Page images
PDF
EPUB

state to congress, shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any law, by which any citizen of either of the states of this union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the constitution of the United States.” And the legislature was required, by a public act, to declare the assent of the state to this condition, and to transmit to the president of the United States, on or before the fourth Monday of November next, an authentic copy of the act; and upon the public announcement of this fact by the president, the admission of the state was to be considered complete.

The resolution had its several readings the same day, and was passed; ayes, 87; noes, 81. It was sent to the senate, and concurred in by that body on the 28th, 28 to 14.

Thus was consummated a measure which, in respect to the excitement it produced, and its influence upon our national destiny, has no parallel in the history of our government. The whole country was agitated. In anticipation of a renewal of the application of Missouri for admission into the union, public meetings were held in Boston, New York, Trenton, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and many other places; and the question of slavery-its effects upon the public prosperity, the power and duty of the general government in relation to it, and the means of preventing its extension, were discussed. Resolutions deprecating the introduction of slavery into new states were adopted; and memorials to congress, remonstrating against the admission of Missouri with a constitution permitting slavery, were extensively circulated. The legislatures of several states also passed resolutions on the subject, asserting the right of congress to require of new states the prohibition of slavery as a condition of their admission into the union, and requesting their senators and representatives in congress to oppose the admission of any state with a constitution permitting slavery. The states whose legislatures expressly declared the constitutional power of congress to impose the terms of admission, were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.

Nor was the excitement less intense in the southern than in the northern states. Alarmed by the attempt made at the preceding session of congress to impose upon Missouri the restriction of slavery as one of the terms of her admission into the union, active exertions were made to counteract the anti-slavery influence at the north which would again be brought to bear upon congress. Resolutions were passed in several of the slave states, declaring that congress had no power to prescribe to the people of Missouri the terms and conditions upon which they should be admitted into the union, and that congress was bound in good faith to admit them upon equal terms with the existing states.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE FINANCES. THE TARIFF OF 1824.-SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER.

The 18th congress commenced its 1st session December 1, 1823. Mr. Clay, who was again a member of the house of representatives, was chosen speaker by 139 votes against 42 given for Mr. Barbour, speaker of the last congress.

The message of the president, delivered the next day, presented the state of public affairs in greater detail than was usual on such occasions. Among the subjects noticed was the favorable condition of the public finances; the balance that would remain in the treasury on the 1st of January ensuing, being estimated at nearly nine millions of dollars. Of the public debt, the message says: “On the 1st of January, 1825, a large amount of the war debt, and a part of the revolutionary debt, become redeemable. Additional portions of the former will continue to become redeemable annually, until the year 1835. It is believed, however, that, if the United States remain at peace, the whole of that debt may be redeemed by the ordinary revenue of those years during that period, under the provision of the act of March 3, 1817, creating the sinking fund; and in that case, the only part of the debt that will remain after the year 1835, will be the seven millions of five per cent. stock subscribed to the bank of the United States, and the three per cent. revolutionary debt, amounting to thirteen millions two hundred and ninety-six thousand and ninety-nine dollars and six cents; both of which are redeemable at the pleasure of the government."

The president also renewed the recommendation to the last congress, of a review of the tariff for the purpose of affording additional protection to manufactures, and he called the attention of congress to several specified objects of internal improvement, which would require appropriations of the public money. And as congress had not recommended to the states an amendment to the constitution vesting in the general government a power to adopt and execute a system of internal improvement, he suggested that the executive be authorized to enter into an arrangement with the states through which the Cumberland road passes, “ to establish tolls, each within its limits, for the purpose of defraying the expense of future repairs."

Probably the most important measure of congress at this session, was the revision and modification of the tariff. Since 1816, the subject of

manufactures seems to have received for a few years little attention from congress. The tariff act of that year, protecting few important manufactures except coarse cottons, afforded but a limited encouragement to the industry of the nation. Manufactures were languishing; several large establishments were closed; and in many others great numbers of workmen had been discharged. Agriculture was scarcely more prosperous. The foreign demand for American grain, which had been kept up by the wars of Europe for a period of about twenty-five years, had nearly ceased with the restoration of peace. This, together with the limited and constantly diminishing home market, had reduced the prices of our surplus bread stuffs below the cost of production and transportation to the sea board. Public meetings were held, and resolutions were passed; associations were formed; and petitions were presented to congress for relief. Action was also taken on the subject by the legislatures of some of the states, and their representatives were requested to endeavor to procure such modifications of the tariff as should encourage the employment of capital and industry in home manufactures.

With a view to this object, a bill was reported in the house of representatives at the session of 1819–1820, and passed that body, 90 to 69. The bill was defeated in the senate, on a motion to postpone it till the next session, by a vote of 22 to 21. For the reason which will hero after appear, the votes of the several states in the house of representatives are here given, as follows:

Massachusetts, (including Maine :) Ayes, 10; noes, 6; absent, 4. New Hampshire: Noes, 5; absent, 1. Rhode Island : Ayes, 2. Connecticut : Ayes, 6; noes, 1. Vermont : Ayes, 1; noes, 2; absent, 3. New York: Ayes, 25; absent, 2. New Jersey: Ayes, 6. Pennsylvania : Ayes, 22; noes, 1. Delaware: Noes, 2. Maryland : Ayes, 1; Does, 5; absent, 3. Virginia : Ayes, 1; noes, 15; absent, 7. North Carolina : Ayes, 1; noes, 11; absent, 1.

South Carolina : Ayes, 1; Does, 6; absent, 2. Georgia : Noes, 5; absent, 1.

Georgia : Noes, 5; absent, 1. Kentucky: Ayes, 4; nocs, 3 ; absent, 2. Tennessee: Noes, 6. Ohio : Ayes, 6. Indi

Illinois : Ayes, 1. Louisiana: Noes, 1. Mississippi : Noes, 1. Alabama : Noes, 1.

The subject was again brought before congress, at several successive sessions, but without success, until the year 1824. In that year, a bill proposing to increase the duties on imports, after a discussion of more than two months, passed the house, April 16th, by a small majority: Jeas, 107 ; nays, 102. In the senate, some amendments were made to the bill, to which the house disagreed. The difference between the two houses was subsequently settled by a committee of conference. The bill passed the senate, 25 to 22. Of those who voted in the affirmative

ana : Ayes, 1.

a

[ocr errors]

were Messrs. Benton, Dickerson, Jackson, Eaton, Johnson, of Kentucky, and Van Buren. Mr. King, of New York, voted in the negative.

The debate in the house was one of extraordinary interest, and evinced, on the part of those who participated in it, an unusual degree of talent, and extensive knowledge. An attendant upon the discussion, in giving an account of it, said: “Mr. Clay has been the Ajax Telamon of the bill, ably supported by Mr. Tod and many others on different points; but Hectors were not wanting on the other side to contest the ground, inch by inch.” Among the opponents of the bill were Messrs. Webster, Hamilton, P. P. Barbour, and Forsyth.

In this contest for protection, the state of Pennsylvania may perhaps be justly said to have taken the lead. The voice of her citizens expressed in public meeting, their petitions to congress, the resolves of her state legislature, and the persevering efforts of her representatives in congress, contributed largely to the success of the measure. The chairmen of the committees on manufactures in both the preceding congress and the present, were representatives from that state: Mr. Bald. win in the former, and Mr. Tod in the latter. They were ably sustained by Messrs. Buchanan, Ingham, Hemphill, and other colleagues.

The following statement of the vote in the house is given that the reader

may compare it with that of 1820 : Maine : Yeas, 1; nays, 6. Massachusetts : Yeas, 1; nays, 11. New Hampshire: Yeas, 1; nays, 5. Rhode Island : Yeas, 2. Connecticut: Yeas, 5; nays, 1. Vermont: Yeas, 5. New York: Yeas, 26; nays, 8.

8 New Jersey: Yeas, 6. Pennsylvania : Yeas, 24; nays, 1; absent, 1. Delaware: Yeas, 1. Maryland: Yeas, 3; nays, 6. Virginia : Yeas, 1;

North Carolina: Nays, 13. South Carolina: Nays, 9. Georgia : Nays, 7. Kentucky: Yeas, 11. Tennessee: Yeas, 2; nays, 7. Ohio: Yeas, 14. Indiana : Yeas, 2; absent, 1. Illinois : Yeas, 1. Louisiana : Nays, 3. Mississippi : Nays, 1. Alabama : Nays, 3.

, Missouri: Yeas, 1. The speaker, Mr. Clay, being in the chair, did not vote; and Mr. Ingham, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Jennings, of Indiana, were absent. Their votes, had they been given, would have increased the yeas to 110. There was a vacancy in the representation from Massachusetts, which, if it had been filled, would probably have been given in the negative.

In Niles' Register of the 24th of April, the states are classed thus:

Navigating and fishing states : Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, 23 (including one for the vacancy in Mass.) against, and 3 for a tariff for the protection of domestic industry.

Manufacturing states : Rhode Island and Connecticut, 7 for, and i against.

Days, 21.

Grain growing states : Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, 24 for and 9 against.

Tobacco planting and grain growing state : Maryland, 6 against · and 1 for.

Cotton and grain growing state: Tennessee, 7 against, and 2 for. Sugar and cotton planting state : Louisiana, 3 against.

The editor adds: “The navigating and fishing states opposed the bill from an apprehension that it would injure commerce; the grain-growing states supported it from a belief that its passage would benefit agriculture; and the planting states united with the navigating against the bill, for the reason that it would be injurious to agriculture ! On this ground the two last classes are at issue ; but if we deduct the members from the grain growing states, who we may suppose were influenced by other considerations than those specially favorable to agriculture, it will appear, that what may be called the agricultural vote on the tariff, was almost two for, to one against it; that is, 95 grain growing against 57 planting.

“The unanimity of the navigating states against the wishes of the middle grain growing states, will surprise those who recollect, that the former were indebted to the latter for the passage of every law that protected and established their navigation, such as the discriminating duties on imports and tonnage; the building of certain frigates, &c., 'for the protection of commerce against the Barbary powers;' and, in 1796,"for the establishment of a regular navy 'for the protection of commerce in general.” And he notices what he calls the consistency of Virginia and the other states. “They opposed these measures, saying : 'Let commerce protect itself -indifferent whether their tobacco and other products were carried in American or foreign vessels. They now say: 'Let manufactures protect themselves;' and in support of this proposition, use against them precisely the same arguments that were used thirty years ago against navigation."

The following sketch of the speech of Mr. Clay in favor of the tariff, and of that of Mr. Webster against it, presents the principal arguments on both sides of the question.

Mr. Clay commenced by alluding to the general distress, which, he said, was indicated by the diminished exports of native produce, by our reduced foreign navigation and diminished commerce; by the accumulation of grain wanting a market; by the alarming diminution of the circulating medium; by the numerous bankruptcies among all classes of society; by a universal complaint of the want of employment and a con. scquent reduction of the wages of labor ; by the reluctant resort to the perilous use of paper money; and above all, by the depressed value of

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »