H. OF R.] Massachusetts Resolutions. [FFB. 1, 1833. the same right to States south of that line! Why should judge of this matter, since the treaty-making power beit be? Is it because they are free States, and ours are longs to that Government? The Federal Court, to be slave States' Is it because on one side there is free la- sure, according to the modern doctrine!] of the States bor, and on the other it is slave labor? Is this to be the composing the Union, to any foreign power; or to deprive distinction that must mark the difference of right in the the State of any land, or other property, without the conmatter? I have heard much said on that subject in this sent of such State, previously obtained, of the States of House, and great reliance is placed upon the morality and Massachusetts and Maine, would be a violation of the justness of the distinction in reference to other matters, rights of jurisdiction and property, belonging respectivebut gentlemen deceive themselves, grossly deceive them- ly to the said States, and secured to them by the Federal selves, if they think it will hold in this or any other case. constitution; and that any act purporting to have such Whenever you believe a law unconstitutional and oppres- effect, would be wholly null and void, and in no way oblisive, you have the right to resolve that you will not si-gatory upon the Government or people of either of the lently acquiesce in it; nay, more, and to carry that resolve said States." into complete effect; and I assure you, we of the South The foregoing declaration is distinctly repeated in anwill take the liberty to do the same thing, not only tacitly other resolution immediately following the above. The and quietly, but forcibly if we think proper. We exercise no rights that we are not entirely willing that you same subject: State of Maine adopted the following resolves on the should, and we mean that you shall not, without allowing us the same privilege. There can be no mistake in the "Resolved, That the convention of September, 1827, object of the resolution I have read, for its intention was tended to violate the constitution of the United States, too plainly indicated in the original draft of resolutions and to impair the sovereign rights and powers of the State reported to the Legislature of Massachusetts. I happen, of Maine, and that Maine is not bound by the constituMr. Speaker, to have had a sight of that report, and tion to submit to the decision which is or shall be made though what I am about to mention is not now found in under the convention. the paper I hold in my hand, yet it was there when first submitted, and was to this effect, that the passage of the tariff bill now before this Congress would be derogatory to the national honor, and involving such a gross and palpable abuse of the power of the Government, as would justify the States and citizens aggrieved by it, in any mea- "Resolved, further, for the reasons before stated, that sures they may think proper to adopt, for the purpose of no division made by any umpire under any circumstances, obtaining redress. What do you call this, Mr. Speaker? if the decision dismembers a State, has, or can have, any A gentleman by my side says it is nullification! Yes, sir, constitutional force or obligation upon the State thus disit is pure, unadulterated nullification! And, what is still membered, unless the State adopt and sanction the debetter, a Mr. Banks, I think a member of the Massachu- cision." setts Legislature, absolutely proposed an amendment to "Resolved, In the opinion of the Legislature that the decision of the King of the Netherlands cannot and ought not to be considered as obligatory upon the Government of the United States, either upon the principles of right, justice, or honor. Besides the purpose for which the resolutions are quotthe report, the object of which was to prepare for the se-ed, the following deductions clearly result: both States paration! Now, sir, only mark how that sign of the case assert their sovereignty, and if their territory and jurisdicbeing altered, alters the case: South Carolina shall not tion cannot be parted with without their consent, by the nullify, but Massachusetts may, as much and as often as General Government, then that Government is not a unit. she pleases. Sir, this is not the first time that State has If the States have sovereignty enough to prevent a disdetermined she was not bound to acquiesce in the laws of memberment of their territory, because such act would be the General Government. She resolved that the treaty unconstitutional, then they have it for any other unconstibetween Great Britain and the United States, relative to tutional act, and the doctrine that the General Governthe northeastern boundary, in which the State of Maine, ment acts not upon the States, but upon the people indiand perhaps herself, were concerned, should not be bind-vidually, will apply as strongly to the one case as the other; ing. That the decision of the umpire on that occasion so that every citizen in a State (leaving not a man in it should not be carried into effect. I see the gentleman whereby it would be completely destroyed,) might be shakes his head; I say that she did resolve substantially it hung for treason, as well for attempting to prevent the should not be carried into effect; and I say more, she was dismemberment of his State as for any other unconstituright in saying so, and I would have marched from Geor- tional cause. These two States have judged for themgia, in principle, to have borne her out in her resolve; for selves, and adopted their own mode of nullifying a law; the General Government had no right to cede away either and unless the doctrine in the celebrated case of the farthe territory or jurisdiction of a State. This was prevent-mer and the lawyer, or rather, the ox and the bull, be aped in the State of Georgia, and I hope I never shall be so plied to poor South Carolina alone, they at least ought to inconsistent or unreasonable as to claim for my own State, shut their mouths. whatever others may do, what I would not willingly yield to another. For these reasons I am constrained to vote against the motion of my colleague. Resolutions of Massachusetts. Mr. WICKLIFFE was anxious to bring this debate to a close, and proposed that, by unanimous consent, the mo tion for reconsideration should be laid upon the table. Mr. ADAMS said that he should not have said a word on the subject, but from an imperious sense of duty. And "Resolved, That the adoption of the said line so recom-though he had been desirous that a direct vote should be mended by the King of the Netherlands, as a part of the taken, he was willing, as a concession made in the spirit northeastern boundary of the United States, would de- of harmony, to waive his call for the yeas and nays, and prive this commonwealth and the State of Maine of large consent that the motion should be laid upon the table. tracts of territory, which, upon any imaginable result of The SPEAKER said that if no gentleman objected the such survey of the northern and eastern boundaries, as is motion would be laid upon the table. authorized by the 5th article of the treaty of Ghent, belong, respectively, in sovereignty and property, to the said State and to the said Commonwealth." Resolved, That the Government of the United States has no constitutional right to cede any portion of the territory [the oft repeated question may be asked, who is to Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, objected. And the hour allotted to resolutions having expired, the subject was laid over. The House then passed to the orders of the day, and went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. WAYNE in the chair, on The question which came up from yesterday, was on the amendments proposed by Mr. WHITE, of New York. The first amendment offered by him, was in the first section of the bill. [H. OF R. forty per cent. in the first part of the amendment. The motion was lost: Yeas 61, nays 60, the CHAIR voting in the negative. The question recurring on Mr. WHITE's amendment, After some remarks from Mr. STEWART, in which he insisted that twenty-five or twenty per cent. on wool was Mr. WHITE's amendment went to make the reduction no protection, and that as the duty was merely for reveof the duty on raw wool, and on twist and yarn, more gra-nue, he preferred twenty to twenty-five per cent: dual, so as to be as follows: Mr. BURGES followed, and further illustrated the same view. Mr. ROOT then moved another amendment, so as to insert forty-five per cent., instead of forty, as he had before proposed for the year 1834, and intimated, in answer to an inquiry of Mr. POLK, that he intended to follow this motion, if it prevailed, by moving correspondent amendments to the other rates of duty proposed in Mr. WHITE's amendment. Mr. J. DAVIS inquired whether the gentleman from Mr. DAVIS said the bill proposed to reduce the duty on woollens to twenty per cent.; he proposes to increase the duty on wool to forty-five per cent. Mr. ROOT said, it was his intention to fix the same relative duty on wool and on woollens as was settled by the act of July last. The duty on wool by this bill was sixty per cent. and on woollens fifty per cent. Mr. J. DAVIS did not understand on what authority the gentleman assumed the duty on wool, under the act of the last session, to be sixty per cent. During the debate upon that bill, the duty was stated to amount to little more than forty per cent. 20 do. thereafter (a permanent duty.) Mr. ROOT said, the amendment of his colleague proposed to extend the period of the reduction of the duty, and leave it at least five per cent. more than was proposed by the bill. By the act of the last session, the duty on unmanufactured wool was fixed at four per cent. per pound specific, and forty per cent. ad valorem. The average cost of imported wool might be estimated at twenty cents per pound. Upon that estimate the duty would be twelve cents per pound, or sixty per cent. The duty on woollen manufactures was fixed by the same act at fifty per cent. He proposed that the reduction of duty on the raw material, and the manufactured article, should be made now correspondent. When the duty on woollens was thirty per cent., the duty on wool should be forty per cent. The reason of this proportion was obvious. Wool was the produce of agriculture, of land and labor combined. The grand staple of this country was land, it was our cheapest and most abundant article, and instead of it, the dearest and scarcest article, labor, should be encouraged. It was the sound policy of all Governments to encourage their own, instead of exotic productions. In England, population Mr. HOFFMAN thought his colleague was mistaken as was more abundant than land. Labor was, therefore, to the average cost of imported wool. He held in his hand cheap, and their policy was to protect labor and to en-a document from the Treasury, showing the importations courage the demand for the article of which they had the for several years. Mr. H. stated the cost of three and a greatest supply. They encouraged the importation of raw quarter millions of pounds imported in 1831, at the varimaterials in order to give employment to their surplus la-ous places whence it was imported, and said the average bor, which could not be directed to tilling the ground, be- was thirty-three and four-tenths cents per pound. cause they had not ground to till. But the policy which After some further remarks from Mr. Roor, the queswould be wise for England was not adapted to our situa- tion was taken on his amendment to the amendment, and tion. Here labor was extravagantly high in proportion to was lost; Yeas 18, nays not counted. the price of land. Why should we induce the importation of raw materials? Are there not vast tracts of vacant land for the employment of our population? Is it for the purpose of encouraging the emigration of foreigners to build up towns under our protecting policy, and to fill them with inhabitants who would rather raise the union flag of Great Britain, than the star spangled banner? If there was no adequate protection upon wool the boasted Ameri- Mr. POLK warmly remonstrated against its adoption, can system becomes an European system. When any at-as going, in substance, to declare that the House would do tempt had been made to raise the duty on wool, the ma-nothing in the way of compromise, but would insist on nufacturers had exclaimed that we were ruining their bu- retaining the protecting duties as they were at present in siness. The truth is, they can import wool without duty force. cheaper than our farmers are willing to raise it, because the German farmers, to say nothing of Spanish wool, which is raised from flocks which roam almost entirely over that kingdom, are in the habit of being satisfied with Mr. CAMBRELENG referred to great speculations more scanty earnings than our free and independent po- which had taken place in wool, and to competition bepulation. In this bill the agricultural interest of the na- tween the wool growers and the manufacturers, in consetion has been overlooked for the benefit of the manufac-quence of the duty being raised by a former act. If the turers. Our farmers are to be offered up as a sacrifice to amendment should be adopted, he should consider it as an allay the burning avarice of the manufacturers. Indigo indication that no bill was to pass, and that we were to and sumac, productions of our own soil, are to be import-have war between the North and South. est. Mr. EVERETT, of Vermont, then moved to amend the amendment of Mr. WRITE, so as to restore the protective duty of the act of last year on wool, viz. four cents per pound, and forty per cent. ad valorem; which was agreed to: Yeas 87, nays 67. The question then recurring on Mr. WHITE's amendment, as thus amended by Mr. H. EVERETT, Mr. INGERSOLL contended that the wool interest had suffered most in the bill of last session, and ought now not to be forsaken. ed free of duty, as an offering to the manufacturing inter- Mr. BEARDSLEY, of New York, now moved to amend To avert their threats, even the duty of three cents the amendment of Mr. EVERETT, so as to limit it to the per pound on cotton was to be given up. He would not first year, and then to decrease the duty successively by move the restoration of that duty, as he was not the re- one cent each year, in the specific duty, and five per cent. presentative of cotton growers. But the principle of sa- in the ad volorem duty, as follows: crificing the agricultural to the manufacturing interest went through the whole bill. Mr. R. then moved to amend the amendment by striking out thirty and inserting 4 cents specific, and 40 per. cent ad valorem, until 2d of March, 3 cents, and 35 per cent. 1834 1835 1 cent, and 25 per cent, thereafter, (as permanent duty.) This amendment was carried: Yeas 86, nays 69. The question being put on Mr. EVERETT's amendment, as amended by Mr. BEARDSLEY, it was rejected: Yeas 72, nays 73. Mr. WHITE's first amendment was then adopted without alteration; leaving the duty on wool at 35 per cent. until 2d of March, 1834. 25 do. do. 20 thereafter, (permanent.) 1835. The question was next put on Mr. WHITE's second amendment, which was to the third section of the bill, and made the reduction more gradual, as follows: 30 dollars until 2d of March, 1834. 20 do. do. And then 15 permanent. 1835. The amendment was agreed to, yeas 66, nays 64. The question next came up on the third amendment, which is in the fourth section of the bill, as follows: 40 per cent. until 2d of March, 1834. 35 do. 30 do. do. 25 thereafter (permanent.) 1835. Mr. STEWART proposed to amend this amendment so as to restore the provisions of the act of last year, leaving the duty fifty per cent. This was negatived: yeas 75, nays 89.Mr. WHITE's amendment was then agreed to: yeas 76, nays 73. Mr. WHITE's next amendment was in the eighth and ninth sections of the bill. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 2. [FEB. 2, 1833. MASSACHUSETTS RESOLUTIONS. The motion of Mr. WIDDE, of Georgia, to reconsider the vote of the House, by which certain resolutions of the Legislature of Massachusetts were referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed, coming up for consideration, Mr. WICKLIFFE observed that the motion had answered all its purposes, and there could be no good in continuing longer to discuss it. He did not believe there were five members in the House who would vote for it, and he therefore renewed his motion to lay the motion upon the table. Mr. W. however, though with great reluctance, withdrew the motion at the request of Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, on condition that he would renew the motion; which Mr. D. promised to do. Mr. D. then said that some of the remarks which had fallen from gentlemen were of a nature to demand some animadversion. Several of those who had addressd the House seemed to suppose, and indeed had expressly said, that Massachusetts had spoken in an improper and unbecoming manner, and had used language of a violent character. Mr. D. denied the justice of both these charges. He knew, indeed, that that ancient Commonwealth was accustomed, at all times, and on all occasions, to speak her opinions openly, plainly, and fearlessly, without regard to what might or might not be the opinions of others. This had been her habit long before she had become a member of the American confederacy; and it would continue to be her practice, so long as the free, liberal, and enlightened character of her institutions should remain. She would, he trusted, at all times, express her sentiments fearlessly, and without disguise, whether her language were put on the records of this House or not. She cared not much whether, like the official language of other States of the Union, it was admitted upon the journals of Congress, or refused a place there. If any invidious distinction was to be introduced, in this respect, he should like to see the ground on which it was to rest. The States had all, at one time or other, spoken with great freedom, without any regard to what might be the opinions of that House, or of committees of that House; and the journals would bear him out in the assertion. He insisted that the paper, so far from being intemperate and violent, was in language quite the reverse: the Legislature had expressed its views with great propriety, and in a very temperate manner; its tone was firm, indeed, but perfectly temperate, insomuch that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. POLK] might have saved himself all the trouble of "hurling" it back, and might, va-at the same time, have saved the Legislature of Massachusetts from all the dismay occasioned by such a procedure on his part. 20 thereafter (permanent.) Mr. SEMMES, of Maryland, moved to amend this amendment so as to leave the duty permanent at 30 per cent. After some remarks from the mover, this amendment was rejected without a count. Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, then offered an amendment to the amendment of Mr. WHITE, so as to make the duty On undyed cottons 7 cents the square yard; Dyed cottons 8 cents; except twist, yarn, and thread, (which were to be left as by the Tariff of 1824;) On nankeens direct from China, 20 per cent. ad lorem; Stamped floor cloth 43 cents the aquare yard; [The effect of this amendment would be to restore the above duties as by the act of last year.] On motion of Mr. HOWARD, of Maryland, this amendment was divided; and the question taken first on the cottons. Mr. VINTON moved to rise. Negatived: yeas 72, nays 75. The first part of Mr. PEARCE's amendment was then rejected: yeas 68, nays 73. He would say to the worthy gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. CLAYTON,] that the paper did not sustain the opinions which that gentleman had expressed to the House. It was not Mr. D's intention to interfere with those doctrines of nullification to which the gentlemen seemed so friendly; on that subject the gentleman could think and act as he pleased, but Mr. D. must protest against Massachusetts being charged with the expression of any such sentiments, or any thing that sanctioned them. [He here quoted the words of the resolutions, and inquired:] The second part followed without a count. Did this intimate any intention of nullifying the acts Mr. STEWART moved to amend Mr. WHITE's amend-of thh Government? Nothing was further from the ment so as to leave the duty on cottons permanent at 30 per cent.; and to strike out "silk," as a material. The motion was negatived: yeas 63, nays 78. The committee then rose, and The House adjourned. scope of the passage. All it declared was that Massachusetts was not bound to sit silently, with her mouth shut, while a policy was proposed which went to destroy her, as though she approved of what was about to be done: that was the meaning, and the whole meaning. And how the gentleman from Georgia could so entirely misconceive, FEB. 2, 1833.] General Land Office. [H. OF R. or misrepresent it, as in the remotest degree authorizing Georgia, he knew he was incapable of intentionally offernullification, was to him perfectly incomprehensible. ing an insult to any public body or any individual. He had felt it due to himself and to his State to make these remarks, in reply to what had been said by the gentlemen from Georgia and Tennessee. He then moved, according to promise, to lay the motion on the table; but withdrew the motion at the request of Mr. WILDE, who said he hoped the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] would withdraw his motion, to enable him, Mr. W., to make a disposition of this matter which would relieve the House from all further trouble respecting it. Mr. DAVIS assenting: Mr. WILDE resumed. He was happy that the gentleman from Massachusetts did him justice. Nothing was, or could be further from his mind than an intention to treat the legislative body of any State with the slightest disrespect. What motive could he have to insult the Legislature of Massachusetts? Men were usually influenced either by the hope of glory or the love of ease. Prudent and thriving statesmen-which he was not-animated by the first, could hardly fail to remember that the very respectable State of Massachusetts had thirteen votes; and he, who had all his life found the last "the sin that most Mr. WILDE proceeded: Nothing had been farther easily besets," could scarcely avoid reflecting that the from his expectation when he introduced this resolution, peace which he loved would be little promoted by bringthan the debate to which it had given rise, unless indeed ing down upon his head the displeasure of the zealous it was the new-born zeal for State rights which it had and talented delegation from Massachusetts. awakened in a certain quarter of the House. He was at So far from intending any disrespect to the Legislature first puzzled to conjecture how it happened, that a senti- of Massachusetts, he had not imagined that Legislature ment which had slept so long and so soundly, had so sud- could believe he respected them less because he had this denly awakened; but, on further reflection, it occurred to much respect for himself; that he could not acquiesce in him, that the uniform advocates of power were consistent an unjust censure which they had been induced to cast on with themselves. As they held that States had no rights him. Since the representatives of that State, however, in a conflict with the General Government, so individuals had not considered it consistent with her dignity to allow had no rights in a collision with the States. Nor was the him an opportunity of denying the justice of that censure logic of the gentlemen, in his humble judgment, less re- by his vote, he would prove his respect for the Legislamarkable than their zeal. Because it was proper that ture of the State of Massachusetts, by relieving them the most unlimited freedom of petition should be allowed- from the unpleasant predicament of appearing to introwhich he admitted-because it was proper that every le- duce a grave question of State rights for the purpose of gislative body should express their opinions of public men obtaining a petty triumph over an obscure individual. and measures, in whatever language they might think be- He would withdraw his motion for reconsideration, and coming to themselves, which he did not deny, therefore, in doing so, he hoped he was actuated by no worse a moit was right that an individual whose conduct was reflect- tive than that of returning good for evil. ed on in common with his associates, and who, not knowing the fact, had voted for the reference, should not be permitted to reconsider and recal his vote. Gentlemen seemed to have prejudged his course. They appeared, somewhat too hastily, to have inferred that, if the vote were reconsidered, he would attempt to prevail upon the House not to refer and print the preamble. He had intimated no such thing. He had hinted, on the contrary, that it might be proper for the House to refer and print, but that he could not be expected to vote for the reference of that part of it which, in his opinion, did injustice to the Committee of Ways and Means. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. Mr. CLAYTON requested his colleague to allow him first an opportunity of replying to Mr. DAVIS, but Mr. W. said he could not consent to do so. GENERAL LAND OFFICE. The House then proceeded to the consideration of the motion made by Mr. PLUMMER, on the 18th January, ultimo, that the House do reconsider the vote taken on the 17th of January, ultimo, agreeing to the resolution reported by Mr. WILDE, from the Committee of Ways and Means, by, which that committee was discharged from the consideration of the estimates, documents, and correspondence, transmitted to said committee by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in explanation of the increased appropriations asked for the service of the present year in that department, and by which the same were referred to the Committee on the Public Lands, with instructions to make certain inquiries therein set forth. The memorials of other States, on other occasions, had been cited. In these memorials, it was true, the character of laws passed, and the motives of majorities who passed them, had been canvassed with great freedom. Against this he had not objected, and should never object. Nor did he deny that great license in debate was, and ought to be allowed on that floor. In point of precedent, however, the cases did not fit. He had examined a great| Mr. PLUMMER stated, at length, his reasons in supnumber of memorials, and he had not found one in which port of his motion to reconsider; insisting that the course a State Legislature had permitted themselves to indulge proposed was unusual, and that it would be best for the in reflecting on the motives of a committee which had committee to prefer an accusation against the Commisreported a measure still pending. But the question was sioner, and then call for testimony to support it. not even whether this was perfectly usual and parliamen- Mr. WICKLIFFE declined going into the subject at tary. It was not whether the committees of the House, this time, or making a Wiscasset business of this matter. performing, under the order of the House, such duties The committee wished further information, and could not as had been assigned to them, were to be exempted from get it without the power asked for. The House had censure, but whether they should be held to vote a cen- granted it to them with great promptitude, and they sure on themselves, and in asking to be relieved from should have exercised it before now, had not their prosuch a necessity, they were told, gravely told, that their motion was an insult on Massachusetts. ceedings been suspended by a pending motion to reconsider. The General Land Office had expended $20,000 within the last two years for extra clerk hire, besides an increased compensation to the standing clerks. Mr. W. concluded by demanding the previous question. He withdrew the motion at the request of Mr. ADAMS explained. If the gentleman from Georgia had not unfortunately been absent yesterday-he said unfortunately, because he understood it was from severe indisposition-he would have known that he [Mr. ADAMS] had begged leave to correct that expression. Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, who, though entertaining no He would not be understood as saying that the motion to doubt that the Commissioner would be perfectly preparreconsider was an insult to the Legislature of Massachu-ed to meet the investigation, was in favor of granting the setts, because, from his knowledge of the gentleman from power. H. OF R.] The Tariff Bill. [FEB. 2, 1833. The previous question was seconded, put, and carried; would ask, was there any protection where these cottons and, on the main question of reconsidering, the House went? Were there any protecting laws for these cotvoted unanimously in the negative. So the power to send for persons and papers was granted. The House passed to the orders of the day, and once more resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. WAYNE in the chair, and resumed the consideration of THE TARIFF BILL. Mr. APPLETON, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the amendment offered by Mr. WHITE, of New York, to the original bill in its eighth and ninth sections. [The bill proposed on cottons costing twenty-five cents the square yard an ad valorem duty of 30 per cent. until March, 1834, and then a permanent duty of 20 per cent.; and on all other cottons 25 per cent. ad valorem until March, 1834, and then 20 per cent. permanent. Mr. WHITE's amendment proposed to make the reduction more gradual, as follows: 30 per cent. till March, 1834, 25 per cent. till March, 1835, and then 20 per cent. permanent. Mr. tons in Mexico? in Brazil? in Asia Minor? Here then, Mr. APPLETON complained of the disingenuous character of Mr. CAMBRELENG's argument, which seemed to assume that the manufacturers, while supplying foreign Mr. APPLETON's amendment put the duty at 20 per countries with cheap cottons, did not furnish them to cent. permanent, and added a proviso that on plains there their own countrymen as cheap. He complained of the should be a square yard duty of 74 cents till March, 1834, personality of the reference to his own circumstances, and then 6 cents permanent; and on calicoes a square and offered to transfer to him all his profits, if he would yard duty of 83 cents till March, 1834, and then 8 cents give him ten per cent. per annum on his investments to permanent.] cover loss. He spoke for his constituents, and if parting Mr. A. supported his amendment by a speech, in which with all his own property would permanently settle the he contended that removing the specific duty must ope- present question, he would willingly give it up. The rate to destroy the cotton manufacture, especially that of minimum system had been introduced by Southern genprinted cotton; insomuch that the calico business must be tlemen, and it was the unexampled success of that system immediately ruined. He believed that this country was in practice, which bad rendered our cottons so cheap and supplied with all the cotton goods required for general so good. It was madness in the South to break down consumption by our own manufacturers intrinsically this interest, as it must destroy a valuable market for their cheaper than any other nation whatever. The capital, own staples. however, required was so great, that a factory turned out Mr. BURGES said the question was, whether the cotyearly goods only to the amount of half the capital invest-ton manufactures of this country should be preserved or ed. He admitted that this protection was not needed on destroyed. The 20 per cent. duty proposed by the bill that particular class of cottons which we now exported; was to be laid on the foreign cost of the article; and that but as the duty was laid on all, he thought it unwise to would be put so low, that the duty would not amount to a take it off. The slight difference as to time, proposed by cent a yard, although, with all the costs upon it, a yard the amendment of the gentleman from New York, was of of that cotton would be worth eight cents. This would no value. Ten years was the shortest period that would be any effectual relief. Mr. WHITE said that there would be no need of heavy protection for an article we were exporting with success, and which was able to meet the British article in the foreign markets. Mr. WICKLIFFE inquired of Mr. APPLETON as to the existing rate of profit in the cotton manufacture. let in floods of British goods, and prostrate our own. It was true that the English had reduced their protecting duty to 10 per cent.; but such was the maturity of the manufacture, and the strictness of their revenue laws, that that duty was a perfect barrier against all foreign competition. Her surplus she sent here, and sacrificed at any price, because it would be a dead loss at home; and, besides this, the stock of bankrupts was purchased Mr. APPLETON replied that the Merrimac company, under the hammer in England for next to nothing, paid with a capital of a million and a half of dollars, had manufac- little duty, and was then poured into our auction stores. tured cottons to the amount of 6,000,000 yards per annum; If the Government intended to secure the home market, but the proportion of goods manufactured per annum, the only way to do so was to render the duty prohibitory. was not more than 50 or 60 per cent. on the capital, on Mr. BOULDIN, of Virginia, insisted that the manufacwhich business they had found a balance in their favor of turers asked a protection which no government could but $57,000. Their profits were four per cent. for the grant. The evil of which they complained grew out of last six months; this, however, was a season of peculiar protection itself. The moment there was a diminution of depression. In 1831, when their business had been most foreign supply, the manufacturer pressed on the consumprosperous, their profits for six months had gone as high er: prices rose; high prices produced an over importation; as 10 per cent., being at the rate of 20 per cent. per an- this occasioned a glut; prices instantly fell, and both imnum. But nothing was more fluctuating. The only porter and manufacturer suffered together. If 20 per company now at Lowell whose stock was at par, were cent. protection, added to all the cost of importation, engaged in manufacturing for foreign markets. In fine after two or three years to prepare for the change, was goods, the caprice of fashion was such that prices could not enough to sustain the manufacture, then, in the name not be calculated upon. of God, let it go down. Mr. B. protested with vehemence against the square yard duty, as pressing upon the poor, and relieving the rich. Mr. CAMBRELENG thought that the statement just made presented one of the strongest arguments that could be adduced against the gentleman's own proposi Mr. E. EVERETT now sent to the Clerk's table the tion. The only successful company, it seemed, were remonstrance of the Lowell manufacturing company, engaged in making cotton for exportation. Now, he which was read. |