tive ages-to confine human labor to the production of the fruits of the earth. Even if wise, if consistent with the intelligence of the age, would it be just thus to sacrifice the interests which had grown up and taken deep root in the country, which demanded protection, and which would have it? All history proved, that no nation could be great and flourishing without the cultivation of the arts, employing all the industry of the country. It was such diversified industry that had made England and France what they were, and which even now gave such promise of the future greatness of this country. What if England had reduced some of her duties? It is generally upon such articles as compose her export trade. She is modifying; we ought to modify. But she is not uprooting. Her legislation is always based on knowledge, not on theoretical speculations. The true policy of our country is to increase its exports, not its imports. Mr. N. here read a table showing that we imported more largely from England than any country in Europe, proportionally resembling, in this respect, one of her colonies. The times of our greatest commercial difficulties were times of large importations. Why, then, are attempts now made to stimulate importations? Our imports too frequently overrun our exports. England, as seen by a table to which Mr. N. referred, always sees that her exports are as great, and generally greater, than her imports-in some periods nearly double. He felt it his duty to say something on the political aspect of this question. The party to which he belonged had tried to make it a party measure. He had always believed it wrong to connect this question with the politics of the country. The principle of this bill has a strong Southern squint a squinting towards cotton and tobacco. He believed this bill opposed to the principles of Democracy. A great body of the Democracy believe in discrimination for protection. Are we to be robbed of our principles by agreeing with the Secretary, that there can be no discrimination for protection? The bill was hostile to the Democracy of his State, and to the Democracy of the North generally. He had gone as far as any man could go with a safe conscience. Not long ago we had a public man who had accommodated his Northern principles to Southern men so much, that he had been called a "Northern man with Southern principles." However this might be, the South prevented him from running again. The South, whether they had the President or not, always had the central paper to manufacture public opinion-to manufac ture Democratic sentiment. It is said that this is the great measure of the age. And we are called upon, for this, to sacrifice the interests of our constituents. It appears that we must be still hewers of wood and drawers of water to England; and this is the great measure of the age. He had raised his voice early against the course pursued by his friends. But whether he succeeded in arresting the measure or not, he felt it his duty to state, that there was at least one on this side of the chamber, who could not be whipped in to support any such measure. Why is this bill pressed under existing circumstances? It should be passed over to the next Congress. Let the people have a chance to pronounce judgment upon it. They have not had that opportunity. He felt bound by the people of his State to vote against it. He had denied the right of instruction; but there are instructions, (pointing to a book before him containing some statistics of Connecticut ;) to these instructions he would adhere. They were the record of the interests of the industry of his State. In this hour, the people of his State expected him to stand by them, and he would not fail. The debate was continued several days, during which time, memorials from several counties of Pennsylvania were pre sented by Mr. Cameron remonstrating against the passage of the bill; and several amendments were proposed, but most of them were rejected. Much anxiety was felt for the fate of the bill in the Senate, which body was known to be very nearly equally divided. Mr. Haywood, of North Carolina, a Democrat, was opposed to the tariff of 1842, as too highly protective, and to the present bill, as insufficient for revenue. Rather than separate himself from his political friends by voting against the bill, he resigned his seat. The success or defeat of the bill was now supposed to depend upon the vote of Mr. Jarnagin, of Tennessee. He was a Whig, and was opposed to the bill; but he had been instructed by the Legislature of his State to vote for the repeal of the act of 1842; and he felt bound to obey the instructions. To insure his vote and the votes of several others, an objectionable provision of the bill was removed, and the bill was passed, 28 to 27; Mr. Jarnagin voting in the affirmative. The House concurred in the amendment; and the bill be came a law The vote, by States, is as follows: The names of Whigs voting in the affirmative, and of Democrats voting in the negative, are in Italics: YEAS. Maine: Fairfield. New Hampshire: Atherton. New York: Dix, Dickinson. Virginia Penny backer. South Carolina: Calhoun, McDuffie. Georgia: Colquitt. Tennessee: Jarnagin, Turney. Ohio: Allen. Indiana: Hannegan, Bright. Illinois: Breese, Semple. Mississippi: Chalmers, Speight. Alabama: Bagby, Lewis. Florida: Westcott, Yulee. Texas: Houston, Rusk. Missouri: Atchison, Benton. Arkansas: Ashley, Sevier. Michigan: Cass. NAYS. Maine: Evans. New Hampshire: Cilley. Massachusetts: Davis, Webster. Vermont: Phelps, Upham. Rhode Island: Greene, Simmons. Connecticut: Huntington, Niles. New Jersey: Dayton, Miller. Pennsylvania: Cameron, Sturgeon. Delaware: John M. Clayton, Thomas Clayton. Maryland: Johnson, Pearce. Virginia: Archer. North Carolina: Mangum. Georgia: Berrien. Louisiana: Barrow, Johnson. Kentucky: Crittenden, Morehead. Ohio: Corwin. Michigan: Woodbridge. The vote in the House of Representatives was as follows: Maine: Yeas, 6; nay, 1. New Hampshire: Yeas, 3. Massachusetts: Nays, 9. Rhode Island: Nays, 2. Connecticut: Nays, 4. Vermont: Nays, 3. New York: Yeas, 15; nays, 16. New Jersey: Nays, 5. Pennsylvania: Yea, 1; nays, 23. Delaware: Nay, 1. Maryland: Yea, 1; nays, 2. Virginia: Yeas, 14; nay, 1. North Carolina: Yeas, 6; nays, 3. South Carolina: Yeas, 7. Georgia: Yeas, 6; nays, 2. Alabama: Yeas, 7. Mississippi: Yeas, 4. Louisania: Yeas, 3; nays, I. Florida: Yea, 1. Texas: Yeas, 2. Missouri; Yeas, 4. Tennessee: Yeas, 6; nays, 5. Kentucky: Total yeas, 114: Democrats, 113; Whig, 1, (of Alabama.) Total nays, 95: Whigs, 71; Democrats, 18; Native Americans, 6. Of the 18 Democrats, there were from New York, 4; New Jersey, 2; Pennsylvania, 11; Maryland, 1. Natives, New York, 4; Pennsylvania, 2. CHAPTER XVI. Effects of the tariff act of 1846. Remarks of the American newspaper press. Remarks of the British press. Mr. Webster's Speech. Benjamin Marshall's letter on the importation of goods. Effects of the tariff on trade and the revenue. A modification of the tariff recommended by President Buchanan. Meeting of the friends of National Industry in Philadelphia. FROM the representations, in the foregoing debate, of the na ture of the tariff of 1846, the reader may be disposed to inquire into its operation. Were the hopes of its advocates realized? or were the apprehensions of its opponents wellfounded? It will be the object of this short Chapter to present some facts indicating answers to these questions. We have shown how accurate were the previous estimates of the amount of revenue produced by the tariff of 1842, as well as of the amount required to meet the wants of the Government. The friends of that act anticipated, as a consequence of the proposed reduction of duties, a corresponding reduction of revenue, unless, indeed, the importations should be unduly increased. It was apprehended, also, that it would have an unfavorable effect upon many branches of the manufacturing interest, and prove detrimental to the general industry of the country. The effects of this bill appeared, even before it became a law. A material decline in the prices of certain articles, especially wool and pig iron, was experienced in different parts of the country, immediately on receipt of the intelligence of its having passed the House, while it was yet pending in the Senate. Its final passage caused great excitement; and feelings of indignation found utterance through the press of both political parties. The New York Courier and Enquirer, though opposed to the tariff of 1842, reprobated the passage of this law. Among the effects which it enumerated, were the following: "The country will be flooded with foreign goods imported under false invoices; many manufactories will be stopped, and others will work at half price; the home market now being built up will be injured; ruinously low prices of agricultural products will follow; the day laborer will be required to work for reduced wages. The consequence of such excessive importations will cause a balance of trade against us exceeding the amount of specie in the country the next year, [1847,] which must be sent abroad, followed perhaps by a derangement of our monetary system." The New York Tribune, in its review of the act, said: "What can you say, then, of taxing all wool 30 per cent., and letting it in manufactured into woolen or worsted yarn, flannels, bockings or baizes, at 25? wool hats or hat bodies, or any kind of blankets, at 20? Did mortal man ever invent or imagine a system of political economy under which such legislation as this can be justified? Rummage your Adam Smiths and McCullochs, Messrs. Free Traders, and tell us what you can find that will palliate such direct legislation against long established and important home interests, and in favor of their foreign rivals? There are millions of American property invested in the branches of industry here struck at; there are thousands of our people who live by working at these branches. The raw material of blankets is generally cheap, coarse wool, which both British and American manu. facturers obtain from South America. The former pay no duty on their wool, and but 20 per cent. on bringing their fabrics into market; the latter must pay 30 per cent. on his raw material before he begins to manufacture. Will any one attempt to justify this? "Those who fancy the passage of this bill will damage New England especially, are grievously mistaken. It will injure some branches of Eastern manufactures, but fall with far greater severity on the younger and less hardy enterprises of other sections. New England will buy her iron, her coal, her steel, cheaper than she has done. Great Britain and Nova Scotia will profit by the change at the expense of Pennsylvania. The woolen manufacture must suffer, and the wool grower must suffer with it. Printing cottons will be shaken. "We apprehend a reduction of the wages of manufacturing labor, but trust it will be averted if possible. We do not doubt that the capital now embarked in manufactures will generally take care of itself, either in prosecuting those enterprises, or in some other undertakings. But the new States have punished themselves far more seriously than they have New England. They need manufactures to furnish markets for their vast agricultural surplus, and enable them |