price is augmented; nor that they may use the domestic article; the price of that also is increased. Nor can they supply themselves by the substitution of their own fabric. How can the agriculturist make his own iron? How can the ship owner grow his own hemp?

But I have yet a stronger objection to the course of Mr. Speaker's reasoning; I can hardly express the surprise I feel that he should fall into the common modes of expression used elsewhere, and ask if we will give our manufactures no protection. Sir, look to the history of our laws; look to the present state of our laws. Consider that our whole revenue, with a trifling exception, is collected at the custom house, and always has been; and then say what propriety there is in calling on the Government for protection, as if no protection had heretofore been afforded. The real question before us, in regard to all the important clauses of the bill, is not whether we will lay duties, but whether we will augment duties. The demand is for something more than exists, and yet it is pressed as if nothing existed. We hear of the fatal policy of the tariff of 1816; and yet the law of 1816 was passed avowedly for the benefit of manufacturers, and, with very few exceptions, imposed on imported articles very great additions of tax; in some important instances, indeed, amounting to a prohibition.

On the general question, sir, allow me to ask if the doctrine of prohibition, as a general doctrine, be not preposterous? Suppose all nations to act upon it; they would be prosperous, then, according to the argument, precisely in the proportion in which they abolished intercourse with one another. The less of mutual commerce the better, upon this hypothesis. Protection and encouragement may be, and are, doubtless, sometimes, wise and beneficial, if kept within proper limits; but when carried to an extravagant height, or the point of prohibition, the absurd character of the system manifests itself.

Let me now ask, sir, what relief this bill proposes to some of those great and essential interests of the country, the condition of which has been referred to as proof of national distress; and which condition, although I do not think it makes out a case of distress, yet does indicate depression.

And first, as to our foreign trade. The Speaker has stated that there has been a considerable falling off in the tonnage employed in that trade. This is true, lamentably true. But what do we propose to do for it? Why, simply to burden and to tax it. The shipping interest pays, annually, more than half a million of dollars in duties on articles used in the construction

of ships. We propose to add nearly, or quite, fifty per cent. to this amount, at the very moment that we bring forth the languishing state of this interest as a proof of national distress. Let it be remembered that our shipping employed in foreign commerce has at this moment not the shadow of government protection. It goes abroad upon the wide sea to make its own way, and earn its own bread, in a professed competition with the whole world. This right arm of the nation's safety strengthens its own muscle by its own efforts, and by unwearied exertion in its own defence becomes strong for the defence of the country. We have left this interest hitherto to maintain itself or perish; to swim if it can, and to sink if it cannot. But, at this moment of its apparent struggle, can we, as men, can we, as patriots, add another stone to the weight that threatens to carry it down? Sir, there is a limit to human power and to human effort. Some things are impossible to be done; and some burdens may be impossible to be borne; and, as it was the last ounce that broke the back of the camel, so the last tax, although it were even a small one, may be decisive as to the power of our marine to sustain the conflict in which it is now engaged with all the commercial nations on the globe.

It has been often said, sir, that our manufactures have to contend not only against the natural advantages of those who produce similar articles in foreign countries, but also against the action of foreign governments, who have great political interest in aiding their own manufactures to suppress ours. But have not these governments as great an interest to cripple our marine by preventing the growth of our commerce and navigation? What is it that makes us the object of the highest respect or the most suspicious jealousy to foreign states? I need not say that this results, more than from anything else, from that quantity of military power which we can cause to be water borne, and of that extent of commerce which we are able to maintain throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman, the best apology for laws of prohibition and laws of monopoly will be found in that state of society, not only unenlightened, but sluggish, in which they are most generally established. Private industry in those days required strong provocatives, which governments were seeking to administer by these means. Something was wanted to actuate and stimulate men, and the prospects of such profits as would, in our times, excite unbounded competition would hardly move the sloth of former ages. In some instances, no doubt, these laws produced an effect which, in that period, would not have taken place

without them. But our age is wholly of a different character, and its legislation takes another turn. Society is full of excitement; competition comes in place of monopoly; and intelligence and industry ask only for fair play and an open field. Profits, indeed, in such a state of things, will be small, but they will be extensively diffused; prices will be low, and the great body of the people prosperous and happy. It is worthy of remark that, from the operation of these causes, commercial wealth, while it is increased beyond calculation in its general aggregate, is, at the same time, broken and diminished in its subdivisions. Commercial prosperity should be judged of, therefore, rather from the extent of trade than from the magnitude of its apparent profits. When the diminution of profits arises from the extent of competition it indicates rather a salutary than an injurious change.

Labor is the great producer of wealth; it moves all other causes. If it call machinery to its aid, it is still employed, not only in using the machinery, but in making it. I cannot find that we have those idle hands of which the chairman of the committee speaks. The price of labor is a conclusive and unanswerable refutation of that idea; it is known to be higher with us than in any other civilized state, and this is the greatest of all proofs of general happiness. Labor in this country is independent and proud. It has not to ask the patronage of capital, but capital solicits the aid of labor.

CHAPTER IV

THE TARIFF OF 1828

[PROTECTION AND POLITICS]

Silas Wright [N. Y.] Introduces in the House a Tariff Bill "For the Working up of Domestic Raw Materials"-Debate in the House: Denunciation of Bill by Nathaniel H. Claiborne [Va.], George McDuffie [S. C.], James Hamilton [S. C.], Daniel Turner [Va.], John Randolph [Va.]—Bill Is Passed.

A

S had been prophesied by the opponents of the protective features of the tariff of 1824, the manufacturing interests were not satisfied with the duties levied upon the products of their foreign competitors, and soon demanded that they be raised still higher. Thus, in 1826, a petition came to Congress from Boston, praying that the duties on woolen goods be increased, and in 1827 a bill to this effect passed the House but failed to become a law. In July, 1827, a convention of wool growers and woolen manufacturers was held at Harrisburg, Pa. Other interests asked to be admitted, and their request was granted. The convention thus unified all the interests demanding a high tariff, and focused the attention of the country upon the question.

During the congressional session of 1827-28, Silas Wright [N. Y.] introduced a tariff bill, which, as he said, was "intended to turn the manufacturing capital of the country to the working up of domestic raw material, and not foreign raw material." However, its scope was soon broadened far beyond this purpose by the many amendments made to it by the various political, no less than industrial, interests.

After a protracted debate the bill passed in the House by a vote of 105 to 94, and in the Senate by a vote of 26 to 21.

49

The speakers in advocacy of the bill, almost without exception, confined themselves to discussing specific schedules, and hence their speeches are of little interest. The opposition, however, was rich in oratorical denunciation of the principle of the bill and its political animus, terming it a "bill of abominations." Among the brilliant speakers from the South who opposed the measure as an act of tyranny toward their section were Nathaniel H. Claiborne [Va.], George McDuffie [S. C.], James Hamilton [S. C.], Daniel Turner [Va.], and John Randolph [Va.].

THE TARIFF BILL

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 5-APRIL 18, 1828

MR. CLAIBORNE dwelt particularly upon the great masses who had abandoned the cultivation of the earth. This occupation, he said, is the primitive and favorite pursuit of man.

When the population has advanced to a point where the soil will not maintain it, the eagle-eyed sagacity of the citizen will open to him the road to such employments as will best maintain him. There is no necessity for the Government to resort to a hot-bed system of legislation, to force into premature existence a number of sickly manufacturing establishments that will want constant aid from the Government. When the population advances to that point, Government has only to afford protection to all, secure to every man, by an even-handed justice, the fruits of his labor, whether that labor is devoted to the cultivation of the earth, the navigation of the seas, or the labors of the loom, anvil, or hammer. Need I go further than our own country for a happy illustration of the results flowing from a system of government founded on the mild and philosophical principle I here advocate? Under their influence we have, from small beginnings, grown up into a great people-worthy the respect of the world. Sir, we must become a great agricultural peoplewe have a sufficiency of arable land for the accommodation of the people of the present day. Nay, more, for the accommodation of our probable population for five hundred years to

come.

If eventually we must become a manufacturing people, let it be by a slow process.

How long did Great Britain exist as a nation before she