1

1

1

1

1

14

1

1

This, sir, is a detailed comparison of the duties, at a variety of stages, under the present law, and by the two propositions now upon your table. The ad valorem duties, in this comparison, are cast by the addition of 10 per cent. to the assumed value of the cloth, without any previous addition for charges, which I am informed constitute a part of the dutiable value of the imports, and which, upon goods, are usually about 24 per cent. The variation, however, upon a single yard of cloth, will be extremely small; and, as all the duties in the comparison

Thus it will be found that the rates of duty by the committee, range from 32 to 99 per cent. omitting fractions entirely, which are omitted in the table, and that the rates proposed by the amendment vary from 44 to 215 per cent. In one single instance the duty propos ed by the committee diminishes the present duty. That instance is at the very highest extreme of the first, or 50 cent minimum. The now rate of duty upon a square yard of cloth costing 50 cents in a foreign market, as will be seen by the table, is 33 per cent. while the rate propos ed by the bill at that point, is but 32 per cent; or, to be better understood, as I intend to argue this question with perfect candour, the duty proposed by the committee upon a yard of cloth invoiced at fifty cents, or at any price under that sum, is 16 cents; while the present duty up on a yard of cloth invoiced exactly at 50 cents, would be 183 cents, making a difference in favor of the present duty, confined strictly to this point, as to cost, of 2 cents. This, upon its face and unexplained, would seem to be wrong, and contrary to the principles which have governed the committee. I will, therefore, ask the patience of the committee for one moment, while I examine this minimum, It is conceded on all hands that the cloths falling

MARCH 10, 1828.]

Tariff Bill.

[H. of R.

within this minimum, must be either very coarse fulled proposed by the bill, as reported by the committee, are cloths, or the lighter fabrics, as baizes, flannels, &c. Now sufficient to give to the manufacturer of woollen cloths the first difficulty presenting itself in the formation of this that protection which he actually requires. And here let bill, was to graduate a duty which should afford protec- me ask, Mr. Chairman, what protection does the manufaction to the manufacturer upon these coarse fulled cloths, turer really need? Have we the means of answering this and at the same time should not be entirely unreasonable inquiry? I think, sir, we have, and that too, with con upon the light fabrics just mentioned. The present law siderable certainty. I have already shown, or attempted had made a distinction in the duty below this point, of 50 to show, that the cost of wool, and the cost of manufaccents, and had impossed a duty of only 25 per cent. upon turing it into cloth, at the present prices of wool in this all cloths costing 33 cents the square yard, while upon country, are equal; that any given parcel of wool can be all costing over that sum, a duty of 33 per cent was im- manufactured into cloth as cheap in the United States as posed. To this distinction flannels and baizes were made it can in England; or, in other words, that the difference an exception, and the distinction was declaredly intro- in the cost of woollen cloths in the two countries, is the duced to favor a description of the coarse fulled cloths, difference in the cost of the wool of which they are made, extensively used, and forming the heaviest item of wool- the expense of manufacturing being the same in both; and lens consumed in one section of this Union. I refer to that the cost of wool in the United States is greater than the the cloths commonly called negro cloths. These were cost of the same wool in England, by from 50 to 80 per supposed mostly to come under the distinction of cloths cent. upon the English cost. These propositions I concosting less than 33 cents the square yard, and there- sider to be fully proved by the testimony to which I have fore to pay a duty 25 per cent. If this was a correct sup-referred; and taking them to be true, I think we arrive position of the former law, I ask, Mr. Chairman, what du- necessarily at the conclusion, that the protection which the ty will these cloths pay by the proposed bill? A square manufacturer of woollen goods in this country requires, is yard of cloth costing 33 cents by the present law pays & equal to the difference between the cost of the wool he duty of 9 16-100 cents, say 9 2-10 cents. By the bill report- uses in England and in this country. The cost of his faed by the conimittee, the same yard of cloth will pay a du- bric is the cost of the wool and cost of the manufacturing ty of 16 cents, making an increase of the duty beyond what it into the fabric; and, as it is established that the Enis now imposed, of 6 8-10 upon every square yard. Now, glish and the American manufacturer can do the manuSir, suppose no single yard of these cloths comes invoiced facturing at the same expense, the difference at which at a less price than 33 cents, I ask, is not this a sufficient each can furnish the fabric at cost, must be the difference increase of the duty? It is 48 instead of 25 per cent. But which each has to pay for the wool of which it is made. we have seen by the calculation and table I have just gi-But it is also established that, as a general rule, the cost ven, that the average increase of duty upon this minimum, of the wool is one half of the cost of the fabric when preeven supposing 20 cents to be its lowest extreme, by the pared for the market, and that the cost of wool in this couneffect of the minimum principle, is 12 per cent. beyond try is greater than the cost of the same, or an equal quality the duty now imposed; and this is true, while at the ex- of wool in England, by from 50 to 80, the medium 65 per treme point of 50 cents, the present duty is very trifling cent. upon the English cost. Therefore, the protection ly reduced. This is the only minimum proposed in the required by our manufacturers, is equal to 65 per cent. bill where the present rate of duty is not increased even upon the cost in England of the wool they use. If, sir, at the highest extreme of the graduated value. Thus, I am understood in this position-and the reasoning seems all cloths costing more than fifty cents, and not more than to me to be plain and palpable, and to follow irresistably one dollar, are to pay the same duty, a duty of 40cents upon from the testimony, I will proceed to compare the duties every square yard. The present duty upon a yard of cloth proposed by the committee, with this standard of requir costing 1 dollar, is 36 2-3 cents; thus leaving an increase ed protection, by which I believe it will be found that at the very extreme of this minimum, of the difference be- these duties are, in all instances, more than sufficient. tween 36 2-3 and 40 cents, or 3 on the yard of cloth, while This comparison, I have also found it necessary to make at the lowest extreme of this minimum, the difference be- in a tabular form to render it intelligible, and, tedious as tween the present and the proposed duty, is a fraction I know it is to read figures, I will give it to the more than 21 cents upon each yard of cloth, in favor of the latter. The average increase upon cloths falling within this minimum, is, as we have just seen, 20 per cent. beyond the present rate of duty.

I will not trouble the committee with a further recapitu lation of this table, than to remark, that an examination of the calculation will show that the medium increase of duty upon cloths falling within the third minimum, is 23 per cent. beyond the present duty, and within the fourth, a fraction more than 20 per cent. increase; while the extremes will be found equally to increase the present rates of duty upon the same cloths. After this point, I presume the bill will not be objected against by the friends of the amendment, as its proposed rates of duty are even higher than those proposed by the amendment. The medium increase beyond the present rate of duty, by the respective minimums, in the proposed amendment, will be found by this table to be, upon the first, 29 per cent.; upon the second, 40 per cent,; upon the third, 20 per cent.; and upon the fourth, 19 per cent., rejecting fractions, and the extremes of increase are from 10 to 182 per cent.

Thus, having seen what the present duty is, what the duties proposed by the bill and amendment are, and what increase beyond the present rate and amount, is proposed by each, it remains for me to examine whether the duties VOL. IV-117

committee.

Cost of the cloth

as assumed by

bill reported by

the Committee.
Cost of the wool
required, being
half the cost of
the cloth.
Cost of the same

wool in England,

as obtained from
the testimony.
Difference betw'n
the cost of wool
in England and
U.S. or the pro-
tection required.
Protect'n propos-
ed by the bill re-
ported by the
Committee.
Excess of protec
tion proposed
over that re-

quired.

by the bill report-
ed by the commit.
Cost of English
markets, exclusive
of all charges or
profits,except duty.
1-8 888 cloth in the U.S.

00 36

00 66
00 51

00 91

frac. cts. frac. dol. cls. dolls. cts. cts. fruc. cts. frac. cts. frac. cts. frac. cls. frac

4 27 156 2830 94 7170 61 5660 312 5660
5 76 249 0566 150 9434 98 1132 498 1132)
5 01202 6698 122 8302 79 8396 405 3396

MARCH 10, 1828.]

Tariff Bill.

[H OF R.

amounts to more than 7 per cent. upon the value of the ly 16 cents, and will by that same amendment only be cloth, or 14 per cent. upon the value of the wool. At charged with a duty of 15 per cent. ad valorem, equal the highest extreme of the next minimum, $1 00, the ex-upon the 2 pounds of wool and dirt, to 2 64-100 cents.cess is 15 per cent. upon the cloth, or 30 per cent. upon Here, then, you will have the same pound of wool import the wool, and this again is the least excess to be found in ed, and consequently conflicting with a pound of equal the bill, with the exception of that at 50 cents. Will it quality of our own wool, while, by this simple fraud, then be contended, by the friends of protection, that wool 17 36-100 cents are saved upon the duty it should pay is to rise in price, by the operation of protecting laws, be- an amount greater than the cost of the pound of wool itself yond either of these rates of increase? If not, then the in the foreign market, and the same wool would pay a duties proposed by the bill will still be a sufficient protec-duty of 2 64 100, instead of 20 cents. Does, then, the bill tion to the manufacturer. It now then remains for me to as reported by the committee, furnish an effectual check answer a very few of the arguments used by the hon. to these frauds? That bill proposes a duty of 7 cents, chairman, [Mr. MALLARY] and as 14 suppose, intended to specifically, upon every pound of wool imported, and apply to the amendment he has offered, although he did a further duty upon all wool of 40 per cent. ad valorem. not offer the amendment until after he closed his remarks. The duty at that rate, upon one pound of wool worth 16 The first position of his which I shall notice, is, that du- cents in the foreign market, would be about 14 cents; ties upon imports, imposed with a view to protection, do and any attempt to disguise its quality, by means which not operate as taxes upon consumers. To this position I should add to its weight, would only increase the duty by fully consent, and I had supposed that it was conceded by 7 cents upon every pound weight added. This view of all the friends of the protecting system. The arguments the case must certainly convince even the honorable chairof the hon. gentleman, to prove its correctness, are cer- man himself, that this provision of the bill is to be pretainly sound, if his data are correct. He instanced cotton ferred, and that his amendment only proclaims a bounty cloth costing now in our market 16 cents, and also 9 upon frauds in the importation of coarse wools. cents per yard, and conclusively showed, as I understood him, although I was unable to follow accurately the calculation, that the present duty upon these cloths is nearly equal to their market value, and that, upon the principle that the duty is a tax, if that should be repealed, you would have the cloths for two or three cents a yard. He also noticed the article of cheese, and showed equally clearly, if I understood him, that, upon the same principle, if the duty upon cheese was repealed, you would not only have your pound of cheese for nothing, but would be entitled to a cent or two for taking it. He also showed us that upon nails nearly the same effect would follow. To these reasons, sir, I can add nothing. They seem to me perfectly conclusive.

The hon. chairman also laid down another proposition to which I am compelled to give my assent. It was, that the whole market for raw wool in this country, must be to our own manufacturers. This, sir, is undeniably true. It must be idle for our farmers to expect to export wool, when it is now 65 per cent. cheaper abroad than it is here. The only market our farmer can have for his wool must be at home. This market our manufacturers do and must control; and they will always regulate it by the price they can get for their cloths.

To another of the arguments used by the gentleman I cannot give my assent. To convince us that there is not at present a supply of wool in this country, he estimates, from what data I know not, that if this bill passes, an addition of 13 millions of pounds of wool will be required to supply the place of that which will be excluded. This must be assuming that not only foreign wool, but foreign cloth, will cease to be imported. Now, sir, from 6 to 6 millions of dollars in value is the whole amount of impor tations of wool and woollens which you can exclude by any law. Of this value less than half will be wool. it then require 13 millions of pounds of wool, or the growth of 5 millions of sheep, to furnish this value? It

cannot be so.

Will

The honorable chairman also made several calculations to show the effect of this bill upon the manufacturers; but I could not follow him so as to obtain any thing more than his results, and I hope he will correct me if I do not state them correctly. I understood him to say, in relation to the first or 50 cent minimum proposed by the bill, that, without any reference to the proposed increase of duty upon wool, the manufacturer was made worse by 3 cents upon each square yard of cloth than he is by the present law. This is not so; for at the extreme point of that minimum of 50 cents value, the duty is only less by 2}

Another position of the hon. chairman, was, that a supply of coarse wool is not produced in this country.-cents upon the yard of cloth; while at 45 cents value it To the correctness of this proposition I entirely dissent, and I have before give the reasons which induce me to do so, and which, I trust, have been a satisfactory answer to the assertion.

is precisely the same as the present duty, and at every value below that sum it is rapidly and materially increased; and while, too, the cloths now paying a duty of 25 per cent. fall within this minimum, and must pay from 80 to As to the frauds alleged to be committed in the impor- 48 per cent. But the honorable chairman says, the bill, tation of those coarse wools, the honorable chairman has as reported by the committee, will increase the cost of the given all the answer which he could have given; that, if wool required to make each yard of cloth, 15 cents, and these wools are imported in a foul state to disguise their that this increase in the price of the wool is to be thrown quality, they will necessarily lose in cleansing, and that entirely against the manufacturer, and, added to the reloss must operate to increase the duty upon the cleans-duction of the duty upon the cloth, is to make him 173 ed wool. This is true, practically, to a certain extent, cents worse upon each yard of cloth than he now is. but not to the extent which the gentleman seems to sup- Here I meet an argument, Mr. Chairman, which, compose. But, sir, suppose it to have been true up to this ing from the source it does, greatly surprises me. time, what effect has it upon the subject now before the then, the friends of protection, to contend that a duty imcommittee? We are now to reason, not upon the exist-posed upon an article, with a view to its protection, is to ing law, but upon the effect of the law which we are about to pass. Let us then see what will be the inducements to these frauds, if the amendment proposed by the honorable chairman, [Mr. MALLARY] is adopted. One pound of wool, worth in a foreign market 16 cents, will, by that amendment, pay 20 cents duty. Mix with that pound of wool 1 pound of dirt, making two pounds in weight, and worth 8 cents per pound, and what duty ill it then pay? The two pounds will still be worth on

Are we

raise its price to the amount of the duty? Are we now to admit that a duty upon imports, for protecting the industry of this country, is a tax upon the consumer to the amount of the duty? Is this sound in principle, that the whole duty imposed is to be added to the price of the article Is a pound of wool now costing 17 cents in this country, by the operation of this duty upon wool, to have added to it 7 cents, the specific duty proposed, and then 40 per cent. upon its value, making in all more than 14

H. OF R.]

Tariff Bill.

[MARCH 10, 1828.

Deduct present duty on wool, 30 per cent. on
25 cents,

Excess of duty over present,

Proposed duty on cloth,
Deduct present duty,

- 00 071

00 171

22 cents,
18

32-3

cents, to arrive at its price in the market? If this be true as to wool, is it not equally true as to cloths? And are the values of cloths to advance in price equal to the amount of duty proposed to be levied upon them? Is the yard of cloth, costing now 50 cents, to cost 66 cents because 16 cents duty is imposed upon it? Is the yard of cloth, now worth 60 cents, to sell at $1 in the market because 40 cents duty is imposed upon it? Is this to be the effect throughout this bill, and in regard to the duties proposed by the amendment, if that is adopted? Sir, it is not, it will not be so; and if the honorable chairman had examined the effects of this argument, he would not have used it, nor would he have gone into calculations based upon it. The principle of it is not sound, and so I supposed him and myself had agreed in a former posi-chairman to take, in making this calculation, 1 pounds tion of his, which I have already noticed.

But, sir, I have made some very short calculations upon the chairman's own principle, to compare the effect of the amendment with the bill reported by the committee, even upon the supposition that that principle is well founded. But before I examine them I will repeat what I understood to be one of the principles of calculation, used by the honorable chairman. I did understand him, in the estimates he gave,not only to assume that the price of wool would be raised to the full amount of the duty, but also to assume that the ad valorem duty imposed by the bill was 50 per cent., and to make his calculations accordingly. I was then correct in my understanding. I had hoped that I was mistaken, as the bill does not in fact propose an ad valorem duty upon wool of but 40 per cent. with a recommendation for a progressive advance of duty of 5 per cent. annually, until it shall reach 50 per cent., which will not be until two years from the 30th of June next; and as this progressive advance of duty is precisely such as had been urged by the honorable chairman, and such as he has provided for in his proposed amendment, I had hoped, if the bill reported by the committee was to be represented by figures, to go out to the public, it would be represented as it is, and not to be what time may make it hereafter.

Manufacturer worse on yard of cloth,

13 5-6

At this rate of calculation, therefore, the manufacturer is better by the amendment than he is by the bill only as 4-5 of a cent is more than 5-6 of a cent. I understood the

of wool for a yard of cloth, Should he be correct in this, although it would not alter the relative proportions of the bill and amendment, yet it would, in this mode of estimation, shew the amendment to be considerably the worse for the manufacturer.

The next calculation was upon carpets. Here I should say, sir, that I, as one member of the Committee on Manufactures, was mistaken, and I believe the majority of the committee were. I did suppose, and I think they did, that the carpeting now paying a duty of 25 cents the square yard, would fall within the $1 00 minimum, and therefore would, by the bill, pay a duty of 40 cents the square yard, and I am not now satisfied that it will not. But it is said by some, that this is not the case; and so far as I am acquainted, it has been distinctly understood by every member of that committee, except one, who is opposed entirely to the system, that the bill should be amended so as to render this duty certain upon these goods. This was stated by the honorable chairman, but not until after he had given us calculations as to the effect of the bill in its present shape. I have therefore only to say, sir, in relation to my mistake, that I took the Harrisburg propositions for the directory in making my propositions upon woollens; and, as carpetings were not mentioned in their proposed alterations of duty, I overlooked them under the impression I have just stated. I will further refer the honorable chairman to his own pro

The first calculation of the honorable chairman was in relation to the first or 50 cent minimum. I will present, upon that minimum, for thepurpose of a comparison be-posed amendment upon this subject. That proposes a tween the bill and the proposed amendment, the following calculation.

duty of twenty-two cents the square yard upon all goods falling within the 50 cent minimum. If these carpetings I will take the highest extreme of the minimum as the fall within it, he will then only impose a duty of 22 cents, point upon which the Chairman calculated. A square instead of the 25 cents imposed by the present law. The yard of cloth will cost 50 cents, and the wool, being half, bill, therefore, will reduce this duty 9 cents, and the chairwill cost 25 cents. A reference to the testimony will man's amendment 3 cents on each yard. But should this show that 14 lbs. of wool will be required to make a yard duty be reduced? Does he wish and intend to reduce of the cloth. This will bring the wool at 20 cents per it? I understand him to assert that he does. I, sir, had pound,and therefore it cannot come in under the denomina-no such intention. I had supposed that the manufacturers tion of 8 cent wool,by the provision contained in the amend-of this article also wanted further protection. This, howment. The comparison will then stand as follows, upon ever, will account for my mistake, if it is one. the supposition that the cost of the wool is to be increased by the amount of the duty:

Committee's Bill.

The chairman further made estimates upon cloth at one dollar, and at 75 cents the square yard. I will institute the same comparisons between the bill and amendment upon these estimates.

In cloth at $1 per square yard the wool will be half, 50 cents, and at 14 lbs. to the yard, the wool will cost 33 cents per pound.

- 00 10

00 184

Committee's Bill.

- 00 07

114

13 8-10

Mallary's Amendment.

Specific duty on 14 pounds wool, cost 20 cts, fou 25
No ad valorem duty.