ging, molasses, and foreign distilled spirits. If these articles are exempted from duty, what remaining interest has the West in this long expected tariff? A tariff founded in equity, extending equally its benefits to all parts of the Union, will be favorably received at the West. But a par tial system, a sectional system, a mere woolen system, will receive the support of no party there. We would not receive a partial favor, if tendered us at the expense of the East; nor can we sacrifice to that section the dearest interests of the West. Mr. J. spoke at considerable length in support of the claims of the West to protection.

The motion of Mr. Foot to strike out the third section of the bill was decided in the negative: Ayes, 10; noes, 36. All the ayes were from the New England States, and embraced the whole delegation, except Chase, of Vt., and Bell, of N. H.; the former voting in the negative, and the name of the latter not appearing on either side.

The debate continued from this time (May 9th) until the 13th, during which time, many amendments were proposed, and some of them adopted. Among those rejected, was one by Mr. Benton to increase the duty on hemp ten dollars per tun annually, until it should amount to ninety dollars. The question on the passage of the bill was taken, May 13th, and decided in the affirmative, 26 to 21, as follows:

YEAS. Massachusetts: Webster. Connecticut: Foot, Willey. Rhode Island: Knight. Vermont: Chase, Seymour. New York: Sanford, Van Buren. New Jersey: Bateman, Dickerson. Pennsylvania: Barnard, Marks. Delaware: McLane, Ridgely. Kentucky: Johnson, Rowan. Tennessee: Eaton. Ohio: Harrison, Ruggles. Louisiana: Bouligny. In diana: Hendricks, Noble. Illinois: Kane, Thomas. Missouri: Barton, Benton.

NAYS. Maine: Chandler, Parris. New Hampshire: Woodbury. Mass achusetts: Silsbee. Rhode Island: Robbins. Maryland: Chambers, Smith. Virginia: Tazewell, Tyler. North Carolina: Branch, Macon. South Car olina: Smith, Hayne. Georgia: Berrien, Cobb. Tennessee: White. Loui siana: Johnson. Mississippi: Ellis, Williams. Alabama: King, M'Kinley.

The bill was sent to the House of Representatives, where the amendments were concurred in; and it became a law.

CHAPTER X.

Act for the more effectual collection of duties. Act to reduce duties on tea and coffee. Tariff act of 1832. Clay's resolutions in the Senate relating thereto. M'Duffie's bill in the House. Bill of Committee on Manufactures reported by Mr. Adams.

Ar the session of 1829-1830, the Committee on Manufactures in the House of Representatives reported a "bill in alteration of the several acts laying duties on imports." The object of this bill, however, was not to alter the duties, but the more effectually to enforce their collection.

It had been ascertained that frauds in the importation of woolens, to a great extent, were perpetrated in violation of the tariff act of 1828. Mr. Mallary, who reported the bill, presented testimony, not only proving clearly that frauds were practiced, by which duties were evaded, but describing the manner in which the frauds were committed.

Mr. M'Duffie said he would always be in favor of enforcing the collection of the revenue, even though he might object to the laws by which it was levied. In this case, however, he would do it by diminishing the duties, and thereby removing the inducement to evade the duties. With this view, he moved to amend the bill by striking out the principal part of it, and inserting provisions to repeal so much of the acts of 1824 and 1828, as increased the duties on wool and woolens, iron, hemp, flax, cotton bagging and other cotton goods, molasses, and indigo, and to reduce the duty on salt.

Thus was the discussion of the tariff policy again opened. Mr. M'Duffie made a speech of unusual length upon the subject, occupying portions of three different days. He was followed on the same side by Mr. Blair, of the same State, [S. C.] who denied the constitutionality of protection, and denounced the system with much vehemence. They were replied to by Mr. Davis, of Mass., who spoke at great length. The debate was continued for about a week, by Messrs. Crawford and Denny, of Pa., Gorham and Everett, of Mass., Young, of Conn., Burges, of R. I., and Martindale, of N. Y., in favor of the bill and of protection generally; and Messrs Barnwell and Drayton, of S. C., Cambreleng, of N. Y., and Bouldin, of Va., in opposition.

Seldom, if ever, has greater ability been displayed in the discussion of this exciting question than in this debate. We are not at liberty, however, to present even a brief abstract of it. We can do little more than exhibit a few statements, promiscuously, taken from some of the speeches, in illustra tion of the nature and effects of the protective system.

Mr. Young, in proof of the declaration that prices had been reduced by the competition produced by protecting duties, said: We know that coarse cotton cloths below about No. 25, have been fairly protected; those from that to about No. 45 or 50, partially protected; those above that very slightly, including what are termed, in our tariff, cambrics, muslins, &c. And what has been the result? While the fine cottons, which include a greater proportion of labor, and should have fallen lower, have only fallen from 15 to 25 per cent., (not so much as your agricultural produce in the same time,) coarse cotton goods have fallen from 50 to 75 per cent.

This case

I have put for the double purpose of exemplifying the effects of our protection and competition in those articles we manufacture, and of showing the use the foreigner makes of our market, so far as he supplies and controls it.

I will give another instance, exemplifying the same effects, more palpable and decisive probably. I allude to common crockery ware, and common glass ware; both imported and sold by the same class of merchants generally. Glass and glass wares, we know, have received such protection as to excite powerful competition. While the manufacture of common, enameled, and printed wares has as yet scarcely been attempted in this country, some brown wares and imitation Delphian wares have been common, and some new manufactories of porcelain are lately promising success. But the common Liverpool ware, as it is often called, has at all times occupied, commanded, and controlled our market, and regu lated its prices. And what has been the result? While one has hardly fallen 15 per cent., the other has in many branches of it, fallen 75 per cent. And the opposers of this system who complained so much of its injustice and oppression, are now actually saving 25 per cent., or more, on their glass wares, in consequence of this protection, and losing the same amount on their earthen wares for the want of such protec tion.

Mr. Y. alluded to the well known fact, that our coarse cottons were successfully competing with those of British manufacture. He said, the great mystery of our competition in

foreign markets is, that the English manufacturer can not, and if he could, he will not, (where he can avoid it,) sell his goods at our present reduced prices, where he can command the market. The American manufacturer asks no better business than to sell his goods at the English market price, where the English manufacturer and merchant have the trade.

The English manufacturer, it is well known, has long enjoyed a great trade in cotton yarn with the nations in the North of Europe. This is there manufactured into cloth. Any stuffing, imperfection, or deception, which might go off well enough in cloths sold here and there, must be avoided to retain this market. It is, therefore, policy for the manufacturer to make this an honest, fair article, and of course it is a fair article to compare prices upon; and a fair criterion, and probably the only exact one in the whole range of our rival cotton and woolen manufactures. The English manufacturer, it is well known, is in the habit of putting the American stamp and mark on his own fabrics, from a consciousness of their superiority. How then stands the comparison? I have known for some time the general fact that we were underselling the English manufacturer in this article. I have now a statement of the market prices of cotton goods generally in Manchester, (England,) and Philadelphia, and the price of yarns, collated and compared, from No. 12 to No. 30, inclusive, which any gentleman may examine, and have evidence of its accuracy; and he will find that the difference is nearer 6 than 5 per cent. in our favor. He will find, too, that you can purchase one pound of good cotton cloth, of American. manufacture, at about the same price that you can a pound of yarn in the English market. Strange as it may seem, the American manufacturer, if he were permitted, could make a good business in sending cotton yarn and cotton goods to a British market, to Manchester itself.

These facts, Mr. Y. thought, were sufficient to prove, that the protection of domestic manufactures had reduced the prices of them in our markets below the average prices of similar manufactures of other nations; and that the American manufacturers do and can furnish their fellow-citizens with all those articles which are fairly protected, at lower prices than those at which any other nation does, or can, or will furnish them.

The South Carolina members had mentioned as among the grievances of the South, the depreciation of the price of

cotton.

Mr. Martindale, of N. Y., remarked: The tariff has not reduced the price, but has contributed to keep it up. The South has overstocked the markets of the world; and the price has fallen in exact proportion to the excess of supply. The proof to this point is abundant. One fact alone is conclusive. More than half the usual crop remains on hand in the English market at the close of every season. In the whole mass of commercial commodities, there is not a parallel to this excess of supply, and consequent excess of cheapness. Would the repeal of the tariff remedy this? No; it would increase the mischief. The consumption of cotton would be less; for the means of purchase in the Northern States would be greatly diminished.

The history of the past proves that the tariff has had no influence in accelerating this depreciation; nor can any tariff arrest it. The depreciation was more rapid before the tariff of 1824 than it has been at any time since. The mania of 1825, which raised cotton to 30 cents a pound, will not, I presume, be imputed to the tariff. In five years, including 1819 and 1823, the export of cotton was actually doubled; but the price of the whole was actually diminished. In ten years the annual crop of the United States has more than trebled. The annual crop may now be safely estimated at 300,000,000 pounds; but the value is less than $30,000,000. This increase is without a parallel in the history of agriculture; and though its consequences are natural and inevitable, they have by no means been what they would have been, but for the opportune introduction of manufactures in the North, and the sugar culture at the South.

The question was taken on Mr. M'Duffie's amendments, and decided in the negative, except that which proposed a reduction of the duty ou salt. This having been amended so as to reduce the duty to 15 cents per bushel after September next, and to 10 cents after the 31st of December, 1831, it was adopted; 105 to 83.

A motion was made the next day, (May, 12,) to reconsider this vote. Salt being an absolute necessary, it was by some considered an improper article for a high duty. Others, advocated the continuance of the high duty as an encouragement of domestic manufacture. The price of salt, it was said, owing to the competition of manufacturers and import ers, was kept pretty steady and low, and would be gradually reduced. From a statement exhibited, it appeared that, excepting the seven years next after 1807, (during which there