion, went to perpetuate the tariff system; for he held that a vote against this bill was, to all intents and purposes, a tariff vote. The question put to every Senator was, whether he would reduce the duties or not; and no casuistry, no pitiful subterfuge, would ever induce him to believe that & Senator who voted in the negative did not, in effect, vote to perpetuate the tariff system. The constitution was imperative that Congress should raise no more revenue than the constitution itself gave them power to expend. They were at present raising a surplus revenue-a thing which, most evidently, the constitution never contemplated; and were they not then violating that instrument? Those who voted to perpetuate this system did, he insisted, vote to perpetuate the tariff. Let it of fend whom it might, this was the honest truth. He cared not where it might light, the truth should be spoken. He knew that truth might sometimes be blamed, and that gentlemen might resort to harsh repartees, with a view to escape its force; but truth was not so to be escaped from. Mr. B. claimed to have no very exalted opinion of his own character, but he hoped he was free from the contemptible vanity and overweening egotism which was sometimes displayed on that floor. little intelligence he did possess he should use without consulting any man, or inquiring whether his ideas quadrated or not with the notions of those who seemed to think themselves standards of political infallibility. He was not acquainted with any one who possessed this attribute, nor was this the place where he should seek for one of this description, and least of all should he look for it in that quarter. What Mr. CALHOUN observed, in reply, that the Senator from North Carolina had fully satisfied him of one thing. The Senator continued to assert that Mr. C. was in favor of the tariff, because he was opposed to taking off this duty on salt. All he could say was, that a gentleman who could think or say so, after the two distinct explanations and admonitions which Mr. C. had given, would not hereafter receive any notice from him. Mr. C. regretted that his appeal to the good sense of the Senator had not been met. He had expressly asked him whether he meant to affirm that Mr. C. was not opposed to the tariff. From the reply he had received, he had learned a lesson; and it was, not in future to respond to any remarks which might fall from that Senator. Mr. BROWN rejoined, and observed that there were some individuals by whom not to be noticed would occasion him some mortification, but there were others by whom he had not the slightest desire to be noticed in any way. Their notice was a thing he had never desired or cared for, and to receive it had not always eventuated as a benefit. He had his standing on that floor not by efforts at high-sounding pretensions to the attributes of a gentleman and a man of honor. He felt himself on equal grounds with the Senator from South Carolina, or any other, and should be ready to vindicate his claims on all occasions. He had said that he was not to be deceived by the miserable subterfuges of such as, while they opposed every reduction of the tariff, claimed the credit of being against the tariff system. This was the head and front of his offending; and he would here take leave to say that, if the notice of the honorable Senator was to be withdrawn on this account, that Senator must pursue his own course; but Mr. B. should not hereafter notice his hallucinations and frantic denunciations of all the friends of the administration who might not happen to agree with him in opinion. [FEB. 23, 1837. Mr. CALHOUN said he was not in the habit of noticing the Senator from North Carolina at any time. As to the term subterfuge, as applied to himself, he threw it back with indignation. Mr. RIVES said that he wished to offer one or two remarks, in reply to a particular part of the speech of the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN.] He referred to the appeal addressed by him to all the representatives of Southern States, in which the Senator had contended that no Southern man could with propriety vote for a reduction of the tariff, in contravention of the compromise act. The Senator had based his argument on this ground—that if they of the South should once set the example of departing from that arrangement, they could afterwards with no plausibility pretend to hold gentlemen on the other side to its observance. The Senator had asked, if those of the South should set such an example, bow they could dare to insist for a moment on the observance of the compromise by another portion of the Union? Mr. R. would ask that Senator what evidence he possessed that any other portion of the Union saw the least binding force in the compromise? The Senator himself did not pretend to say that there was the least legal or moral obligation on any one to observe it. Mr. R. had not heard a single observation which locked like recognising any binding obligation in that arrangement. Gentlemen talked to him about observing a bargain on his part, when he had no evidence whatever that the opposite side meant to observe it on theirs. Were Southern gentlemen to be scrupulous on this subject, while they possessed no guarantee whatever that their Northern brethren would not advocate an increase of the tariff the moment they had any chance of success? Mr. R. insisted that the South had no evidence on that subject. He called the attention of all Southern Senators to the very significant address delivered by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER,] at the last session; to the emphatic and unequivocal declaration, when speaking on the subject of the surplus, that the compromise act never could or should be recognised as the prominent policy of the United States. That gentleman had protested in the strongest terms against any obligation to observe it, and had said expressly that it never could be recognised as a proper basis for the commercial policy of the United States. Mr. R. had not forgotten these words; and now, in the present debate, had the Senate heard from the other Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] a solitary argument which amounted to a recognition of the compromise as binding? Had that gentleman, in his able speech, opposed the abolition of the duty on salt as an infraction of that arrangement-as a violation of a bargain? Mr. R. had heard no language of that kind. Neither that gentleman nor his colleague had ever said that they meant to observe the bargain on their part, when their turn should come to make sacrifices for its observance. When that gentleman had opposed the proposition in the bill, he had done it, as he always did, in a manly and open manner; on grounds of strong prac tical sense, and not as being any violation of an ideal compromise, contained in an ordinary act of legislation. Mr. R. well recollected when the other Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WEBSTER] had appealed to the Sen. ator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] who had introduced the compromise bill, and who supported it on this groundthat he was fully convinced that, unless some such expedient should be resorted to in order to arrest the then apparent policy of the administration, the manufactur ing interest would soon be compelled to witness worse times; that the Senator from Massachusetts had observed that if the operation of the bill should in practice be found injurious in a bigh degree to any particular branch of manufacture, he hoped that by general consent so much of the bill would be withdrawn, and that the Sen FEB. 23, 1837.] Reduction of the Tariff. [SENATE. ator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] did not deny that such found the names of both the Senators from South Carolina was the intention. Mr. R. was confident that it would among the 24 who voted for striking out. But whether not be contended any where that there ever had been the record was correct or not, Mr. R. greatly doubted any distinct recognition of a binding force in the com- that the tariff interest was in the ascendant. He had promise bill. Yet the Senator from South Carolina in seen it for years losing its influence every moment, and sisted that every friend to Southern interests was bound he, for one, was not afraid to leave the tariff question to go on and submit to every sacrifice required by that open. He did not want any imaginary sanctuary to prolaw, in the vain expectation that at a future day the com- tect him while giving his vote on this occasion. He was promise would be respected by those who were inter- not going to protect himself by artificial defences of this ested in the protected branches of industry. Mr. R. kind against the people of the United States. He was cherished no such expectation. He did not believe that aware that the people had once been in favor of the proone of those interested in the protective system recog tective policy, but he did not believe that they were so nised any such bargain. They had acted wisely, with a at this time. In the meanwhile he felt himself called sagacious regard to the interest of their constituents, upon to do his duty to a man who had been greatly miscautiously abstaining from saying a single word which represented. He did not believe there was a man, indimight imply that their hands were tied. The Senator vidually, more favorable to the interests of the South, or from Massachusetts [Mr. WEBSTER] had, on the contrary, who would do more to protect those interests, than the with great consideration, with a grave and solemn man- person who had been so rudely assailed in this debate. ner, and with the utmost precision of language, protestMr. R. did not believe that he ever had been a friend to ed, at the last session, as an advocate of the manufactur- the high protective policy. He had watched his course ing interests, against the compromise. Mr. R. had close- and looked at his actions; and what had been his conduct? ly watched, during the present debate, to see whether It had been often thrown in his teeth that he had voted for any of the Senators who opposed the reductions suggest- the tariff of 1828, under instructions from his Legislature. ed by the Committee on Finance would say any thing Mr. R. cared not for all that had been or could be said that looked like recognising a solemn bargain, signed, on that subject. Every body had witnessed the prosealed, and delivered, between the North and the South,gressive march of public opinion in that gentleman's own which would be violated by a repeal of these duties, and State, under his sagacious guidance. Let gentlemen he had not heard such a word uttered by any of them. look at his speech, delivered at Albany before the tariff' They opposed the reduction exclusively upon the merits. of 1828 was passed; it would show that the whole bent of Was Mr. R. then, as a practical representative of the his mind was against a high tariff; and Mr. R. did not South, to be told that he must go on, and observe the doubt that it had been the suspicions excited by the sentistipulations of the compromise, on the part of the South, ments in that speech which had drawn forth from the when he saw, from the most unequivocal evidence, both Legislature the instructions under which Mr. Van Buren positive and negative, that the North meant to do no such had afterwards voted. They were not in the dark as to thing? He had had positive evidence of it in the the views and purposes of that individual, whatever solemn protest of the Senator from Massachusetts, and might have been said about the degeneracy of poor old he had had the most abundant negative evidence in the Virginia. They had had declarations, under sufficient fact to which he had just alluded, that not a man who guarantees, that he was opposed to this policy. He was opposed the bill had placed his opposition on the ground not a man to run into abstractions, but was, in all his of the compromise. Under such circumstances, he must course of action, eminently wise and practical. His abbe excused if he refused to pursue such a one-sided staining from mere abstract positions rendered his course course of policy; and he hoped that gentlemen who as- of action effectual in bringing about good results. What sumed to take the lead on Southern questions, and to was that individual doing at this time? Were not his speak in the name of the whole South, would not hold personal and political friends acting at this moment in up him, and those who thought as he did, as faithless to favor of Southern interests? The chairman of the Fitheir engagements, if they refused to follow such a lead. nance Committee, who had introduced the present bill, One of the Senators from South Carolina [Mr. PRES- was well known to be on terms of intimacy with that TON] had said that he saw with the utmost clearness, from gentleman. In fulfilment of the pledges he had given the indications around him, that the tariff interest was when here in his place, the individual in question was predominant in that body; that its opponents were the now proceeding in an effort to mitigate the pressure weaker party; and, therefore, that it would not be wise of the tariff system; and yet those who should have in them to open the question. Mr. R. would ask of received him into their confidence, and hailed his course that Senator, what were the indications to which he al- with thanks and praise, turned round and ungratefully luded? From the state of the vote, the fact was un- repelled the proffered aid. It was "all talk." questionable that it was solely owing to the course pur- was "mere New York tactics." Nothing was meant sued by that gentleman and his colleague that the tariff by it. Did the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CAL interest had the ascendency on that floor. The question HOUN] wish to be understood as so utterly and irreconwas tried in the attempt to repeal the duty on porcelain cileably opposed to that individual, that whenever he was and stoneware, and the ayes and noes on that question for a measure the Senator from South Carolina was to showed that it had been lost by the votes of those two be against it? And when he was against a measure, and Senators alone; the vote stood 24 to 20. If those genwas using his efforts to effect a reform in their legislatlemen had voted otherwise, it would have stood 22 to tion, was the gentleman from South Carolina still to op22, and the motion to strike out porcelain and stoneware pose him, even when he was giving the South the very from the bill would have been lost by a tie. thing they asked for? The Senator from New York had thus far acted for him in good faith, and had nobly redeemed his pledges to the South. Mr. R. anticipated with confidence that he would act out the course. reposed on the pledges of that person, both as to our domestic and other interests; and if any observations had been made by him privately, and not in the hearing of the Senate, (as Mr. R. had heard some anecdotes respecting him,) he claimed that he should be judged by his acts. When that gentleman and his friends said they [Mr. PRESTON here explained, and thought there must have been a mistake in recording the vote, as he had not been present when the yeas and nays were called. He expressed a doubt whether articles charged with a duty of 20 per cent. were included within the compromise. He was rather under the impression that they were not included. Whatever the compromise was, he was for preserving it.] Mr. R. resumed. He had examined the journal, and It He SENATE.] Reduction of the Tariff. [FEB. 23, 1837. every word which had been said on that subject. He well knew the character of those people, and was as were against a high tariff, they gave to the country works to justify the assertion. Let others who impugn their sincerity follow the example. When others uttered high-sured that, under all circumstances, they would rather sounding professions, which charmed the ear, let them follow out their words with works; but, as a plain practical man, Mr. R. saw nothing which would entice him to follow them. He should avail himself of every opportunity within his reach to get rid of the burden of which his constituents complained. The tariff question never had been closed; it was still open; and Mr. R. was willing, as a Southern man, to leave the protection of his rights with the American people. He did not believe that the tariff sy stem had an ascendency in the country, nor would it in the Senate, but for the votes of South Carolina. Mr. R. believed the measure now proposed to be a wise one. He was not, indeed, the advocate of an indiscriminate warfare against manufactures; he was not going to act in the spirit of a crusader against them. He respected the people of the North, who were so deeply interested in these establishents, as he did his own constituents. But he was not to be deterred from what he considered to be his duty by having a piece of parch ment held up before him, by being told that it was a compromise, and that he dare not ask the other party to observe it unless he observed it himself. The other party had expressly told him that they did not acknowledge the bargain; and why should he be held when they were not? At the same time, he was disposed to treat all the great interests of the country with caution and reverence, and, in legislating with regard to them, to tread as upon holy ground; not because he was in terror of a compromise, but because he held it wise not rashly to disturb existing interests. As an American patriot, he viewed with pride and exultation the wealth and prosperity of his brethren. He would not take an iota from it, if it could possibly be avoided. He was one, however, who believed that, notwithstanding the land bill, (should it become a law,) there would still be a surplus in the Treasury; and from stern necessity alone he was willing to reduce the revenue, though in so doing he could not wholly avoid affecting the interests of some of his fellow-citizens; and as he saw no means of lessening the national income so good and expedient as the prudent and catholic measures proposed by this bill, it should receive his support. name of his State. Mr. R., in conclusion, observed that he had said much more than he intended to say when he rose. The particular position he held there in reference to his own State rendered it his duty to be thus explicit, and he hoped would be received as his apology for so long detaining the Senate. As a representative of Virginia, he was willing to make a sacrifice of this salt tax in the His constituents were largely interested in the manufacture of salt. He was aware that those of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, who were also largely engaged in this manufacture, were in a different situation from most others. The salt manufacture in New York, Virginia, and Ohio, was sufficiently protected by nature. If, by any act of legislation on this subject, an injury was to be inflicted on any portion of the people of Massachusetts, Mr. R. should sincerely regret it. But let those concerned reflect that theirs was but a minor interest, when compared with the whole amount of capital embarked in this manufacture: while that whole amount was not less than eight or ten millions, the capital of Massachusetts was only two millions. Mr. R. could not see, for one, that the continuance of this duty was so very important to their prosperity. The honorable Senator who so ably represented them bad assured the Senate that, should the duty be repealed, his constituents would come here with no whining petitions and complaints. Mr. R. believed seek the up-building of their fortune from their own brawny arms and bold, untiring industry, than from the factitious aid of a precarious legislation. There was no duty which affected the community so widely, so universally, as a duty on salt; and while, in the process of reducing the revenue, the Senate were exploring the whole field of taxation, would they pitch upon a duty so intimately connected with the necessaries of life? He conceived not. Mr. WRIGHT said that he did not rise to prolong this debate, certainly not to follow the example of the two Senators from South Carolina, by leading off the debate into the discussion of incidental subjects of a personal and wholly irrelevant character. His state of health, too, admonished him not to speak more than was absolutely necessary; yet he was compelled, by the necessity of the case, to say a very few words in reply to the remarks of one of the Senators from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN.] In the first place, the Senate had heard the allegation of that Senator's strong suspicion that those who were in favor of this bill were not acting sincerely; and the remark seemed particularly aimed at the committee who had reported the bill. Mr. W. was sorry they stood so low in the Senator's opinion. But there was nothing to be done in the case. The Senator had a right not only to form his own opinion, but to promulgate it with a view to enlighten the Senate. Mr. W. had to deal only with facts; and what were the facts of this case? How came the committee with the subject? On the motion of that honorable Senator. And under what circumstances? With the utterance of a declaration about as charitable as some others in which he was in the habit of indulging-that the committee would make a mere demonstration, but would in fact do nothing. The Senator, however, was resolved that the committee should show what their intentions really were. The matter thus far was prophetic. He would now come to history. The Senator had done him the justice repeatedly to acknowledge that his personal exertions had not been wanting. The progress of the committee had been frankly communicated to that gentleman, so that they could not at least be accused of secrecy and dis guise. Whether any unnecessary delay had occurred in reporting the bill was a matter for the judgment of the public. For the truth of any allegations on this subject, he must refer to his humble credit here while he affirmed that the committee made what expedition they could. The bill was at length reported to the House as soon as it was prepared. But then the Senator asks, why was it not earlier taken up? Mr. W. said he knew it was unnecessary for him to answer that question before this Senate. What had been the declaration which he him. self had made, on bringing this bill into the House? Did he not then remark that the land bill must be the chief reliance of the country for any very important reduction of the revenue, and that all that could be effected in respect to duties must bear a comparatively small proportion? And what bill had been before the Senate when the bill in question had been reported? Was it not the land bill? And to whom was it to be charged that the discussion of the land bill occupied the Senate for weeks? To the Committee on Finance? To any member of that committee? Let the Senate answer. And what had followed the land bill? Another bill of & public nature, and of a highly important character. On Thursday the Finance Committee had directed Mr. W. to ask for the printing of the tariff bill, and it was or dered by the Senate; but as the printing was not com pleted in time for it to be brought in on Friday, he had then given notice that he should call up the bill on the Monday following. In compliance with this promise, he had accordingly moved on Monday that the bill be taken up, but a large majority of the Senate refused to do so. Mr. W. called it up the day following; and he would now ask, had the committee since then been chargeable with delaying its progress? Whence had come the leading prominent opposition to the bill? From a source, he must in candor say, he had not anticipated. Those who made the opposition to it bad of course perfect control as to the manner in which the opposition was to be conducted; but he had deemed it proper to make this answer to what he must consider a somewhat ungenerous imputation. The Senator from South Carolina had thought proper to present the Senate with a full-length portrait of his humble self. What effect this might have in furthering or preventing the repeal of the salt duty, it was not for him to say. It was a matter he had nothing to do with. The fact that he had been a member of the Committee on Manufactures in 1828, and that he had supported the tariff bill passed in that year, was, he believed, not new. But to a single cautious remark thrown out by the gentleman, he should take the liberty to reply. The honorable Senator intimated that somebody had been deceived on that occasion; and, by coupling himself and his friend, when speaking of that deception, he seemed to leave the inference that Mr. W. had been a party to it. Mr. W. had been well aware of the course the bill was likely to take in the House of Representatives. Whether the other gentleman alluded to was so or not, he did not know; but this he knew: that the shape given to the bill was that preferred by every member from the South. There had been a conflict as to principle between reporting a bill which should protect manufactures alone, and a bill which should extend the protection to the material which constituted the subject-matter of which the manu factured articles were composed, so as to extend the benefit to the agricultural interest also. An exceedingly amiable and worthy gentleman, since dead, [Mr. W. was understood as referring to the late Hon. Warren R. Davis, of South Carolina, ] had been a member with himself of the committee who reported the bill, and that gentleman's name and his own would be found recorded together in the votes upon it. The gen. tleman alluded to had been utterly opposed to a tariff bill of any kind; but if any was to be reported, he had his choice between the alternatives, and preferred the insertion of protecting duties on the raw material. Mr. W. knew that that gentleman and all his associates were sanguine in the belief that if the bill should be thus framed, the New England members would vote against it, and it would consequently be lost. Mr. W. did all he could to undeceive them, but he could not succeed. The Eastern members did, in the course of debate, make use of expressions severe and harsh, almost beyond the limits of parliamentary rule; and this strengthened the Southern members if the belief that the bill could not pass. But he had told them repeatedly that the very men who thus denounced the bill would, on the final question, vote in its favor; and the event justified his prediction. [Mr. DAVIS here interposed, and asked whether the Senator meant to say that he had voted for the bill.] Mr. W. replied, that in his former remarks he had had no reference to that gentleman. There were insinuations here made which seemed to intimate a suspicion that some deception was intended by the authors of the present bill; but he thought, if the gentleman who had thrown them out would give the matter a little more reflection, he must himself become satisfied that the insinuation was unfounded. If not, however, it was but of little moment. [SENATE. As to what had transpired here, whether in public proceedings or private conversations, he had nothing to do with it. It was years since the transactions took place, and many of the agents concerned in them had since passed off the stage of life; for himself, he was satisfied with the judgment which the country had pronounced upon his own course. He impugned that of no other gentleman. There was another point on which he must be indulg. ed in a word or two. The Senator had represented him as having stated that this article of salt had been intro. duced into the bill as a test question, whether the compromise was or was not to be adhered to. The Senator, it was true, had afterwards become satisfied of his mistake, and had corrected himself. What was it that Mr. W. had said in relation to the compromise? He had stated that it had been the purpose of the committee, in framing the present bill, to seek as well among articles the duty on which was above 20 per cent., as among those under 20 per cent., for such as might be made free of duty, without disturbing any very important interest of the country. He had expressly said that he felt under no restraint whatever in going above 20 per cent. or below it, to find articles of this description, and had stated his opinion, that what was called the compromise act had the force of an ordinary law of Congress, and no more. He had made the same declaration at the time the compromise bill passed; and he believed the Senator from South Carolina had done the same. It was now his duty to show that there had been no magic about the introduction of this article of salt into the bill. He had run his eye cursorily over a table containing the long list of protected articles, and had found that the duty on those charged with 20 per cent. amounted to $1,325,000. Congress, by unanimous consent, had reduced the duty on wine one half since the compromise; yet wine before the reduction paid more than 20 per cent. Since then it paid less. The committee proposed a similar reduction in the duty on foreign spirit. That was now over twenty per cent. But if nothing must be touched but what was under twenty per cent., then there must be deducted from the bill $429,000 on this item. There had been already deducted $52,000 on worsted yarn, and $339,000 on earthenware; and now salt must go, and various other items would have to fol low suit. Mr. W. had not risen to argue the principle; on that every gentleman must satisfy his own mind. All he meant to say was, that if the Senate was to be guided by the rule which had been laid down, all hope of any reduction in the revenue was gone, and either there must be a surplus, and a consequent distribution till the year 1842, or the sale of the public lands must be stopped entirely. He must be indulged in one more suggestion. The Senator from South Carolina had said that but for the compromise, the bill of 1832 would have produced an immense surplus. Mr. W. would ask the Senator whether, if the public lands had been retained, (as was then expected,) there would have been a surplus? None whatever. But Mr. W had voted for the compromise. True. He hoped for that one vote, at least, the Senator would not blame him. That he had many faults he felt most deeply; but he should not now so far comply with some examples as to enter into a discussion of his own public or private conduct. He had voted for the compromise act for the sake of quieting the country. He had not then believed that there would be any troublesome amount of surplus in the Treasury, nor did he now believe that there would have been, but for the immense sales of the public lands, which was an event not anticipated by any body. He would now observe, in conclusion, that, as a member of the Finance Commit |