and fishing States, were almost unanimous against the tariff. Rhode Island, and Connecticut, manufacturing States, were in favor of it, with a single exception from the latter. Also the grain producing States, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, were nearly three to one in favor of protection, from its supposed benefit to agriculture. The planting States generally, then, as since, having an unfailing market abroad for their great staples, were united with the navigating and fishing States against the tariff. By this act Eastern capital was directed more to manufactures; and since that time, the Eastern and Southern States have taken opposite sides on the tariff question. In the Senate, sundry amendments were made to the bill, to some of which the House disagreed; and entire concurrence was not effected until after a Committee of Conference had been appointed. The bill passed the Senate as amended, and before it was sent to the House for concurrence in the amendments, by a vote of 25 to 21, as follows: Maine: Yeas, 2. New Hampshire: Yea, 1; nay, 1. Yeas, 2. Connecticut: Yeas, 2. Massachusetts: Vermont: Yeas, Pennsylvania: Virginia: Nays, 2. North Carolina: Nays, 2. South Carolina: Nays, 2. Kentucky: Yeas, 2. Tennessee: Yeas, 2. Ohio: Yeas, 2. Indiana: Yeas, 2. Illinois: Yea, 1. Louisiana: Nays, 2. Mississippi: Nays, 2. Alabama: Nays, 2. Missouri: Yeas, 2. [For the rates of duties imposed by this act, see Comparative Statement of the several tariff laws, near the end of this volume.] CHAPTER VIII. The "Woolens Bill" of 1827 introduced by Mr. Mallary. Debate on the Bill. Bill passed by the House. Defeated in the Senate by being laid on the table. IN January, 1827, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, proposing additional protection to wool and woolen manufactures; not by a direct increase of duties, but in a manner which will soon be made to appear. Immediately after the passage of the Tariff act of 1824, the English manufacturers prosecuted their business with unusual activity, and flooded our country with their fabrics, which were sold for a time at great profit. Many of our own citizens, anticipating adequate protection from that act, and encouraged by the success of the British manufacturers, made large investments in manufactories. The quantity of British goods imported having vastly exceeded the demand, they were disposed of at forced sales in this country, at a great sacrifice to the foreign manufacturer, and to the serious embarrassment of the domestic manufacturer. Against such a state of things, the latter had no protection; and memorials on the subject, and petitions for relief, were addressed to Congress. The duties on woolens were not considered insufficient in amount; their inadequacy consisted in their nature, and the manner in which they were determined. Being ad valorem duties, or duties according to the value of the article, the English manufacturer was enabled to evade, in part, the duties to which they were fairly subject, by false invoices, or bills, in which they were entered at prices below their real value in England. By this means our revenue was defrauded, and protection to our manufacturers was defeated; the foreign manufacturer being enabled to undersell them in the American market, in consequence of the saving to himself of a part of the duty. It was the policy of the British manufacturers, after they had supplied other markets, to throw their remaining surplus into our market, to be sold at such prices as could be obtained. Although these prices were sometimes below cost, the loss was more than compensated by the depression of American manufactures, which was to the English manufacturer an important object. : By the tariff act of 1824, the duty on imported woolen goods had been raised 8 per cent., and on wool, 15 per cent. No wool was exported from this country to Europe; but more than one-third of the quantity manufactured here, was imported from European countries, subject to a duty of 30 per cent., while our manufacturers enjoyed a mere nominal protection of 33 per cent. ad valorem. We say nominal, because, as the goods were invoiced below their value at the pleasure of the British manufacturer, the duty was virtually determined by the party paying it, and afforded little or no protection. It was not to be expected that, in a large manufacturing country like England, the products of labor would be measured by the exact extent of the demand. The surplus was sent to the United States. By the removal of this surplus from the home market, the English manufacturers had been enabled to maintain high prices on the residue, while the value of all similar goods had been reduced here to the injury of the domestic manufacturer. The manufacturers, however, did not ask either for an increase or a reduction of the duty on wool. Nor did they ask for an increase of the ad valorem duty on woolen goods, if regulations existed which should effectually prevent the evasion of the laws. This could be effected only by changing the mode of determining the ad valorem duty, or by adopting a minimum duty, which it was impossible to evade. In some large establishments in New England, half the machinery was said to be idle; and some of that which had been completed was not to be put into operation, until it could be done under more favorable auspices. On the 27th of January, 1827, Mr. Mallary, of Vermont, Chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, reported a bill "for the alteration of the acts imposing duties on imports," familiarly called, "the woolens bill." This bill proposed not change in the nominal rate of duty, which was 331 per cent.; but it provided for estimating the duties on the minimum principle; which is done by requiring all goods not exceeding in value a certain price, to be taken to have cost such price, and the duty to be charged accordingly. [See definition of minimum, p. 69, note.] The minimum prices fixed by the bill were 40 cents; $2 50, and $4. That is, all goods manufactured in whole or in part of wool, and not exceeding in value 40 cents at the place whence imported, must be deemed and taken to have cost 40 cents the square yard, and charged with the present rate of duty, 33 per cent. If the value exceeded 40 cents, and did not exceed $2 50, the goods must be deemed to have cost $2 50; and if the value exceeded $2 50, they must be deemed to have cost $4; and the duties charged accordingly. Unmanufactured wool, then subject to a duty of 30 per cent., was to be charged, after June, 1828, 35 per cent., and after June 1829, 40 per cent. All wool exceeding in value 10 cents, and not exceeding 40 cents a pound, was to be deemed to have cost 40 cents, and charged with these rates of duty. Wool less than 10 cents, was, by the act of 1824, 15 per cent., on which no alteration was proposed. The bill was taken up on the 17th of January. Mr. Mallary explained and advocated the bill in a speech of considerable length, and containing much valuable information. He said the subject had been pressed upon the consideration of Congress by memorials from different parts of the United States. The memorialists were from both the agricultural and manufacturing classes of the people. From the information given to the Committee, he estimated the capital invested in the woolen manufacture at about $40000,000, and the number of persons employed in the business, at 60,000. This was the manufacturing interest. He next presented the agricultural interest. The number of sheep in the United States was about 16,000,000. He considered that 10,000,000 of these had been added from the demands of the woolen manufactories of the country. He estimated the 10,000,000 at $2 each, which was a low estimate if any encouragement existed for the raw material. This would make the value of the flocks dependent upon the manufacturer, $20,000,000. The establishments consumed annually at least 30,000,000 pounds of wool, which, at 35 cents a pound, would be above $10,000,000. Allowing four sheep to the acre, they would require 2,500,000 acres, which, at $8 per acre, would make $20,000,000. The result was that the agricul tural interest had at least $40,000,000, and the manufacturers as much more, making, together, $80,000,000 capital, involved in the question of protecting the domestic manufacture. An advantage of wool-growing was, that it gave a value to hills and mountains, and sections remote from navigable rivers and good roads. No other produce would so well pay transportation to market, as no other article was so valuable in proportion to its weight. Nor did it interfere with other employments. Our markets were filled to overflowing with agricultural products. So much capital as has been stated, has been added to the landed interest. So much for that great interest immediately dependent for its principal value on manufactures. He next showed how much other branches of agriculture were interested. The farmers of the House, and especially gentlemen from the Middle and Southern States, were requested to notice his statements. In one manufactory employing 260 persons, 300 barrels of flour were consumed in the year 1826. This was obtained from New York, and Petersburg, Virginia, and intermediate ports. There were imported into Boston, in 1826, 281,000 barrels; of which, 72,777 were exported, leaving nearly 209,000 for consumption. The quantity imported into other New England States, was about twice as much as was imported into Boston, making 629,000 barrels for that section of the Union. The value, at $550 per barrel, amounts to $3,480,000. He produced a statement showing that 119,202 barrels were received from Baltimore, and 91,000 from Virginia. This he asked gentlemen to notice. The remainder was from New York, Philadelphia, and the rest of the coast. Upwards of 200,000 barrels of Virginia flour were consumed annually in New England. These facts were worthy of consideration by the farmers of Virginia. How was this produce obtained? How was payment made? Let every gentleman answer for himself. There were imported into Boston, in December last, from the Southern and Middle States, 80,000 bushels of corn. In proportion to the estimate on flour, the quantity taken in all New England would almost exceed belief. Now, said Mr. M., examine the exports of flour to Europe. In 1825, they did not exceed 56,675 barrels. New England, as we have seen, consumes 629,000. We exported, in 1825, to all parts of the world, 813,000, and in 1826, 853,000 barrels. In 1825, we exported to the British West Indies, 114,000 barrels ; to Cuba, 109,000; and to Brazil, 134,000. We send now and then a cargo of flour to Valparaiso and Lima. The arrival-the price, high or low-is reported through the nation, as if its fate was involved. But the steady, silent, valuable market of New England, attracts little attention. Annihilate this great market, and the effects which would follow would convince the farmers of Maryland and Virginia, that the New England market was of immense advantage. Destroy the manufacturing interest, and the means of the North to purchase would at once cease. Mr. M. said he would now call attention to the cotton |