SENATE.] Reduction of the Tariff. [FEB. 23, 1837. But to come to the matter more immediately under consideration: the Senator from South Carolina had tee, he had presented to the Senate the best bill he could. He had, indeed, been fully aware that it must disturb some domestic interests; but he defied the gen-made most extraordinary appeals to those representing tlemen who so loudly complained, to frame any bill which would not do so. There were some articles below 20 per cent. which the committee did not insert, because they believed it inexpedient to touch them, while there were others above 20 per cent. which they did insert, for the sake of the object to be accomplished, viz: some reduction in the revenue. Mr. STRANGE observed that the very deep reverence he entertained for this body always rendered it exceedingly painful to him to address it; and this reason alone had often restrained him from rising in his place, and disclaiming sentiments and opinions uttered by the Senator from South Carolina, in the name of the whole South, in which he differed with him toto cœlo. But on the present occasion he was compelled, both by duty and inclination, earnestly to protest against the practice into which that Senator had fallen-of assuming to speak for the whole South; in which general term the State he had the honor to represent was, of course, included. He was unwilling to see North Carolina tacked as a tail to any kite, or brought to act under any dictation. He was perfectly contented that South Carolina should be represented by the Senators she had herself chosen. They were signally able to represent her, and doubtless they fairly expressed her views upon this and all other subjects; but they had no right to speak in the name of the whole South; and, so far as North Carolina was concerned, he claimed for himself and his colleague the sole right of speaking for her upon that floor, as long as she herself thought proper to intrust them with that honor. He was not for making invidious comparisons, but he hazarded nothing in saying that, in all of which man has reason to be proud, North Carolina was behind no State in the Union. She would act in all matters acdording to her own sense of right, and would, on no occasion, be either led or bullied. Among the characteristics of her people were prudence and good sense; but it had been his lot to witness on this floor language of much rashness and indiscretion, as he conceived, uttered in the name of the South. He would instance particularly some remarks of the Senator, uttered the other day, upon the subject of abolition, which he disapproved at the time, but refrained from objecting to, for the reason before stated. He did not believe it either politic or proper, on every occasion of difference between us and our Northern brethren, to be throwing down the gauntlet of defiance, as had been done then. We as Southern States; and assumed over them a sort of dictatorial power to which he, for one, was not disposed to submit. In one particular he and the Senator from South Carolina agreed; and that was, in holding a tariff for protection to be unconstitutional. For the maintenance of this position, it was, if he rightly understood the matter, that South Carolina had placed herself in hostile attitude to the rest of the Union, and had nearly involved the country in the horrors of civil war. On one of the very few occasions on which he had heretofore addressed the Senate, he had remarked upon the great diversity of operation of human minds; by what various processes they arrive at the same conclusions, or wander into different results from the same premises; and of this the Senator from South Carolina and himself now presented an example. They agreed in the existence of an evil, but differed widely, very widely, as to the remedy. They were both opposed to a tariff for protec tion; but the Senator from South Carolina believed that the vote on the part of the Southern Senators to repeal the duty on salt would rivet the tariff upon them; while he, on his part, believed the object of removing the tar iff most attainable by direct blows at each feature of the odious system. He did not understand the Senator from South Carolina as objecting to present action upon any other ground than that of an act of Congress, which has been called in debate the compromise act; but, in relation to this, he solemnly warns the Southern Senators not to forfeit the vast advantages held under it by the South, for any bene. fit they may hope to derive from an immediate reduction of the tariff. But at the very moment the Senator speaks of a compact from which the South is deriving advantages, he disclaims being himself bound by it. If he is not bound by it, who is?". By adhering to the terms of the act of 1833, he urges we will secure certain benefits to the South, while by disturbing it the manufac turing interests will be released from the pledges under which it places them. What pledges? If any pledge exists on their part, where is the evidence of it? Do any of the Northern gentlemen acknowledge themselves under any pledge? I have heard none; but I have listened with surprise to the Senator from South Carolina, insisting upon a compact binding on them, while on his own part he disavows any obligation. How can there be a compromise without parties? or how shall an obli gation be effectual on one side, and have no correspondsemble here from different portions of the Union, to ent force on the other? The concession of the Senator confer together for the good of the whole. Far be it seems to me utterly to destroy the character of the act from him to advance the dangerous doctrine of the conof 1833, as a compact or compromise. It does not upon solidationist, that each member of this body is the repre- its face profess to have any such character, but stands sentative of the whole Union. No, no: each one is the pe- upon the statute book like any other act of Congress, culiar representative of those who elect him; but in his subject to modification or repeal at the pleasure of the representative capacity is governed, or rather should be, law-making power. If, from any circumstance not ap by the same laws of propriety, mutual concession, and pearing upon its face, it is entitled to more sacred re common honesty, which govern individuals in their inter- gard than other laws passed at the same or any other course with each other. He was not so credulous as to be- session of Congress, let the circumstance be pointed out, lieve that any mind can be altogether freed from the let us have the proof of its existence. He could easily shackles of interest; but, with the high intellectual powers perceive, from the delicate position in which South Car which in general characterize the members of the Nation.olina stood immediately preceding the passage of this al Legislature, we may reasonably expect that sound and liberal views of public policy will control their deliberations. Instead, then, of arousing their passions by threatening denunciations, our appeals should be addressed to their reason, and to that sense of common interest which recognises the real good of the whole in the welfare of each and every part. These appeals would seldom be disregarded, while threats and defiance, if productive of no other evil, must tend to weaken the bonds of our Union. act, it might be viewed by her with peculiar interest, and demand from her the most profound respect, and exercise over her actions a sort of magic control; but no reason had yet been shown why to any other State of the Union it should be held as any thing more than an ordinary act of Congress. Its binding efficacy as a com pact or compromise was disavowed on one side of the House, and not avowed on the other. But, independent of any obligation to respect this act, the Senator from South Carolina seems to think that, in 1842, we of the South will stand in a much better situation by leaving the act of 1833 unaltered, than we shall do by any present modifications we can possibly make. This position is plausible enough, admitting the act of 1833 is in truth a compromise; but in denying that one party is bound by it, while he insists that the other is not, the Senator abandons every legal idea of a compromise; and that being done, he was altogether at a loss to perceive any other ground of advantage to be claimed from it. But the Senator warns us against an insidious attempt to induce the unwary Southern Senators to abandon the strong ground they now occupy, by holding out to them fallacious hopes of an alteration of the tariff, advantageous to the South, with a view to open the whole subject, and ultimately to fix upon us a tariff more burdensome than that of 1828. He has given us a recital, in which he seeks to fix upon those who bring forward this meas ure flagrant falsehood and perfidy on a former occa sion, and from thence very rationally argues that they are not to be trusted now. But we must be permitted to doubt the correctness of the representation he had made. He did not mean to say that the Senator had not represented things as they impressed themselves upon his mind; but we all know, when the passions and feelings are excited, we see each other and each other's conduct in false lights, and draw conclusions the most erroneous and unjust. The Senator was much excited at the period of which he speaks, and his fervid imagination led him to believe that a deception had been practised upon him, because matters had not resulted according to his wishes and expectations. The Senator's impressions, it seemed to him, were met by the most conclusive proof to the contrary. Among the parties to the fraud of which he speaks, the Senator has placed one now standing very high in the public confidence; one who, among those who are least disposed to do him justice, has had full credit for a remarkably keen sense of his own interests. To the honor of our country, it may be said that honesty, or at least the appearance of it, is essential to a man's long holding a place in public favor. Allowing, then, the distinguished individual alluded to as destitute of moral principle as his worst enemies affect to believe him, would he have been so short-sighted, so recklessly indifferent to his own interest, as to enmesh himself in promises there was no necessity for making, for the mere purpose of breaking them in a few hours, in the face of the whole world? Can greater fatuity than such a course would indicate be imagined and can it for a moment be supposed of one whom his enemies have entitled the magician? But let us suppose all this possible; would not the fact have been long since brought home to the personal knowledge of every individual in this wide-spread com. munity? Those with whom the knowledge of the fact exists, if it exists at all, have not been wanting in motives to give it publicity and authenticity, if the thing were possible. Mr. S. said he was glad he had not yet been long enough in political life to have lost his own honesty, or his confidence in that of others. He was the representative of a people with whom nothing but truth and plain dealing could ever be practised or held in estimation; and he would far rather be the "deceived" than the "deceiver." The time might come when longer experience would convince him that in this body, as well as elsewhere, men are not always what they seem; but, for the present, he had just grounds for confiding in the sincerity of those who brought forward this measure. He believed it to be their honest purpose to carry it out in all its apparent fairness. He saw no compromise standing in the way of a vote to suppress the duty on salt. He perceived no advantages to be gained in futuro by declining to do so; he was satisfied that the present in [SENATE. terests of those whom he represented would be promoted by its suppression; and he was certain they would not receive, as an apology from him, that the Senator from South Carolina had assured him their interests would be more certainly promoted by postponing a present and certain good, to one uncertain in itself in the distant fu ture. Mr. CALHOUN said he had heard so much of prom ise, and had seen so little of performance, since he came into public life, that the Senator from New York must really excuse him for not giving that implicit faith to all he heard, which he might, at an earlier period of life, have been disposed to yield. If any one looked at the indisposition of men in power to yield any portion of the power they held, he would readily become convinced that it was a most difficult task to get rid of existing du ties. This was not the first time he had been led to make this remark. At the very outset of this session he had said that there would be no reduction of the reve nue, and no deposite bill; nor had he uttered this prophecy from any peculiar trait of suspicion which belonged to his character, but from the teachings of experience. Why was the Senate not agreed on this measure? Here was a dominant majority held as closely bound by party ties as he had ever seen a set of men in his life; and yet they could not get along in a bill to reduce the revenue, without the votes of his colleague and himself. It was manifest that the reigning party were divided on the tariff, and equally obvious that that difference did not divide them politically. The tariff was one of those open questions on which men of both sides were left at liberty to vote as they pleased. The party would never get Northern Senators to vote for repealing the protective duties. Mr. C. did, therefore, want faith in the sincerity of the present effort. The Senator from New York [Mr. WRIGHT] had disclaimed all unnecessary delay in reference to the present bill; but did not all know that it was not until two weeks after the land bill that this bill had been brought forward? What hindered its earlier consideration? Gentlemen had suffered the new fortification bill to be taken up, and then a bill to enlarge the army, and then an armory bill; all these consumed time; and, under such circumstances, he must doubt the zeal of gentlemen in pushing, as they might have done. And why was it discussed now, when there was not the remotest chance of its becoming a law? It might produce political agitation, but no reduction of the revenue. If gentlemen had been sincere and earnest in their anxiety to accomplish that object, why were not the items in this bill divided into two distinct classes, and reported in two different bills? In regard to many of them there was no dispute; and if these had been classed together, the bill containing them would have been passed at once by common consent. From the mixing up of these with other items which were sure to produce great controversy, Mr. C. was justified in believing, and time would show the correctness of the opinion, that they would have much talk and no action. Mr. C. was not opposed to those who in good faith desired to reduce the revenue. Those who professed to have this desire had the majority. Let that majority be brought together, and let the declaration be made in a certain quarter that all who oppose the measure would be considered as out of the true faith, and then Mr. C. would believe gentlemen to be in earnest; otherwise he could not. But the Senator from New York [Mr. WRIGHT] had declared that, if there was any secret understanding in regard to the tariff of 1828, he knew nothing of it. I was (said Mr. C.) consulted at the time, to know how the South would go, and whether the South would sustain the bill as it came from the Middle States? We did so sustain it, but refused to agree to such amendments as would suit the members from the Eastern States. The internal history of the bill shows what was our calculation. Can any man believe that Southern men would ever have voted for such a bill as the tariff of 1828, unless they believed that by so voting they would insure its ultimate defeat? Do not all the world know that we of the Southern States were for free trade, and looked upon all these protecting duties as neither more nor less than sheer oppression? We surely had an ordinary measure of common sense; and would we vote to resist all amendments to such a bill as was ultimately passed, unless we felt ourselves assured of a contingent advantage? And what was that advantage? We saw that the system might be pushed too far to suit New England; that it might be made to affect injuriously the interests of navigation and commerce; and that in that case they would go against the bill. Surely we must have had some assurance that in the final vote New England would join us. We took our hazard on this issue. We resisted all amendments, and kept the bill in such a shape that we were assured they never could vote for it. Our great inducement was a hope of being able to prostrate the administration, and aiding New England in the defeat of the bill; but the very men who had the most warmly denounced the bill suddenly wheeled round, and, on the final question, took ground against us. If, after all this, I am a little suspicious that gentlemen may be acting here a political part, with the intention of again bringing the whole industry of the country under the action of Congress, and thus gain for their party an unlimited control of its affairs, is it to be wondered at? Is it marvellous that I, who have seen and mingled with and been an actor in such a scene as passed here in 1828, should suspect the entire sincerity of the same gentle men in 1837? But the honorable Senator says that salt is not the only article selected by the Finance Committee as an object of reduction; but that others, on which the existing duty is over 20 per cent., have also been inserted in this bill. It is very true. But as the act of 1833 was an adjustment of the tariff, by way of compromise between the manufacturing and agricultural interests of the country, some duties included in it may be reduced by common consent of both parties. Thus, the duties on wines and vinous spirits may be lowered, without interfering with the tariff system, because they are in a manner open articles; but this cannot be said of this duty on salt. This is a test question, and the only article in the bill which presents a fair test, whether the compromise is to be respected or not. On that view of the subject I take my ground. The difference between reducing this salt duty all at once, and reducing it gradually, presents no temptation to me. I neither can nor will be caught in such a trap. In 1840 and 1841 the duties go off rapidly. I shall then claim the benefit of our side of the arrangement; and shall I not be stronger then if I concede now? I put it to all Southern men, whether, even allowing that the compromise has no absolutely binding force, it will not be our wisest policy to hold to it? Whether we shall not thereby render ourselves stsonger in 1841 and 1842? Most certainly we shall. When Senators on the other side sit silent while we thus explain our understanding of the agreement, I hold it to be an acquiescence in our view; for surely it is a most unmanly course if they mean otherwise. We are told that the President elect is most wonderfully attached to the Southern States and the advance. ment of Southern interests; and the evidence is the speech he delivered in New York previous to the vote he gave to fix the tariff upon us in 1828; and the vote is not permitted to explain the speech. He voted for the duty on wool and woollens, and for the whole bill of 1828-one of the most oppressive measures to the South that ever was devised; and yet gentlemen have faith in [FEB. 23, 1837. his deep attachment to Southern interests. I am much disposed to look back. Perhaps it is constitutional in my mind; but I feel a strong proneness to retrospection. I well remember the constitution of the first cabinet of General Jackson. There was Mr. Berrien, a stout antitariff man, and stoutly opposed to the tariff of 1828, (which was passed by the vote of Mr. Van Buren.) Then there was Mr. Branch, decidedly opposed to it. Mr. Ingham, who acted a manly, open part in that business. All these were General Jackson's warm friends. With them were Mr. Dickerson, of New Jersey, a most thorough tariff man, and Mr. Woodbury, of New Hampshire, who (to do him justice) acted not badly in 1828. At bottom, he was opposed to the bill. He acted a very different part from Mr. Van Buren. Mr. Van Buren, if we may judge by his vote, was most thoroughly tariff. Yet it seems extraordinary to the Senator from New York that, with that thoroughly tariff man for President, I should be unwilling to have the compromise disturbed! Let us have some proof that Mr. Van Buren is as hostile to the tariff as the Senator from North Carolina says he is. Until I have proof on that point, I, for one, can never consent to have the tariff question opened, because I am very sure, the moment it is, we in the minority are sure of being sacrificed. Whatever surplus may be leit in the Treasury, it is infinitely safer to return it to the States, until a gradual reduction of the revenue shall have dried up the sources from which it is derived. I have determined, under present circumstances, not to call up the deposite bill. I am well persuaded, if the Government shall go on in future as extravagantly as it has lately done, there will soon be complaint heard about a surplus in the Treasury. I have no faith in the present state of the country. It is unsound. There is a plethoric, bloated state of apparent prosperity; but the slightest reverse will throw our whole money concerns into irretrievable confusion. The currency, both of Great Britian and America, was never before in so criti cal a condition. Mr. C. concluded by reiterating the declaration that he had taken his stand upon the advantages to be deri. ved to the South from an adherence to the compromise. Mr. PRESTON next addressed the Senate. He commenced with a series of remarks intended to justify the course pursued by himself and his colleague [Mr. CAL HOUN] in resisting the reduction of the duties proposed in the present bill. He thought that it would be hard for the friends of the administration who advocated the bill to show that they (himself and colleague) were tariff men, and Mr. Van Buren anti-tariff. As to the act of 1833, President Jackson had, in his message, expressly recog nised it as a compromise, and recommended its observance. Little did he expect to be so soon contradicted on the floor of the Senate by such devoted friends. But he was now the setting sun--another luminary was rising in the political sky, and all eyes were now directed to the flaming east. It would do now to say that the act was no compromise, and that all arguments based on that supposition were futile. Yet the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] had pledged himself at the time, and still recognised the obligation, sacredly to observe it. The South had at least that guarantee; and, for himself, he preferred relying on that ground to trusting the guar antee of the chairman of the Committee on Finance. The Senator from Virginia, it seemed, considered Mr. Van Buren as pledged to the South; and this on some other ground of assurance besides his famous speech in New York, and his vote in direct contradiction of it. It gave Mr. P. unfeigned pleasure to hear such assurances, and he trusted in God that they would be carried out. He could tell that gentleman that in such a course he would not be opposed by South Carolina. They had had the prophecy, now let actions made it good. The honorable FEB. 23, 1837.] Reduction of the Tariff. [SENATE. bargain, nor does he think either the North or the South pledged to its observance. Now, I do know that it was regarded as a bargain. I gave my pledge in behalf of those whom I represent. They consider themselves as bound in good faith; and if a compliance with it will take the last cent of my constituents out of their pockets, it shall be complied with, so far as depends on me, because I respect their honor above their property. I, for one, do not hold myself at liberty to disregard that act because it is only a bit of parchment. I am not at liberty to tear bits of parchment the moment they stand in the way of my pecuniary interest. But I will not argue the question. As to the surplus in the Treasury, I do not feel myself called upon to speak, at this time, about its disposition. The administration of General Jackson declared to the nation that there would be no surplus. I am glad now to hear that there will be one. I am happy in beholding the rising auspices of my country; and if the majority in power consider themselves free from any obligations to respect the act of 1833, and are sincere in their purpose to effect a reduction in the revenue, I hold myself ready to push with them at the tariff; but I fear that, instead of a dominant and triumphant majority, those who make that attempt in earnest will speedily find themselves in a lean and powerless minority. Senator from Virginia was the priest upon the tripod just now; but how did the Senate, or how could the South, know but another priest might shortly mount another tripod, and deliver a different response? The Senator from Virginia spoke for the South; the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BUCHANAN,] who was now unfortunately absent, might perchance feel in his turn the influence of the god, and utter a vaticination calculated for a different meridian. Mr. P. said that he received with great respect whatever fell from the gentleman from Virginia; but, in this case, he must be pardoned for feeling some little distrust. It might be so, as the Senator supposed; but, for one, he should be glad to hear the Senator from Pennsylvania rise in his place, and make a declaration in consonance with that which had just been uttered by the Senator from Virginia. But the gentleman (said Mr. P.) qualified his position by a certain set of words, carefully selected and cautiously weighed. The new President, it seems, is practically opposed to an extravagant tariff--ay, practically. He is for none of your vague abstractions--ob, no. His is a practical operation; and we are told this by honorable gentlemen who hunted down a late administration because they were the friends of a "judicious tariff." And now, sir, can the gentleman tell us what is a practical tariff? What the dominant party mean by no abstractions, I un- Mr. WRIGHT stated that the rate of duty on common derstand to be no constitutional objections; for the consalt was a fraction over 82 per cent., (taking the year stitution is a mere abstraction--a mere bit of parchment. 1835 as the standard.) If the expression of sentiment But we of the weaker interest have nothing to appeal was to prevail which had been given here in regard to to but papers and parchments; we have nothing to rely articles over and under 20 per cent., it was of course upon but these abstractions. I should have been glad useless to occupy any more time in the discussion of the to have heard from the honorable Senator what is to be present motion. He must, however, detain the Senate the exact nature and extent of the practical opposition for a short time, in order to explain the motives of his which we of the South may expect from the powers that own action in inserting this article of common salt in the are to be. The present President came into power as the bill, with a view to abolishing the tax now imposed upon friend of a practical judicious tariff; and what did that it. He would first, however, offer one word in regard turn out to be? The tariff of 1828, followed by the to the views which had been given of the compromise tariff of 1832-a tariff which we of the South felt our- act, and of its limits. If he was right, the views which selves compelled to resist. But the honorable Senator gentlemen had expressed on that subject were certainly informs us that we have reason to think the feeling in wrong. It seemed to be assumed, by gentlemen of all the country in favor of high protecting duties has been political interests, that all duties at 20 per cent. were greatly weakened. But where is the proof of this? We inviolable; because the compromise bill referred to all all remember the history of this feeling heretofore. We duties over 20 per cent., and Congress had acted on all all know that the tariff system went on by constantly in- under 20 per cent.; so that this particular point, while creasing majorities; and the larger the tariff proposed, the duty was exactly 20 per cent., formed an exception the more votes were brought up in its favor. And what from all human action for a certain term of years. It is the state of the interests still concerned in the same sys- might be so; but he owed it to himself, as a member of tem? What one State has changed its policy or its prin- that Congress which had passed the bill, that he had ciples on this subject? Do we not see, to this very hour, made up a record for himself, and he considered the that the moment those interests are touched their repre- compromise act as standing precisely on the same basis sentatives act in disregard to all party ties? Will gen- as any other law; and no matter what were the terms tlemen, in a moment of triumph, because, with the aid employed in it, he was just as much at liberty to act on of myself and my colleague, they find themselves able to that particular law as on any other passed by the Legis break down the tariff of 1828 and 1832, sing the flatter-lature. He would now explain what were the views he ing song in our ears that the tariff feeling is dead, and entertained in regard to that bill. All duties not affect the tariff interest changed? If so, why have they not ed by the action of the bill were equally subject to res struck at the whole system? Gentlemen talk about the ervation; all over 20 per cent. were in a course of refruit of taxes going into the pockets of the rich, while duction, while those at and under 20 per cent. were they are gathered from the labor of the poor; but what, He found, to-day, that in the views of gentlemen I pray you, has been the movement of their whole party? those articles alone might be rendered free of duty Has it not been to make all those articles which are inwhich were below 20 per cent. He would ask of all tended for the consumption of the rich free of duty, and Senators who had been here when the compromise bill only strike at salt and spirits? Why did they select was passed, and still held a seat upon that floor, why China? Does not that belong almost exclusively to the the duties at 20 per cent. were to be held inviolable, rich? Look at the whole list proposed in the present while all above and below that point were subject to the bill, and how many of them are articles for the relief of action of Congress? He had thought that every duty the poor man? Yet we are taunted and twitted for left stationary by the compromise act itself was entirely favoring the rich against the poor, while they them- open, if gentlemen chose to resort to that bill as an auselves are taking off the duty from the conveniences or thority for legislation. But, for himself, he did not adluxuries of the rich alone. Why? With a view to favor mit that it possessed any binding force beyond any other the rich? I do not say that. But out of a half-way respect for the compromise of 1833. The Senator from New York [Mr. WRIGHT] does not consider that act as a VOL. XIII.-59 not. law. Then, as to the important article of common salt: be stood, with his respected colleague, [Mr. TALLMADGE,] n SENATE.] Reduction of the Turiff. [FEB. 23, 1837. when seeking to reduce the revenue, to go into the examination of articles above twenty per cent. as under. He should not, indeed, touch any of the protected in portion to the gain which would accrue to the country by taking off the tax. This article of salt was not the only item which the committee had touched, when the tax was over twenty per cent. They had laid their hand on some which enjoyed a protection over one hun. dred. The great interest of the country in a reduction of the revenue was paramount to the prosperity of some particular interests. As almost every article which they could reach was an article of luxury, and, therefore, a legitimate subject for taxation, it had given him pleasure to find in the long list at least one which was as neces sary to human life as any thing which could be conceived, not excepting bread-stuffs themselves. He would not deny that this consideration had pressed with important a situation the most interested of any gentleman on the floor, so far as his constituents were concerned. There was no State in the Union which made as much salt, or any thing like as much, as New York. While he thank-terests, when their protection held any reasonable proed the Senator from Missouri for the favorable opinion he had expressed with regard to his course on this subject, he must be permitted to say that he did not know whether he truly represented the wishes of his State when he urged that this article should be duty free. He believed he did; but he was not quite confident that such was the case. Ilis conviction was, that the measure would be sustained; and why? He would tell gentlemen. It would, on examination, be found that what had been stated by the Senator from Missouri was perfectly correct; namely, that in the year 1835 the value of imported salt had been something over $600,000, while the duties paid upon it amounted to $537,000. What was the amount of the interest which New York desired to be protected? The factories in that State now manufac-weight upon his mind. On many other items in the bill tured two millions of bushels per annum-perhaps he erred, but he believed that it was at least that. The revenue imposed by the State, at 6 cents per bushel, had amounted the last year to over $100,000. This was a very important revenue to the State. A hundred thousand dollars a year derived from an excise! Was it then prudent, patriotic, or proper, in him, to contend that the country ought to pay a tax of $530,000 to protect his State in the reception of a revenue of $100,000? | In reply to this question, he was compelled to say no. As to the interest of the manufacturers themselves, he presumed they would be willing to compromise, and let the protecting duty go, if the State will release them from its excise. The argument, therefore, came back to the principle, whether, while the money was not wanted, he should stand there in his place, and tax the nation half a million of dollars, in order that his own State might get a hundred thousand. He could not consider such to be his duty. What, then, was the state of the manufacture? It was now as perfect as it ever could be; and here let him say, on his own knowledge, that it had been on nearly as large a scale as at present, with a price of only ten cents a bushel. It had been sold for even less than that. He spoke of that part of the price which went to the manufacturer, after deducting the State tax. The tax had been twelve and a half cents; it was now reduced to six and a quarter. On the same principle which had made him unwilling to vote for retaining a revenue of $340,000 for the sake of protecting a branch of manufacture in which $150,000 capital had been embarked, he was unable to vote to retain this duty on salt. With the exception of the State of New York, but few factories would be affected, to any extent, by making it a free article. There were a few on the Atlantic border which would be somewhat affected by it. He knew that there were factories, also, near the river St. Lawrence; but, for their protection, he was willing to rest on the diffi culties and cost of bringing in the foreign article. He could not, also, forget that about one half of those he represented derived their supply of salt, not from the State factories, but from foreign importation; that they paid the same tax as the rest of the Union, and would be proportionally relieved by its removal. Thus situated, he had a very difficult duty to perform; but he had inclined, on the whole, to taking off the duty. And here he must be permitted to say that a misunderstanding still existed as to the principles which had governed the committee in reporting this bill to the Senate. It seemed to be supposed that the committee had felt themselves restrained from touching any article the duty on which exceeded twenty per cent.; but the insertion of this article of salt was one fact which must effectually dispel that idea. He was just as willing, he had acted with extreme reluctance; but it was with lively satisfaction that he found himself justified in proposing to abolish entirely the tax upon salt. Mr. PRESTON next addressed the Senate. He said, if he had rightly understood the Senator from New York, he had maintained the position that, even adhering to the compromise act, this article of salt might be intro duced into the bill. The Senator had further stated, that although he did not hold himself bound by the com promise, yet he was indisposed to touch important protected interests if it could be avoided. Mr. P. said that, for himself, he was disposed to reduce the duties whenever they ran counter to the law of 1833. He was a thoroughly anti-tariff politician, and ready and disposed, as such, to go all lengths, if he were not concluded by the law of 1833. He should vote to reduce any duty, when the reduction did not interfere with that act; but, whenever it did, he should steadily vote against it; for he was satisfied, from all the indications around him, that the anti-tariff interest in that chamber was the weaker interest, and that the only safety for them of the South was to adhere to the compromise. If once the tariff question were opened, and the existing provi sions on that subject thrown afloat, Southern Senators would at once be reduced to an impotent minority, and would be compelled to sit by and see their rights, and their feelings too, sacrificed before their faces by inter ested combinations. The indications this day given bad left no doubt on that subject. The compromise had been assented to by various sections of the country, for the sake of quieting the difficulties which agitated and threatened the Union; the larger interest yielding some. thing to the weaker, and the weaker also consenting to relax something of their demands, lest their opponents should be driven to extremities. While the measure was under consideration, the inquiry had been put to himself, whether his State would be satisfied with such a measure. He had replied in the affirmative, and he therefore considered himself as personally identified with a part of the arrangement; for the Legislature of his own State had acted formally in this matter, expressly recog nising the act of 1833 as a compromise. That act bound him, and bound her; and when South Carolina gave pledges, she abode by them. She had pledged herself to the compromise; and he, as her representative, should stand to it. No doubt, the compromise bill had no force as a constitutional arrangement; but all parties had agreed to it, and the country had gone on well under it. But, even if it were not for the interest of all to adbere to it, was it fit and becoming to open afresh all the wounds of the country, and bring back all the angry and violent emotions which had been excited by the tariff controversy? If it were for the sake of peace alone, be would not disturb the arrangement which had been |