ments are too apt to produce. Our navigation will be quickened, and, supported as it will be by internal resources never before at the command of any nation, will advance to the extent of those resources.

The manufacturers of cotton, in making application to the National Government for encouragement, have been induced to do so for many reasons. They know that their establishments are new and in their infancy, and that they have to encounter a competition with foreign establishments, that have arrived at maturity, that are supported by a large capital, and that have from the Government every protection that can be required. The foreign manufacturers and merchants will put in requisition all the powers of ingenuity; will practice whatever art can devise, and capital can accomplish, to prevent the American manufacturing establishments from taking root and flourishing in their rich and native soil. By the allowance of bounties and drawbacks, the foreign manufacturers and merchants will be furnished with additional means of carrying on the conflict, and of insuring success.

Should the National Government not afford the American manufacturers protection, the dangers which invest and threaten them will destroy all their hopes, and will close their prospects of utility to their country. A reasonable encouragement will sustain and keep them erect, but if they fall, they fall never to rise again, since their mouldering piles-the visible ruins of a legislative breath-will warn all who shall tread in the same footsteps of the doom, the inevitable destiny, of their establish

ments.

But, should the National Government, pursuing an enlightened and liberal policy, sustain and foster the manufacturing establishments, a few years would place them in a condition to bid defiance to foreign competition, and would enable them to increase the industry, wealth, and prosperity of the nation; and to afford to the Government, in times of difficulty and distress, whatever it may require to support public credit, while maintaining the rights of the nation.

The bill was laid before the House of Representatives by Albert Gallatin [Pa.], Secretary of the Treasury, on February 13, 1816, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. On March 23 Mr. Calhoun, of the committee, laid the bill before the House. It was debated until April 8, when it was passed by a vote of 88 to 54,

The schedules that were chiefly objected to were the woolen and cotton manufactures, upon which a duty of twenty-five per cent. ad valorem was laid. It was the evident design in these schedules, and, indeed, though in a minor degree, in all the schedules, to "protect" domestic manufacturing industries that had arisen during the war, and which, upon its cessation, had been forced to reduce their prices by competing with foreign industries, chiefly English (including East Indian manufactures of cotton).

Leading speakers in favor of the principle of protection in the bill were Mr. Calhoun, Henry Clay [Ky.], and Thomas R. Gold [N. Y.]. Those speakers who were in favor of a tariff mainly for revenue were John Ross [Pa.], Robert Wright [Md.], Thomas Telfair [Ga.], and John Randolph [Va.]. Daniel Webster [N. H.] supported the protective principle under the special circumstances of the case. He did not vote on the final passage of the bill.

The bill passed the Senate on April 19 by a vote of 25 to 7, and was approved by the President on April 27.

PROTECTION OR REVENUE?

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 23-APRIL 8, 1816

MR. WEBSTER proposed a stated graduated reduction upon the duties. He said that he was not prepared to say that the Government was bound to adopt a permanent protection, or one which would exclude those goods already in the country. From the course pursued by the Government for some years back, the community had a right to expect relief from the danger to which the sudden change of circumstances exposed our manufactures, but Government had a right to say whether that relief should be permanent or not, and to reduce the protecting duties if it thought proper.

MR. CALHOUN hoped the amendment proposed by Mr. Webster would not prevail. He believed the policy of the country required protection to our manufacturing establishments.

MR. CLAY said the object of protecting manufactures was that we might eventually get articles of necessity made as cheap at home as they could be imported, and thereby to pro

duce an independence of foreign countries. In three years, he said, we could judge of the ability of our establishments to furnish those articles as cheap as they were obtained from abroad, and could then legislate with the lights of experience. He believed that three years would be sufficient to place our manufacturers on this desirable footing, and others would not hesitate to enter into the business, because they would look to that liberal and enlarged policy which they might anticipate from the Government at a future period.

Mr. Ross desired the independence of the people as well as national independence, and wished not to see one class of the community enslaved by another. If the extravagant duties proposed were not necessary for revenue, he could see no strong necessity for them. The failure of certain manufacturers was no reason for them, because some individuals of all professions were unfortunate in the best times, and no sympathy was felt for the merchants who failed. Adverting to a remark that some manufactories were worked in Kentucky by slaves, Mr. Ross said all manufactories were conducted with slaves, because the occupation had a tendency to degrade and debase the human mind. It was, he argued, a vain attempt to carry manufactures to such extent in this country, while there were so many inducements to seek an independent support by agriculture, and other beneficial pursuits. The only kind of manufactures he wished to see flourish were those conducted in families; any other would prove destructive to the liberties of this Republic, by combinations effecting a revolution in this House and in the Government.

Mr. Webster's amendment was agreed to by a large majority.

When the schedules of cotton and woolen goods were reached Mr. Wright moved to exclude from voting all members concerned in their manufacture, but, upon the earnest protest of his colleague, Mr. Smith, withdrew the motion.

MR. TELFAIR Spoke as follows: On the subject of impost I hold it a sound general rule that no other or higher duties should be laid than are both necessary and proper for the purposes of revenue. To attempt more necessarily increases the inducements to smuggling; and if the encouragement of manufactures be the object, it is, in effect, to plunge on the

wide ocean of uncertainty, guided by factitious lights, emanating from the selfishness alone of those who tender them, and which never can be relied upon for the purposes of wise legislation.

I will not deny but that, in the imposition of duties for the purposes of revenue, it is wise so to select your objects that, while the original intent is secured, the interest of the manufacturer may be regarded as an incidental consideration. But what is the character of the measure before you? Instead of contemplating the protection and encouragement of manufactures as secondary or collateral, it refers to them as the primary and essential cause of legislation; instead of the benefits flowing to them being considered merely as some alleviation of burdens, made necessary by the wants of the Government, their encouragement has, in the whole course of the discussion, been placed in the foreground, and admitted to be the principal object for which so enormous a tax is laid upon the people of this country-a tax, the proceeds of which, so far as it means protection, are never to enter the coffers of the nation, but, by a species of magic, are to be transferred from the hands of the consumer into those of the manufacturer-paid by the people indeed, but not for the purposes of Government.

The support of this bill rests upon two considerations. First, it is urged that the course of measures pursued by Government for some time previous to, as well as during, the war had the tendency of a pledge of support. To what an infinite order of pledges would such a system give rise? change from peace to war necessarily injures the immediate interests of commerce and agriculture; a return of peace alike injures those institutions which grow up amid the circumstances of war. Is the nation, after all these changes and effects, to hold itself as bound to compensate the losses of those who may have suffered? I presume this will not be urged. But I may be told that the manufacturing class constitutes so small a portion of the community that, while public policy requires it, they may be sustained by less injury to the others and less expense to the Government, and therefore they should be upheld. Sir, I deem it unsafe to legislate for particular interests. Did not the interest of the merchant and the planter suffer under those very causes which cherished the manufacturer? While the latter was accumulating wealth, were not the former consuming their capital? And, because they now begin to derive a profit, is it wise and just in us to rob them of it by increasing the expenses of articles of consumption, merely to contribute

such a bounty to the manufacturer as will enable him to derive something like his accustomed profits?

In your munificence, you are about to allow, by way of bounty, five per cent. more than is required for revenue upon cottons and woolens, which is as much as the duties during the war, and one hundred per cent. more than those prior to the war. In words you are called upon for protection, but what are the ideas involved in this phrase? Why, that the planter of this country, who consumes the article manufactured, shall be made to pay the difference between the wages of labor in the factory and field, together with the difference of profit which superior skill in the foreign manufacturer gives over the manufacturer of this country. In one word, all articles are made dear to the consumer, whether of foreign or domestic fabrication, merely that the manufacturer may derive a profit upon his capital.

The second consideration, and that which is most relied on, arises from the policy of other nations, and promises a more permanent security to the independence of this people. Imposing, indeed, is such a ground of argument; and, if the independence of this nation either required or could be guaranteed by this bill, abhorrent indeed would be all opposition to it; but, believing, as I do, that the liberties of this people, and the independence of this Government, rest on a basis too firmly laid in their very genius and nature to require such protection, for one I will not consent to adopt the measure proposed. After having advanced in prosperity and improvement far beyond the march of any other nation on the globe, in the same period of time, you are now called upon to reject the admonitions of experience, and adopt a part of the very policy which, with reference to the people of Europe, is congenial, because it denotes the absence of all ideas of self-government. You are about to abjure that principle which was peculiarly your own, and the offspring of freedom, of leaving industry free to its own pursuit and regulation, and to assume to yourself the capacity and right of judging and dictating that labor which is wisest and best for the people of this country. The extent of territory, the exuberance of our soil, the genius of our people, the principles of our political institutions, have in their combination decreed, as by a law of nature, that, for years to come, the citizens of America shall obtain their subsistence by agriculture and commerce. And we, in our wisdom, would fain issue a counter order, to withdraw industry from its natural and accustomed channels, and by our laws, force into