« AnteriorContinuar »
vited. I might add to this, the unexampled burst of feeling which this cause has called forth from all classes of society, and the notorious fact of pecuniary contributions made throughout the country for its aid and advancement. After all this, whoever can see cause of danger to our pacific relations from the adoption of this resolution, has a keener vision than I can pretend to. Sir, there is no augmented danger; there is no danger. The question comes at last to this, whether, on n subject of this sort, this House holds an opinion which is worthy to be expressed?
Even suppose, sir, an Agent or Commissioner were to be immediately sent,—a measure which I myself believe to be the proper one,—there is no breach of neutrality, nor any just cause of offence. Such an agent, of course, would not be accredited; he would not be a public minister. The object would be inquiry and information; inquiry, which we have a right to make; information, which we are interested to possess. If a dismemberment of the Turkish empire be taking place, or has already taken pluce; if a new state be rising, or be already risen, in the Mediterranean, who can doubt, that, without any breach of neutrality, we may inform ourselves of these events, for the government of our own concerns?
The Greeks have declared the Turkish coasts in a state of blockade; may we not inform ourselves whether this blockade be nominal or veal! And, of course, whether it shall be regarded or disregarded? The greater our trade may happen to be with Smyrna, a consideration which seems to have alarmed some gentlemen, the greater is the reason, in my opinion, why we should seek to be accurately informed of those events which may affect its safety.
It seems to me impossible, therefore, for any reasonable man to imagine, that this resolution can expose us to the resentment of the sublime Porte.
As little reason is there for fearing its consequences upon the conduct of the Allied Powers. They may, very naturally, dislike our sentiments upon the subject of the Greek Revolution; but what those sentiments are, they will much more explicitly learn in the President's Message than in this resolution. They might, indeed, prefer that we should express no dissent upon the doctrines which they have avowed, and the application which they have made of those doctrines to the case of Greece. But I trust we are not disposed to leave them in any doubt as to our sentiments upon these important subjects. They have expressed their opinions, and do not call that expression of opinion, an interference; in which respect they are right, as the expression of opinion, in such cases, is not such an interference as would justify the Greeks in considering the powers as at war with them. For the same reason, any expression which we may moke, of different principles and different sympathies, is no interference. No one would call the President's Message an interference; and yet it is much stronger, in that respect, than this resolution. If either of them could be construed to be an interference, no doubt it would be improper, at least it would be so, accordmg to my view of the subject; for the very thing which I have attempted to resist in the course of these observations, is the right of foreign interference. But neither the Message nor the resolution has that character. There is not a power in Europe that can suppose, that, in expressing our opinion* on this occasion, we are governed by any desire of aggrandizing ourselves, or of injuring others. We do no more than to maintain those established principles, in which we have an interest in common with other nations, and to resist the introduction of new principles and new rules, calculated to destroy the relative independence of states, and particularly hostile to the whole fabric of our own government.
I close, then, sir, with repeating, that the object of this resolution is, to avail ourselves of the interesting occasion of the Greek revolution, to make our protest against the doctrines of the Allied Powers; both us they are laid down in principle, and as they are applied in practice.
I think it right too, sir, not to be unseasonable in the expression of our regard, and, as far as that goes, in a ministration of our consolation, to a long oppressed and now struggling people. I am not of those who would in the hour of utmost peril, withhold such encouragement as might be properly and lawfully given, and when the crisis should be past, overwhelm the rescued sufferer with kindness and caresses. The Greeks address the civilized world with a pathos, not easy to be resisted. They invoke our favor by more moving considerations than can well belong to the condition of any other people. They stretch out their arms to the Christian communities of the earth, beseeching them, by a generous recollection of their ancestors, by the consideration of their own desolated and ruined cities and villages, by their wives and children, sold into an accursed slavery, by their own blood, which they seem willing to pour out like water, by the common faith, and in the Name, which unites all Christians, that they would extend to them, at least some token of compassionate regard.
UPON THE TARIFF; DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL, 1824.
MR. C+AIRMAN,+I will avail myself of the present occasion to make some remarks on certain principles and opinions which have been recently advanced, and on those considerations which, in my , judgment, ought to govern us in deciding upon the several and respective parts of this very important and complex measure. I can tuly say that this is a pain'ul duty. I deeply regret the necessity, which is likely to be imposed upon ine, of giving a general affirmative or negative vote on the whole of the Bill. I cannot but think this mode of proceeding liable to great objections. It exposes both those who support, and those who oppose, the measure, to very unjust and injurious misapprehensions. There may be good reasons for favoring some of the provisions of the Bill, and equally strong reasons for opposing others; and these provisions do not stand to each other in the relation of principal and incident. If that were the case, those who are in favor of the principal might forego their opinions upon incidental and subordinate provisions. But the Bill proposes enactments entirely distinct, and different from one another, in chara ter and tendency. Some of its clauses are intended merely for revenue; and, of those which regard the protection of home manufactures, one part stands upon very different grounds from those of other parts. So that probably every gentleman who may ultimately support the bill will vote for much which his judgment does not approve; and those who oppose it will oppose something which they would very gladly support.
Being intrusted with the interests of a district highly commercial, and deeply interested in manufactures also, I wish to state my . opinions on the present measure; not as on a whole, for it has no entire and homogeneous character; but as on a collection of different enactments, some of which meet my approbation, and some of which do not.
And allow me, sir, in the first place, to state my regret, if indeed I ought not to express a warmer sentiment, at the names, or designations, which Mr. Speaker has seen fit to adopt, for the purpose of describing the advocates and the opposers of the present Bill. It is a question, he says, between the friends of an “American policy,”
- 34 o
and those of a " foreign policy." This, sir, is an assumption which I take the liberty most directly to deny. Mr. Speaker certainly intended nothing invidious or derogatory to any part of the House by this mode of denominating friends and enemies. But there is power in names, and this manner of distinguishing those who favor and those who oppose particular measures, may lead to inferences to which no member of the House can submit. It may imply that there is a more exclusive and peculiar regard to American interests in one class of opinions than in another. Such an implication is to be resisted and repelled. Every member has a right to the presumption, that he pursues what he believes to be the interest of his country, with as sincere a zeal as any other member. I claim this in my own case; and, while I shall not, for any purpose of description, or convenient arrangement, use terms which may imply any disrespect to other men's opinions, much less any imputations of other men's motives, it is my duty to take care that the use of such terms by others be not, against the will of those who adopt them, made to produce a false impression. Indeed, sir, it is a little astonishing, if it seemed convenient to Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of distinction, to make use of the terms " American policy," and " foreign policy," that he should not have applied them in a manner precisely the reverse of that in which he has in fact used them. If .names are thought necessary, it would be well enough, one would think, that the name should be, in some measure, descriptive of the thing; and since Mr. Speaker denominates the policy which he recommends "a new policy in this country;" since he speaks of the present measure as a new era in our legislation; since he professes to invite us to depart from our accustomed course, to instruct ourselves by the wisdom of others, and to adopt the policy of the most distinguished fcreig* slates, one is a little curious to know with what propriety of speeck this imitation of other nations is denominated an "American policy,'' while, on the contrary, a preference for our own established svstem, as it now actually exists, and always has existed, is called a" foreign p licy." This favorite American policy is what America ha9 never t i* d, and this odious foreign policy is what, ns we are t Id. forrigl states have never pursued. Sir, that is the truest American policy which shall most usefully emplov American capital, and American labor, and best sustain the whole population. With me it is a fundamental axiom, it is interwoven with all my opinions, that the great interests of the country are unit,d and inseparable; that agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, will prosper together, or languish together; and that all legislation is dangerous which proposes to beneft one of these without looking to consequences which may f&lloa the others.
Passing from this, sir, I am bound to say that Mr. Speaker begaa his uble and impressive speech at the proper point of inquiry; I mesa the present slate and condifion of the country; although I am so unfortunate, or rather although I am so happy, as to differ from him very widely in regard to that condition. I dissent entirelv from the justice of that picture of distress which he has drawn. 1 have not sera the reality, and know not where it exists. Within my observation there ta no cause for so gloomy and terrifying a representation, la respect to the New England states, with the condition of which I am, of course, most acquainted, the present appears to me a period of very general prosperity. Not, indeed, a time for great protits and sudden acquisition; not a day of extraordinary activity and successful speculation. There is, no doubt, a considerable depression of prices, and, in some degree, a stagnation of business. But the case presented by Mr. Speaker wad nut one of depression, but of distress; of universal, pervading, intense distress, limited to no class, and to no place. We are represented as on the very verge and brink of national ruin. So far from acquiescing in these opmions, I believe there has been no period in winch the general prosperity was better secured,'or rested on a more solid foundation. As applicable to the Eastern states, I put this remark to their Representatives, and ask them if it is not true. When has there been a time in which the means of living have been more accessible and more abundant? when has labor been rewarded, I do not say with a larger, but with a more certain success? Profits, indeed, are low; in some pursuits of life, which it is not proposed to benefit, but to burden, by this Bill, very low. But still I am unacquainted with any proofs of extraordmary distress. What, indeed, are the general mdications of the state of the country? There is no famine nor pestilence in the land, nor war, nor desolation. There is no writhing under the burden of taxation. The means of subsistence are abundant; and at the very moment when the miserable condition of the country is asserted, it is admitted that the wages of labor are high, in comparison with those of any other country. A country, then, enjoying a profound p ace, a perfect civil liberty, with the means of subsistence cheap and abundant, with the reward of labor sure, and its wages higher than anywhere else, cannot be represented in gloom, melancholy, and distress, but by the effort of extraordinary powers of tragedy. Even if, in judging of this question, we were to regard only those p' . ••'- to which we have been referred, we shall probably come to a conclusion somewhat different from that which has been drawn. Our exports, for example, although certainly less than in some years, were not, last year, so much below an average, formed upon the exports of a series of years, and putting those exports at a fixed value, as might be supposed. The exports of agricultural products, of animals, of the products of the forest, of the sea, together with gunpowder, spirits, and sundry unenumerated articles, amounted, in the several years, to the following sums, viz.
In 1790 .... $27,716,152
1804 - - - - 33,842,316
1807 - - - - 38,465,854
Coming up, now, to our own times, and taking the exports of the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, of the same articles and products, at the same prices, they stand thus:
In 1821 - - - - $45,643,175
1822 - - - - 48,782,295
1823 - - - - 55,863,491 Mr. Speaker has taken the very extraordinary year of 1803, and,
adding to the exportation of that year, what he thinks ought to have