FEB. 24, 1837.] Reduction of the Tariff. domestic interests should remain protected; and we would now discover, from the vote on this amendment, who were her real and who were her professing friends. And here he would tender his thanks to the Committee on Finance, whose bill now before the Senate did not embrace a reduction or repeal of the duties on this article. Mr. B. deplored the condition of the poor in our large cities, at this inclement season of the year. He sympathized with them in their sufferings, and would gladly afford them relief, if it were in his power. But would the amendment accomplish this object? Before it could possibly become a law, and any supply of foreign coal be received, even from Nova Scotia, our canals would be again open, domestic coal would pour in upon them, and the price would be reduced, never again, he trusted, to rise beyond its fair value. If he believed the present high price would continue, he might himself be strongly inclined to vote for a reduction of the duty. Whilst from his heart he regretted the sufferings of the poor in our commercial cities, it was his duty not to forget the interests of the same class who are engaged in the interior in conducting the coal trade. The coal in the mine was not worth more than from twenty-five to fifty cents per ton. All the additional value of the article arose from the wages of labor, from the price of freight and commissions, and from the tolls upon our canals and railroads. The number of laborers employed in this business was very great, and increasing every year. Their rights ought to be protected, as well as those of other citizens. To throw them out of employment for the benefit of foreign labor would be both cruel and unjust. There was another view of this subject, well worthy of our consideration. The coasting trade in coal, of which our countrymen enjoyed the monopoly, promised in a few years to become almost as great a nursery of seamen for our navy and commercial marine as the same trade now was in Great Britain. Already, during the last year, there had sailed from New York and Philadelphia five thousand vessels laden with this article, whose freight amounted to more than a million of dollars. This trade would soon be able to protect itself, unless you arrest its progress by rash and imprudent legislation. All we ask is, that you shall let us alone. In that event, you will protect your marine, and raise up sailors who will carry your flag in triumph over the world. Mr. NILES said that he had but a word to say in reply to the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, having already detained the Senate longer than he intended. He did not perceive that the Senator had denied his facts or answered his arguments. He was mistaken in the assertion that the whole argument in the report of the Committee on Manufactures rested on the assumption that the duty on coal had not been imposed for the protection of the domestic coal trade; that point was only incidentally touched upon in the report, and formed no essential part of its argument. The basis of the argument in the report was, that the coal interest had no need of protection; that it was sufficiently protected by the nature of the business, and that it was unjust to impose a high rate of duty on one of the first necessaries of life, for the purpose of protection. Another important argument in the report was, that the coal trade was a monopoly in fact, and that it was unjust and dangerous to take away foreign competition from a business which was in the hands of a few large companies, and protected from all competition at home. The Senator had denied that the coal business is a monopoly, yet he had stated no facts to prove the assertion, unless it was the general one, that the coal region extend ed over a large district of country, and that it was impossible it could be monopolized by a few companies. But he (Mr. N.) did not say that the whole coal region [SENATE. was monopolized by a few companies, but only that the coal business was in the hands of a few wealthy corpo. rations, who managed to control the supply and the price. The Senator had stated that these companies had expended thirty or forty millions of dollars in canals and railroads; which proved that, however extensive the coal district might be, the business could not be carried on without an outlay which could only be encountered by wealthy companies. Instead of proving that this business was not monopolized and controlled by a few corporations, the facts stated by the honorable Senator tended to show that it was; they were in confirmation of what he (Mr. N.) had maintained. Mr. WEBSTER observed that it had been very truly stated that coal was, in this country, a necessary of life; and an argument had thence been drawn which was capable of producing a very erroneous impression in the community, to wit, that the interest of the poor requi red the interposition of Congress to remove the duty now levied on its importation. Mr. W. said that, considering what had been the former course of Congress on this subject, it was as clear a proposition as could be stated, that the interest of the poor required the continuance of the tax. If he were not convinced of this, he certainly should not be in favor of retaining it. Whether we looked to the debates of the convention, or to the earliest acts of the Federal Government, we should perceive that it was admitted to be proper and necessary to levy a duty on imported coal. One of the very first articles enumera ted in the first revenue law was foreign coal. The protection of the domestic article was warmly advocated, at that time, by the Virginia delegation, as an obvious duty of the new Government; for, although all duties had had revenue as their main object, yet, ever since 1824, many of them had been continued for other purposes, and, among the rest, this duty on coal. Mr. W. had voted against retaining it; but, from that time to this, the duty had retained its place in the law, on a presumed pledge of protection to such of our own citizens as were engaged in furnishing coal from the mines of our own country. A large amount of capital had been invested in machinery and wages, and also in the construction of canals and railroads, leading from the mines towards places of deposite or shipment. An examination would show that the sum thus invested was not less than forty millions of dollars. What, then, was the proper course to be pursued, with a view to bring down the price of coal? American coal was not the only fuel of this kind in market. It stood alongside of the imported article, and there was a fair competition between them. Was there any thing so effectual in reducing the price as a fair and free competition? Here the skill and industry of our own and of foreign nations competed for the mar ket; and if any thing was likely to reduce the price of this necessary of life, and thus to benefit the poor, it was this. That taking off the duty would reduce the price was perfect nonsense. The effect would be just the reverse. Mr. W. observed that it was this continual bringing forward of propositions to alter the most settled features of our policy which was, in practice, so injurious to American industry and enterprise. In illustration of this remark, Mr. W. observed that it was not long since a very curious debate had taken place in London, at a meeting of the creditors of the late Duke of York. Among other items of his property was a great coal mine in Nova Scotia. Certain trustees of the estate had been directed to work it. The question with the credi tors was, whether the working of this mine should still be prosecuted, or what should be done with it. On inquiring of the trustees, those gentlemen stated that the nine was now not very productive, but that the policy of the American Government, in relations to duties, was SENATE.] Reduction of the Tariff. [FEB. 24, 1837. go on? The nation, while surrounded by all manner of natural advantages, must sit down content to be poor. Was it not manifest, where few were very rich, that any thing which carried on the work of supply must be ac vacillating and uncertain, that very soon the protecting duty on foreign coal would probably be taken off, and then they would have the entire American market. The proposition of the honorable Senator from Connecticut was calculated to hasten this state of things, and to jus-complished by combination and the collection of capital? tify the calculation of these British trustees. So it seemed that the motion of the creditors of the Duke of York was to aid the poor of the United States! The effect would be found directly the reverse. The repeal of the duty would be immediately followed by an increase of the price of the article. The speech of the honorable Senator seemed to proceed on the assumption that Pennsylvania alone was to be affected by the measure proposed; but such was by no means the fact. It was very true that Pennsylvania was largely interested. She possessed extensive coal mines, and large amounts of capital had been invested by her citizens in this branch of enterprise. But the mountains of Maryland were as rich in bituminous coal as those of Pennsylvania were in the anthracite. Why had the Government subscribed so largely to aid in the construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal? Was it not expressly with a view to reaching the extensive coal beds near Cumberland? That canal, when completed, would be possessed of great facilities, and, in some respects, would have the advantage over the canals of Pennsylvania, because it would not be frozen so early in the season. Congress had done this partly with a view to securing their own supply. It was said, indeed, that the freight on coal was very large; but every body knew that, while our exports were cumbrous, coal was brought back partly as ballast. Vessels which took out cargoes of cotton brought coal, as they brought salt, on their return voyage, and at very low rates, so there was no great protection to our own miners in that respect. Mr. W. said he objected to this breaking in upon a course of long-established and settled policy. This item of coal presented one of the clearest cases in the whole list of protected articles. It stood on as firm ground as woollens themselves, because the business of supplying it to the home market could not be carried on without great investment of capital. That investment had been actually made. The enterprise was in a course of suc cessful operation, and the ultimate effect must be the supply of this important article of fuel at the cheapest practicable rate. The fears of monopoly were groundless; the canals were open to all-so was the mountain property; and it was abundant in Pennsylvania, in Virginia, and in the States on both sides of the great mountain range. And, if any reliance was to be placed on information received, the article could be furnished in abundance, with a reasonable profit, and at a cheap rate. Under these circumstances, would it be wise in Government to interfere? No complaint had been heard till within one season past; and because there was, at this time, a temporary pressure, was it worth while to raise the cry of the poor against the rich, and thus to destroy a branch of industry which was itself, and in its consequences, an invaluable boon to the poor? Was this a long-sighted policy? He thought not; and it was evident the Committee on Finance had thought not, for they had not inserted this item in the bill. Mr. W. said this protecting duty on coal stood upon a just foundation; it was subject to the gradual operation of the act of 1833; and ought not to be meddled with. This was no case in which the abuses of "regraters," "forestallers," &c., called for the interposition of the law. The trade was free and open to all; coal lands were cheap, and in market every where, but it required the outlay of some capital to turn them to account. If this perpetual cry against every thing which required capital, and this crusade against all who possessed it, was to be indulged, how could the internal improvement of the country ever If the Government were resolved not to leave the enter prises of our citizens to the effect of fair competition, but would perpetually interpose, under the false notion of protecting the poor, great results could never be produced. The Pennsylvania canals have been decried as a monopoly. They were not a monopoly. Some of them belonged to the State, and, with a wise and liberal policy, she had thrown them open to all. Since the Government had, by its own acts, invited this investment, would they not consent to let well enough alone? He was not willing to turn accidents, or mere transient and temporary difficulties, into the grounds of continuous usage. He wished to see other avenues opened to the mountains as well as those of Pennsylvania. He held that the true interest of the community in relation to this supply of coal, and in consideration of the present state of things, was to let those who had embarked in the business go on, till competition between them should, by its natural operation, bring down the price to its minimum. To that point it was fast bastening; and when that had been reached, it would be time enough to consider whether any other and further legislation upon the subject was necessary. Mr. W. was opposed to the amendment. Mr. NILES remarked that he was surprised to hear it asserted that the poor had no interest in this question; he thought they had a deep interest. [Here Mr. WEBSTER made some explanation.] The gentleman says not much interest; that does not essentially vary the assertion. He thought they had an important interest--more than that of any other class. He (Mr. N.) had supposed that it was their true interest to have the price of fuel low; but it would seem that the honorable Senator thought that their interests would be promoted by keeping up the price. Are high prices of the necessaries of life to bene fit the poor? Mr. N. could not understand this, nor the reasoning by which such a proposition was sustained. It seemed that the poor have not been able to take this enlightened view of their own interests; and he wished to remind the honorable Senator that the attention of the Committee on Manufactures had been called to this subject by a memorial signed by one or two thousand of the Senator's own constituents, comprising, he presumed, a large portion of the laboring class and poor of Boston, who probably do not understand their own interest as well as their representative here, or they would not have petitioned for a repeal of the duty on coal. They doubtless supposed that their interest lay on the side of reduction; but it seems they were mistaken, and that their true interest consists in keeping up the duty. The Sen. ator has informed us that the coal duty was proposed by a gentleman from Virginia, and was at first five cents per bushel. He is entirely mistaken in one of his facts, as he would have learned had he read the report, or al tended to what he (Mr. N.) had stated; and whether he was equally accurate in his other fact, Mr. N. could not say. The coal duty, instead of having been at first five cents, was but two cents the bushel; the next year it was raised to three; afterwards to four and a half cents; then to five, and finally to six cents. It might be true that the duty on coal had been first proposed by a gentleman from Virginia; but, from whatever quarter it may have come, it was perfectly clear it was a duty for revenue only, down to the year 1824. It might be true, but it appeared a strange statement to him, that a duty for protection had originated from Virginia; he had always sup posed that State had been decidedly opposed to the tariff principle, at all times and in all its forms. On Mr. N. said that he repudiated the doctrine that taxes on the necessaries of life ever were, or ever could be, beneficial to the laboring classes or to the poor. the contrary, he believed them to be unreasonable; and, when high, to be unjust and oppressive. This was the case of the present high duty on fuel, which, in its operation upon the poor in our cities, was oppressive, cruel, and inhuman. Taxes on necessaries must raise the price of labor, as the laborer is worthy of his hire, and must at least have a living; if he is starved, he cannot work. The true policy of wise legislation is to lighten the burdens of labor, instead of taking from it the "bread it has earned." In all legislation affecting the great interests of the country, whether in Congress or the State Legislatures, there has been a tendency to favor capital rather than labor; to benefit the few rather than the many. It is not difficult to discover the causes of this. It is the few controlling capital who exercise an influence over both the national and State Legislatures. They have leisure, money, and intelligence, which, combined, enable them to exert an influence that they are not entitled to from their numbers. Capital is, in itself, an active element of political power, which is constantly exerting a potent influence over the legislation of the country, and is ever vigilant to obtain advantages. But labor, although the real source of wealth, and that which alone gives to capital its value, never seeks aid from legislation. Who ever knew the laboring portion of the community to come before Congress or the State Legislatures, asking for laws to be passed to benefit them? They are content with protection, and ask only for just and equal laws. In any question between capital and population, (Mr. N. said,) he should go for population. Not that he would injure capital, or impair any of the rights which naturally and properly belonged to it; but he would endeavor to counteract its constant efforts to endow itself with factitious advantages, through the aid of partial and unjust legislation. Mr. N. said that these were his general views on this subject; yet he presumed that the honorable Senator from Massachusetts knew the interests of his constituents much better than he did, and he was therefore bound to believe that the poor and laboring classes of Boston were interested in keeping up the high rate of duty on coal, notwithstanding a large portion of them had petitioned for its reduction. Mr. PRESTON heartily commended the zeal of the honorable Senator from Connecticut. His own feelings had been greatly touched, on taking his seat at this session, by the strong representations presented here of the condition of the poor in our great cities, many of whom, it was said, were actually perishing with cold. So strong was his sympathy with these unhappy sufferers, that, were his hands untied, he would move an amendment to the amendment, making foreign coal wholly free from duty. He had been much amused in observing the course of four different chairmen of committees in regard to the tariff. The chairman of the Committee on For eign Relations, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, and the chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, were all dissonant from each other on that subject. Yet the political horoscope had been gladdened all over by the annunciation that the tariff party was down, and that a different party, advocating a different policy, had now come into power. The great question with those of the South was, what is the future to be? And in pondering that question, was the present debate very well calculated to show that this Government in future was to be anti-tariff? Or did it not, on the contrary, very clearly show that each man would seek his own? The industry of Connecticut was diffused through all the branches of manufac ture. [SENATE. Vir Pennsylvania had a deep interest in coal. ginia, too, had some special interest in the coal trade, yet was anti-tariff. Pennsylvania, though she had long been, and ever would be, thoroughly tariff, sustained the powers that were. The Senator from Virginia had risen, and warmly vindicated the course and character of the future President; and the Senator from Connecticut was a zealous friend of the administration, yet the latter now avowed himself to be thoroughly tariff at the very moment he was proclaiming that the party in the ascendant was anti-tariff in its policy. What Mr. P. had heard to-day went still further to increase his distrust of the future as to this matter of the tariff. All the gentlemen were in favor of reducing the revenue, and they all agreed that half a dozen protected articles ought to be stricken out; but then the honorable Senator from Connecticut was altogether unwilling that this reduction should be made on the manufactures of Connecticut. He went for reducing the protection on the products of Pennsylvania. So the Senator from New York proposed a reduction on articles made in Massachusetts. The Senator from Virginia was willing it should be made any where, until you came to the tobacco of Virginia. Thus it appeared that the South must still pay black mail to some one or other of them for protection against the rest. They still shifted the burden upon each other, and passed the threat around-if you attack our interests, we will attack yours; if you go against the coal of Pennsyl vania, we will tear down the woollens of Massachusetts; but if you touch the woollens, we will turn upon the tobacco. Thus it seemed to be a losing game all around; in the mean while, the South stood smiling by, hoping it might prove a Kilkenny fight. At length, these combatants take wit in their anger, and compromise the matter. They discover that it is very wrong to touch coal; it must not be done. And it is equally wrong to attack woollens; so that must not be done. And thus, by degrees, they all become friends, and leave the South to pay the piper. Mr. P. regretted that the position in which he stood would not permit him to vote for the present amend. ment. The honorable Senator from Pennsylvania represented a great manufacturing interest. His was a great State, which, when united with Virginia, was good for a President. She had in turn put one out and kept another in. Now, Pennsylvania was irreclaimably tariff, and Virginia as decidedly anti-tariff. Accordingly, they had agreed to put in a President who should stand, like a great Colossus, with one foot on tariff Pennsylvania, and the other on anti-tariff Virginia, while the little States might crawl about betwixt his huge legs, and seek them out dishonorable graves. Mr. P. well knew that these States would not change their policy. The administration could not advance one inch towards a reform of the tariff, without touching the vital interests of Pennsylva nia. But if Pennsylvania would stand out of the way, then indeed the new President was pledged for a final reformation in the system. The moment Mr. P. should have a satisfactory assurance that it was the general understanding that South Carolina was not bound by the compromise, he was then prepared to exert his strength to the very uttermost in battering down the protective policy, piece, by piece, till the whole system was laid The honorable member seemed to be in the habit of framing remarks for others, and then commenting upon them. Mr. W. had expressly declared that if he thought the interest of the poor would be promoted by reducing this tax, he would vote for its reduction; and that he was opposed to it only because he believed that the true interest of that class and of every other class in the community required that the Government should keep its hands off from the subject entirely. Mr. W. had again and again declared that he did not mean to advocate the cause of the rich in opposing this reduction, because he believed that keeping on the tax would eventually bring down the price of the article to the poor. The member did not meet this argument. He did not contradict it, but stalked around it while he talked about monopolies, and the influence of rich men on the legislation of Congress. Mr. W. did not doubt that the object at which the Senator meant to aim was to make col cheap; and did he not understand that this too was the aim of Mr. W.? And how, then, could he impute to him the design to protect the capitalist, in derogation of the laborer; to advance wealth and disregard numbers? He hoped they should all in future endeavor to state each other's arguments with at least some degree of fairness. Coal was a necessary of life to all; to the poor as well as to the rich. The object to be attained was to get it as cheap as possible. The existing state of things had grown up under laws passed fifteen years ago; and the question was, whether, under that state of things, the proposition of the member from Connecticut would, in its practical result, lower the market price of this species of fuel. The member thought it would. Mr. W. thought otherwise, and had given reasons for this opinion, which he hoped were not altogether contemptible, and such as did not rightfully expose him to the charge of advocating the interests of wealth against labor. His argument had been briefly this: Here was a large capital actually invested in roads, canals, and machinery, the effect of which would, in a short time, make coal abundant, and thereby make it cheap; while, in the meanwhile, the foreign supply was not wholly excluded, and enough would be imported by competition to keep down the price. The honorable member thought that Congress, by taking off this tax, would give the exclu sive power of keeping up the price to American producers. Mr. W. differed in opinion. He thought that, by taking off this tax, they would give that power to British producers, and make our citizens the victims of their extortions. Did not rich men as well as poor make use of coal as fuel? Was it not their interest to have fuel cheap as well as the interest of every body else? Ah, but the member was for the protection of labor. Very true. And Mr. W. insisted that the protective policy of the United States was aimed point blank at the protection of labor. Did not the poor of our cities warm themselves over coal fires? What glowing pictures, or rather what shivering pictures of suffering had been presented to the Senate in the eloquent descriptions (if he thought them eloquent) of the honorable gentleman from South Carolina. But was not the laboring class in our cities the very first who received the protection of this Government? The first demand of a constitution was for their protection. It had been the operatives spread along the Atlantic coast whose voices brought the constitution into being. It was not the voices of Hancock, of Adams, but of Paul Revier and his artisans, which most efficiently advocated the move ment for independence. It was the pouring in of a flood of foreign manufactures that gave the first impulse toward the adoption of a constitution for our own protection; and had not the labor of our whole country been protected under it to this day? Had not the laboring classes of the United States their life, and breath, and [FEB. 24, 1837. being, under that instrument? Take off the protection which it extended to the hatters, and the shoemakers, and the whole class of mechanics who worked in leather, and see what would be the result. Go to the gentle. man's own State, and take off the duty on tin ware, and he might possibly hear the tinkling of that argument. Three cents on every coffee pot! What would the member say to that? But it became enlightened legislators to take a differ ent view of this subject. The true way to protect the poor was to protect their labor. Give them work to protect their earnings; that was the way to benefit the poor. Our artisans, he repeated it, were the first to be protected by the constitution. The protection extended under our laws to capital was as nothing to that which was given to labor; and so it should be. Since, in the year 1824, I stood upon this ground, I have retained the same position, and there I mean to stand. The free labor of the United States deserves to be protected; and, so far as any efforts of mine can go, it shall be. The gentleman from Connecticut tells us that coal is a bounty of Providence; that our mountains are full of it; that we have only to take hold of what God has given Well, sir, I am for protecting the man who does take hold of it; who bores the rock; who penetrates the mountain; who excavates the mine, and, by his assiduous labor, puts us into the practical possession of this bounty of Providence. It is not wealth while it lies in the mountain; it is human labor which brings it out and makes it wealth. I am for protecting that poor laborer whose brawny arms thus enrich the State. I am for providing him with cheap fuel, that he may warm himself and his wife and children. us. I observe that the very next item in the bill is one connected with the woollen factories in Connecticut. Will the honorable member go against all protecting principles Will he talk to us on that item as he has done on this? Does not the poor man wear a cloth coat? Does he not want a great coat in cold weather? And is not that cloth taxed, and taxed for the benefit of Con. necticut, and for the capitalists of Connecticut? Is cloth no necessary of life? Will the member draw us as fine a picture of the poor man shivering for want of a great coat of Connecticut cloth, as for want of a fire of Penn. sylvania coal? Sir, the man who catches hold of a little idea here and a little idea there, and holds these out to us to show that a great line of national policy is unjust, takes a view, in my apprehension, too little comprehen sive. We must not tax the fuel with which the poor man warms himself, because it is a necessary of life; and pray what will the honorable member do with bread? Is not that a necessary of life? and will any man here rise in his place, and move to take off the duty on wheat? Are not thousands of bushels imported from Europe! Does not the poor man pay the tax on it? And again I ask, will the honorable member bring in a bill to take off the duty on wheat? There is a duty on brown su gar. Will he move to repeal that? If he will comprehend all the items included under the same principle of econ omy, it will show at least some consistency. But to se lect this article of coal, and have us make it free because it is a necessary of life, while he advocates a tax on other things equally necessary, is to act with no consistency at all. I know very well that many of the citizens of Bos ton have applied to have this tax diminished; and if I thought it could with propriety be done, I would cheer. fully do it. Some petitions, too, have been presented from one of our fishing towns; but they ought to remember that all bounties on the fisheries, as well as this duty on coal, rest upon one great basis of mutual concession for the protection of labor, and for the benefit especially of the operative classes of society. And whoever says that this is a system which goes for capital against the poor, misrepresents its advocates, and perverts the whole matter, from A to Z. There are many other views which belong to the subject, but I will not now prosecute the argument. My object is to make coal cheap-permanently cheap; cheap to the poor man as well as the rich man; and to that end we shall arrive, if the laws are suffered to take their course. But to meddle with them, in the existing state of things, is the very worst thing that can be done either for poor or rich. Mr. BUCHANAN said he had not intended to add another word; indeed, after what had fallen from the Senator from Massachusetts, it would be labor lost. But he did not choose that his remarks should be misapprehended; that they would be misrepresented by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. PRESTON,] he did not for a moment imagine. He had made no professions of being either a "high" or a "low" tariff man; nor had he said that he was irreclaimably tariff." [Mr. PRESTON explained. He had not stated that the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania had said so; that was merely the statement of Mr. P's own apprehension of the fact.] The Senator had further said that Mr. B. was "permitted" to get up here and state the principles he held in relation to the tariff. Permitted! Permitted by whom? [Mr. PRESTON again rose to explain. He had, as he supposed, fully explained in what sense he meant to be understood. There were certain questions on which those who belonged to the same political party were permitted, by a general understanding and concert of that party, to hold different and even opposite sentiments, without thereby forfeiting their connexion with the party, or good standing in it. He meant nothing more than this. He understood the tariff to present one of these open questions. The phrase was common in parliamentary usage, and well understood. He had used it in no personal or offensive sense.] Mr. BUCHANAN resumed. He had not understood the honorable Senator to mean to apply it in a sense personally offensive. Yet it was very grating to the ear to hear the Senator from South Carolina rise in his place and declare that Senators from Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania, were permitted to advocate contrary doctrines on the subject of the protective policy of the country. Mr. B. was "permitted" by no man to utter his sentiments on that floor. He asked the "permission" of no party or individual to advocate the interests of his State on the floor of the Senate. He knew of no such party trammels. The party to which he belonged were not so drilled. He pursued his own course, according to the dictates of his own judgment. The Senator from South Carolina occupied a singular position. He rose up and attacked the duty on imported coal, and persua ded all others to vote against it; and yet held it his duty, while looking one way, to row another. Of what did the honorable Senator complain in this matter? Was there any attempt to disturb the compromise? Was this item of coal in the bill reported by the Committee on Finance? So far as that bill went, was it not a boon to the South? If Northern Senators chose to reduce the taxes, what cause of offence was this to gentlemen from the South? When the attempt should be made to violate the compromise, then it would be time enough for them to complain. What he had said was this: That, from the debates in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, they seemed disposed, in good faith, to try the effect of a compliance with the compromise of 1833. They would not, at all events, be the first to interfere with it. Many of them did believe that a duty of twenty per cent., when taken in connexion with cash payments and the system of valuation at our own ports, would, in practice, prove VOL. XIII.-61 [SENATE. a sufficient protection to the manufacturing interest. However, he should not now launch into a tariff discussion. This was not the proper time or the fit occasion for doing so. When the time did arrive, he would, with all the frankness for which he hoped he had some credit with the Senate, state what were his views on that subject. He had intended to have added some other remarks, but it was growing late, and he would forbear. Mr. PRESTON followed, in fuller explanation of what he had before said as to the tariff being an open question, and in regard to the obligation imposed by the compromise act. Mr. NILES repelled the charge made against him by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WEBSTER,] of having misrepresented him. He said that the bonorable Senator had taken the liberty to charge him with having misstated his remarks; and he had made the charge in such a manner as to show that he considered he had been intentionally misrepresented. The gentleman had said that he (Mr. N.) was in the habit of misrepresenting the remarks of others. He would not s'op to inquire whether a charge like this was parliamentary or decorous, as it was his intention to re. pel it as unjust and untrue. He wished that Senator to understand, once for all, that he (Mr. N.) was not in the habit of misstating or misrepresenting his remarks, or those of any other member of the body; neither had he been complained of in this respect by any one but the Senator himself. He was as liable to misunderstand what was said by others as any one; but he was incapable of intentionally misstating their remarks. It seemed that he misunderstood the Senator on this occasion, although he had listened very attentively to his remarks, and could not be justly charged even with inattention. He understood the Senator to say that the poor had no interest in this question; and when he rose to explain, he understood him to say that they had not much interest; but it appears he was mistaken in both instances. He did not perceive, however, that the mistake was of much consequence; for whether the Senator considered that the poor and laboring classes had much interest or no interest in the subject, his remarks went to prove that their interest consisted in maintaining the present high rate of duty. The gentleman and himself were directly opposed on this point, as he believed that the whole community were interested in the reduction of the duty on coal, and especially the laboring classes, who were less able to bear the burdens of the present exorbitant prices of fuel. If the poor have a deep interest in this question, how is their interest to be promoted by a tax of fifty per cent. on fuel? Is that calculated to bring down the price? Or does their interest consist in keeping up the price? He did not understand this matter, and could not learn from the Senator's remarks how he proposes to advance the interests of the poor. If, as the Senator asserts, all our tariff laws have had a direct tendency to benefit labor, he rejoiced at it; but if such was the case, it did not prove that those laws had been passed for that purpose; and we all know that it was not those interested in labor who had petitioned for them; it was not from their influence, or a regard to their rights, that the tariff system had been adopted. No, sir; it was the interests of capitalists and capital which had originated and sustained the tariff system; and if labor had been benefited, it was only an incidental consequence. Who are they (said Mr. N.) that hang around the halls of legislation, seeking its aid, asking for special and partial laws? Who are they that apply for acts of incorporation, conferring special privileges, to favor particular interests-privileges calculated to give to capital ar. tificial and factitious advantages? Are they not those who control capital? By whose influence was it that a law was forced |