lions, and the duties charged $47,794,133, or 21 per cent. average. The protective system having once started, continued rapidly to grow; because it is its nature to "make the meat it feeds on." The protection afforded by the tariff of 1816 was soon thought, by incompetent and unskilful experimenters in manufactures, to be insufficient; and in 1818 a new tariff was enacted, which continued six years in force, and under it the imports were $465,530,539, and the duties $128,192,685, or 28 per cent., being about the same average taxation as during the war. The operation of these onerous taxes was soon found to be injurious in the extreme to all other interests. The commercial classes in par ticular were aggrieved by it. The influential New-England interests were then commercial, and they were suffering under the oppression that they endured for the benefit of the manufacturers. They took measures to oppose the progress of the protective principle. In the year 1820 the leading men of Boston called meetings at Faneuil-Hall, the old "cradle of liberty" and at an adjourned meeting, held Oct. 3, 1820,* the whole principle of protection was denounced, as hostile to the true interests of the country, oppressive to all manufacturers of small capital, and inconsistent with the principles of the constitution and sound policy. At that meeting the Hon. Daniel Webster made a most BOSTON, October 3, 1820. "New Tariff-Yesterday an adjourned meeting, on the subject of the proposed tariff, was held at Faneuil Hall, Hon. William Gray, Chairman, and William Foster, Esq., Secretary. A long and interesting report was read from the respectable committee appointed at a former meeting, which concluded with the following resolves: Resolved, That we have regarded with pleasure the establishment and success of manufactures among us, and consider their growth, when natural and spontaneous, and not the effect of a system of bounties and protection, as an evidence of general wealth and prosperity. Resolved, That relying on the ingenuity, enterprise, and skill of our fellow citizens, we believe that all manufactures adapted to our character and circumstances will be introduced and extended as soon, and as far, as will promote the public interests, without any further protection than they now receive. Resolved, That no objection ought ever to be made to any amount of taxes equally apportioned, and imposed for the purpose of raising revenue necessary for the support of government; but that taxes imposed on the people for the sole benefit of any one class of men, are equally inconsistent with the principles of our constitution and with sound policy. Resolved, That the supposition that, until the proposed tariff, or some similar measure, be adopted, we are, and shall be, dependent on foreigners for the means of subsistence and defence, is, in our opinion, altogether fallacious and fanciful, and derogatory to the character of the nation. Resolved, That the high bounties on such domestic manufactures as are principally benefited by that tariff, favor great capitalists rather than personal industry, or the owners of small capital, and that therefore we do not perceive its tendency to promote national industry. Resolved, That we are equally incapable of discovering its beneficent effects on agriculture, since the obvious consequence of its adoption would be, that the farmer must give more than he now does for what he buys, and receive less for what he sells. Resolved, That the imposition of duties which are enormous, and deemed by a large portion of the people, to be unequal and unjust, is dangerous, as it encourages the practice of smuggling. Resolved, That in our opinion the proposed tariff and the principles upon which it is avowedly founded, would, if adopted, have a tendency, however different may be the motives of those who recommend them, to diminish the industry, impede the prosperity, and corrupt the morals of the people. James T. Austin, Esq., and the Hon. Daniel Webster, addressed their fellow-citizens, in favor of the report and the resolves, in speeches, which were distinguished for closeness of argument, variety of illustration, and abundance of fact. The report was then accepted, and the resolves recommended by the committee unanimously passed. A vote of thanks to the Hon. Mr. Otis, of the Senate, and to those members from this state, in the House of Representatives of the United States who opposed the new tariff, was unanimously agreed to.' unanswerable speech upon the unconstitutionality and inexpediency of the protective policy. Upon the first head he spoke as follows: "And, after all, how few of all the members of society are to be benefited by this system, Certainly not all manufacturers, nor all meso artificially and elaborately constructed. chanics-but a particular class only. Manufacturing capital comes, in the end, fore, encourage industry, like capital employ. to be owned but by few. It does not, therement in some other pursuits. The case of the establishment mentioned in the Report was in point to this argument. Half a million of dolthose principally women and children. Now, lars gives employment to 265 persons, and what employment of that sum, in almost any other pursuit, could fail to demand and require more human labor? If vested in agriculture, the sum would command good and productive land sufficient to employ, he might almost say, all the cotton-spinners in the United States.' "He thought it, therefore, quite unjustifiable, that those who could not support the proposed tariff, should be charged with hostility to domestic industry. There was power in names, and those who had pressed the tariff on Congress, and on the country, had represented it as immediately, and almost exclusively connected with domestic industry and National Independence. In his opinion, no measure could prove more injurious to the industry of the country, and nothing was more fanciful, than the opinion (that National Independence rendered such a measure necessary. He certainly thought it might be doubted, whether Congress would not be acting somewhat against the spirit and intention of the These sound principles were continuConstitution, in exercising a power to control ed to be advocated by New-England essentially the pursuits and occupations of in- interests and Mr. Webster as their organ, dividuals in their private concerns-a power to force great and sudden changes, both of ocup to the passage of the tariff of 1824. cupation and property, upon individuals, not On the occasion of the discussion of as incidental to the exercise of any other pow- that tariff, Mr. Webster, in the Senate, er, but as a substantive and direct power. If ably opposed the protective system, such changes were wrought incidentally only, but evidently more in relation to expeand were the necessary consequence of such diency than in support of principles. In relation to the cotton manufacturer, he stated, imposts as Congress, for the leading purpose of revenue, should enact, then they could not be complained of. But he doubted whether Congress fairly possessed the power of turning the incident into the principal, and instead of leaving manufacturers to the protection of such laws as should be passed, with a primary regard to the revenue, of enacting laws, with the avowed object of giving preference to particular manufactures, and without an entire disregard to all the considerations of revenue; and, instead of laying such imposts as would best answer the purpose of raising a revenue, with the least burden on the public, carrying the impost on certain articles to a burthensome excess, with a full knowledge that the increase of duty will diminish the amount of revenue raised. It would hardly be contended, that Congress possessed that sort of general power by which it might declare that particular occupations should be pursued in society, and that others should not. If such power belonged to any Government in this country, it certainly did not belong to the General Government. The question was, therefore, and he thought it a very serious question, whether, in laying duties under the authority to lay imposts, obviously given for the purpose of revenue, Congress can, reasonably and fairly, lose sight of those purposes entirely, and levy duties for other objects. Congress may tax the land; but, it would be a strange proposition, if Congress should be asked to lay a land tax for the direct purpose of withdrawing capital from agriculture, and sending those engaged in it to other pursuits. The power, however, exists in one case as much as in the other. "For his own part, he had supposed that restrictions on trade and commerce, in order to benefit particular classes of manufactures, were now very generally understood to be mischievous, and inconsistent with just no. tions of political economy. "As to cotton manufactures, it is agreed, I believe, that they are generally successful. It is understood that the present existing duty operates pretty much as a prohibition over those descriptions of fabrics to which it ap plies** I consider the cotton manufacture not only to have reached, but to have passed the point of competition. I consider their success as certain." Also in regard to iron, he remarked, "The bill proposes to raise the duty be equal to a tax of $1,125,000 on the from $15 to $22 50 per ton, which would whole annual consumption. So that, suppose the point of prohibition which is aimed at by some gentlemen to be attained, the consumers of the article would pay this last mentioned sum every year to the producers of it, over and above the price at which they could supply themselves with the same articles from other sources. dea, except from the prospect, whatever There would be no mitigation of this burthat might be, that iron would fall in value, by domestic competition, after the importation should be prohibited. It will be easy, I think, to show that it cannot fall; and supposing for the present that it shall not, the result will be, that we shall pay annually a sum of $1,125,000. constantly augmented, too, by increased consumption of the article, to support a business that cannot support itself." The tariff of 1824 passed and con tinued in operation four years. during which the imports were $349,308,444, and the duties $115,637,962, or 31 per cent.; or higher than ever before. In the mean time, notwithstanding this enormous protection, which had been enjoyed for 10 years, great failures took place among the manufacturers. Immense buildings and costly machinery were sold out at great sacrifice. Influential New-England men invested in these works, and the result was, the adhesion of New-England to the protective principle; and Mr. Webster declared in the Senate, May 9, 1828, that "Nothing was left to New-England, after the Act of 1824, but to conform herself to the will of others. Nothing was left to her but to consider that the government had fixed and determined its own policy; and that policy was protection. "I believe, sir, almost every man from New-England, who voted against the law of 1824, declared, that if, notwithstanding his opposition to that law, it should still pass, there would be no alternative but to consider the course and policy of the government as then settled and fixed, and to act accordingly. The law did pass, and a vast increase in manufacturing establishments was the consequence." Here was a complete abandonment of the statesmanlike principles avowed in 1820. "The unsound policy," "the unconstitutional exercise of power," "the immoral tendency of manufacturing," "the oppression of small manufacturers for the benefit of large ones," were all adhered to, because certain gentlemen in Massachusetts had changed their investments. The law of 1828 passed, and continued in operation two years. The imports under it were $145,369,447, and the duties $56,078,206, or 40 per cent. ! In 1830 a law reducing the duties on tea, coffee, salt, and molasses was passed, and the imports for the two years to 1832, were $204,220,390, and the duties $65,937,294, or 32 per cent. The diminution of the average arose from the reduction of duties mentioned. Tea had paid 33 cents in 1829, and 14 cents in 1832. Salt was reduced from 20 to 10; Molasses from 10 to 5; and coffee from 5 to 1. These four articles yielded $5,595,567 duties in 1829, and $2,807,112 in 1832. This outrageous and oppressive taxation, with the continually growing power of a manufacturing oligarchy, had aroused popular indignation. The annual average of taxation had swollen from 10 to 40 per cent., and the manufacturers were as clamorous as ever for more protection. The point of non-intercourse with the rest of the world was rapidly approximating. The "incident" had long been "substituted for the principle," and the constitutional power to "regulate" trade was construed as authority to crush it. At this juncture, Mr. Webster was the defender of the constitutionality of protection. New-England had long surrendered her views of the expediency, and now of the power where it had been pushed she contended for the constitutionality to abuse. Mr. Webster, January 21, 1833, in the Senate, alluding to the debate, in the first Congress, on the tariff of 1789, remarked, "And, sir, how did this debate terminate? What law was passed? There it stands, sir, among the statutes, the second law in the book. It has a preamble, and that preamble expressly recites, that the duties which it imposes are laid "for the support of government; for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the eLcouragement and protection of manufactures. Until this early legislation, thus coeval with the Constitution itself, thus full and explicit, can be explained away, no man can doubt of the meaning of that instrument." This quibble on words is but a feeble answer to the above extract from the speech of 1820. More particularly when we remember the fact, that the duties laid by the law of 1789, made no discrimination for protection. They imposed but 5 per cent. on manufactured goods. The act of 1832 was passed and continued one year, during which the imports were $108,118,311, and the duties $24,177,578, or 28 per cent. In December, 1833, the compromise tariff, so called, took effect. That tariff greatly increased the list of free articles, but clung to discrimination less for revenue than protective purposes. The latter principle continued to be fully recognised and acted upon. The law, however, provided for its final abandonment; inasmuch as that it allowed of a general biennial reduction of duties, indiscriminately, on all articles; that is to say, on the 1st of Jan., 1834, there was to be deducted from all duties one-tenth of the excess over 20 per cent.; another tenth, making one-fifth of the excess, to be remitted January 1, 1836; still another, making three-tenths, to be taken off January, 1838; on the 1st of January, 1840, another reduction of one-tenth took place; of the remaining six-tenths one half came of January, 1842, and the remainder June, 1842; by which means all duties would be reduced to the uniform rate of 20 per cent., which was not thereafter to be exceededand credits on the payment of duties to be abolished. The 66 compromise" effected by this law consists in the giving manufactures ten years notice, and time to prepare for the final abandonment of the principle, and a return to the "incident" of protection. This they claimed as a right, to protect investments, into which they pretended to have been tempted by the government; and which they alledged would be ruined by low duties. Under the descending scale of this act the average duties upon all imports ranged from 14 to 16 per cent.; and at the lowest rate the amount of revenues was larger than ever before or since; and under those low duties the manufactures throve more than ever. The financial revulsion which burst on the commercial world in 1837, emanating from London, and reverberating in the distant countries of the Indian ocean, leaving its desolating effects in every city of Europe, was also felt here; and the moment of greatest depression, 1841-2, was seized upon to infringe the compromise, and restore the protective principle. The ten years notice that was given to manufactures in reducing duties, was utterly disregarded in relation to the commercial interests, in raising the duties. By the act of Sept. 30th, 1841, 20 per cent. was laid upon all free goods, without any notice. Goods ordered as free were met by a 20 per cent. tax on their arrival. In the following year the pretence of want of revenue was skilfully used to restore the protective principle, which had been abandoned by the compromise act. Instead of keeping the want of revenue solely in view, as a reason for increase of taxation, and pleading incidental protection in justification of the tax, as under the first administration, prohibitive taxes were laid for revenue pur poses; and at the same moment that want of revenue was urged as a reason for taxes, a law was passed taking the land revenue from the Treasury, for distribution among the states. This law was so profligate in its very nature that it could not pass without a proviso, that it should be inoperative when the wants of government required the imposition of duties higher than 20 per cent. upon imports. The law of 1842 was passed solely through the operation of this proviso: that is to say, statesmen voted for the iniquitous tariff of 1842, in order that it might repeal the iniquity of distribution. They avowedly did wrong that good might come of it. The law of Sept. 1841 continued in operation one year, simultaneously with the last reductions under the tariff of 1833. That is, it taxed 20 per cent. goods, before free, while the latter reduced the higher taxes. In that year the imports were $100,162,087, and the duties $16,622,746, or 16 per cent. The tariff of 1842 took effect Sept. 1, 1842; and in the first nine months of its operation, the whole imports were but $64,753,799, of which about 24 millions only were dutiable goods, paying near 36 per cent. average duty. The first effect of this sudden duty, imposed without notice, was to crush trade. In the next two years of its operation the imports were $225,689,599, and the duties $60,188,774, or 27 per cent., being a return to the old war tax. The great natural wealth of the country has increased in a wonderful degree, through the industry of the people, and the constant accession to their numbers naturally creates a continued enhancement of the demand for goods, which of itself would greatly increase the business of the manufacturers; as thus in 1789 the imports were 23 millions, among 3,500,000 persons, or $65 per head. If in 1846 the amount consumed per head was the same, the demand would be 130 millions of imports. The probability is that, from the increased wealth of the country, the consumption is $10 per head; which would give 200 millions, or double the actual import. The demand for domestic goods has, therefore, increased by 100 millions in access of the proportion of those goods taken in 1789. We annex a recapitulation of all the tariffs, and their practical operation.* The manifest evils arising from this high taxation, of course in sured its repeal as soon as the reaction from the financial revulsion took place. The new tariff once more returns to the constitutional doctrine of taxation as the principle, and protection as the incident. Yet after 54 years of the operation of this progressive protection, the manufacturer and politician allege, as stoutly as ever, that they will be ruined under a protection of 25 to 30 per cent. Hamilton declared, in 1791, that they were prosperous under a 5 a 7 duty. Webster declared in 1824, twenty years ago, that they were beyond competition. After 20 years more protection, the same person declares, that they cannot exist under 30 per cent. duty! Such is the protective theory. The greatest-outcry has been raised in relation to the iron interests of Pennsylvania, which, it is said, cannot exist at 30 per cent. duty. The pretence for a duty to encourage the manufacture is, that ultimately it will make it cheaper. Mr. Hamilton, in his report on manufactures, in 1779, states that " Iron, before the revolution, was $64 per ton. It is now $80." Similar iron is now $77 50. Mr. Webster stated in 1824 that the tax paid by consumers to miners, was $1,125,000 per annum. This has since increased very consid erably. That, however, may have been the average since 1791, in which case the sum paid to protect iron, amounts to $60,750,000, or the amount of the debt at the close of the revolution! The protection to iron works, cost as much as our national independence! and we are told that they are as far off from being established as ever! That, although they prospered in 1791 under a 7 per cent. duty, a 30 per cent. duty in 1846 will ruin them! The demand for iron now comes from 20,000,000 persons against 3,500,000 in 1781; yet after 54 years protection this increased demand will not sustain the works without a special tax. The same reasoning applies to all other manufactures; and the facts stand self-evident, that it is not to encouragenational manufactures that protection is clamored for, but in the words of the Boston resolution of 1820, "to favor great capitalists," to enhance the profits of overgrown wealth at the expense of the community. The principle of protection is now once more abandoned, and the deceptive minimum introduced in 1816, after 30 years of injurious operation, is at last excluded. The taxes continue, indeed, high, very high.— These may be gradually ameliorated, and the rising prosperity of our foreign trade distribute the national wealth equally through all classes; with the * Different Tariffs passed by the United States—date of operation and rate of taxation. Date of passage. Nature. July 4, 1789,..general.. Took effect. Years in Imports. Duties. Duties operation. pr. ct. ..Aug. 1, 1789....1... 23,000,000.. 2,239,746..10 ...Dec. 1, 1790....2... 60,700,000.. 8,401,666..13 March 3, 1791,..spirit duties increase...June 1, 1791 May Aug. 10, 1790,..increase.. 2, 1792,..general increase........ .July 1, 1792....2... 65,700,000.. 15,186.823..221 June 5, 1794,.. ... ...July 1, 1794....3...226,571,838.. 37,611,521..16 Mar. 26, 1804,.. Mediterranean fund... 27, 1804,..general increase.. July 1, 1812,..double duties.. .3...238,873,516.. 42,657,876..18 1, 1800....4...337,363,600.. 69,959,912..21 1, 1804 " continued... " 20, 1818,..general........... " April 27, 1816,.. 1, 1804....8...720,730,000..141,379,824..20 1, 1812....4...295,114,274.. 82,315,140..22 1, 1816....2...221,000,000.. 47,794,133..21 1, 1818....6...465,530,539..128,192,685..28 1, 1824....4...349,308,444..115,637,962..31 1, 1828....2...145,369,447.. 56,078,206..40 1, 1831....2...204,220,390.. 65,937,294..32 1, 1832....1...108,118,311.. 24,177,578..22 1, 1834....2...276,417,074.. 44,851,432..15 1, 1836....2...330,967,252.. 48,952,459..14 1, 1838........ .275,809,436.. 45,257,359..16 1, 1840.... 235,087,696.. 35,324,283..15 Sept. 11, 1841,..20 pr. ct. on free goods..Sept. 30, 1841....1...100,162,087.. 16,622,746..16 May 20, 1830,.. reduce, tea, coffee, salt. Jan. Aug. 30, 1842,..general advance........Sept. 1, 1842.. ..1.... 64,753,799.. 10,208,000..16 1, 1842....2....225,689,579.. 60,188,774..27 ..Dec. 1, 1846 July 31, 1846,.. general..... |