Newspaper Page Text
poimcit.
air. Crawford’s lc«er to :Cv. Bia-Ker-.oa.
WOOD LAWN, 4th IT.!’. 1 " :! -
My Drar Sir.— Your esteemed favor of»h> 4th Onto
her, 1.822, vyasreo, ived by <]ue course ot m -and wou.d
have Ucen ausivercdVooticr, but 1 have boon imß.>lc, uu*
tii a few days past, to obtain the Journals ot tiic rcoeral
Convention, Yates’ secret debates of that Convection,
and Luther Martin’s rtport to the legislature of .Wary
land of the part he had acted in that Convention. <no
perusal of these boohs were thought to he indispensable
to a full and satisfactory examination ofthe various am.
important topics :r -• tdin yo r letter. ’» n the
Federal Government tvas first organized, the statesmen
of the United Status were divided in opinion touching the
| constitution. The Fcdcjal party belt.;. I the powers
granted in the constitution were not sufficient to enu.ue
the Federal Govr rnment to fulfil die objects for which and
had been created. They then fore endeavored to infuse
into it by legislation, that vigor which they b< In-v and ne
cessary to enable it to answer file end for which it ban
been devised. To succeed in this, they resorted to ulat
itudinarv construction of the constitution, but they fell
far short of tlic republican party when they came into
power. This party, while the federalists wefe in power,
had Contended for a strict construction of the constitu
tion, and opposed with talent and eclat, the efforts of the
federal party to make,the Federal Government, in prac
tice, a consolidated government. It was piincipaiL oi
iug to tiii% opposition, and to the ( xtremes to which the
federal party carried their construction of the constitu
tion, that the republican party obtained a triumph ov< r
the federal party in iSOI. and obtained possession of the
Federal Government, and have retained it, at least nom
inally, over since. At lheconclusion of the war in 1,15
the debt of the Union exceeded $120,000,000, and re
quired that a large revenue should shoul I be collected to
discharge the interest of the debt, and provide for the gra
dual extinguishment of the principal. For that purpose
the Tariff act of 1810 was enacted; and although it was
strictly a revenue act,and was voted for by a large majo
rity of the members of Congtess as a revenue measure,
and was strictly justifiable as a revenue lanfi, yet ope
member from too .South supported it as a measure tor
protection of manufactures, and openly contend) and that
Congress not only was vested bv the ( onstitution with
power to protect manufactures, but was under the most
solemn obligations to exercise that powernt that time. -
Yet strange to tell, that very member is now at the head
of the Nullifying party in South Carolina, ami that party
has nullified the tariff acts of and 1832, because
they were intended to protect manufactures.
Shortly after the w ar which terminated in eighteen hun
dred and fifteen, there was an effort made to amalgamate
partibs in the Union Many men of doubtful political
principles assumed the political garb of republicanism,
and were adinittr and into the republican ranks. These men
uniformly voted for ext ending the federal rule as much
as possible, and aided by men who had always been
known in the republican ranks, but who hud always
shewn a marked predilection for a splendid National
Government,among whom the gentleman before alluded
to, shone conspicuous. In addition to the piotective
turilf, a splendid plan of Internal Improvement was do
vised and supported, not only by the gentleman previ
ously referred to, but U,v a gentleman from the West, who
lus had the address to appropriate to himself the credit
of the system. Under the guidance of these two distin
guished gentlemen, the doctrine of latitudinury construc
tion has so deformed the constitution, that if its framers
could arise from their tombs, they could not be iipide to
believe that the present government'existed under the
Constitution they had formed. Posterity will he placed
in the same situation. W hen they shall read the con
stitution, (if indeed it is destined todesceud to posterity)
they will he unable to account for many nets of the gov
ernment under that constitution, and will be ready to
conclude that those acts have resulted from a very did' r
ent constitution, which has been lost in the lapse of a
ges. The strict principles of construction contended fur
by the republican party, from the year 178 t) to the year
1801, when Mr. Jefferson was elected President, w here
arc they at this day ? Do the republican party occupy
the same ground this day that they occupied in 1801 ?
No. They have abandoned that ground, and have adop
ted the most visionary and wild theort sos construction
that ever degraded the human understanding. 1 recol
lect to have hoar.! a member from Pennsylvania, when i
was a member of .Mr. Monroe’s cabinet,<f< rive the power
to make internal improvements from lit power to regu
late commerce.
As I consider your letter presents the grounds upon
which a protective tariff rests, and as I am not convinced
that those grounds ere defensible, 1 feel it my duty in
the present crisis, to endeavor to prove, by evidence, il
not demonstrative, at least morally certain, that the fra
mers of the Constitution did not intend to invest Con
gress with the power to protect manufactures, and did
not believe that they had invested Congress with tiiat
power. In-page 130 of the Journals of the Federal Con
vention, the following proposition u is submitted to tin
consideration of the Convention :—“ To establish public
institutions, rewards and immunities, fur the promo:ion
of agriculture, commerce, trades and manufactures.”—
Here the question was distinctly brought mulct the con
sideration of the Convention. The proposition, nor any
thing similar to it, was sanctioned by tin Convention, as
is proven by the journals and by the Constitution. I
presume you will admit, that generally, where a grant of
power has been proposed to the convention, and has not
been granted in the constitution, it is evidence that tl(,u
convention did not mban to grant it. Now, unless the
refusal to grant this power can ho ho shewn to be an ex
ception to tlie general rule 1 have laid down, the power
to protect manufactures must be abandoned by Congress.
The onus prob,nidi in this case lies upon the party rely
ing upon the exception. But if am not greatly mistaken
I shall bo able to shew before this letter is concluded,
that the case under consideration is not an exception to
the general rule. In your lettcrto mo you state, that you
have not attempted to prove the constitutionality of the
protective tariff, because yon are satisfied with Mr. Ma
dison’s opinion upon that subject. You at the same time
inclose me a speech of yours, in which the constitution
ality of that measure is defended. Mr. Madison’s opin
ions and yours are entitled with mo, at least, to as much
deference and respect as respect, as the opinions of any
two men in the world. But upon a question like this. I
cannot resign my judgment to any authority except rea
son. Now, as lain not satisfied with the reason assigned
by Mr. Madison, I must bo excused for did’, ring, even
with such a great and good man. Mr. Madison’s opin
ion i's partly the result pf reason, and partly of memory, 1
shall here state my objection to the r asouiog part of it,
and then the evidence to shew that his memory has de
ceived him. I have not his letters to Joseph 11. Cabs!!,
Esq. before me, but if tin’ recollection be correct,- lie
treats the idea, that the power to lav duties upon imports
by a State with the consent of Congress, were intended
to enable the States to protect manufactures with some
thing like derision, lie savs the imposition of such du
ties would destroy itseo.um . e, which no state can Lk
presumed to desire, Now it so happens that the manu
facturing states are precisely in the situation to desirt
to saci ilice their qonimeroc to their manufactures, pro
vided the commerce of their co st ates is sacrificed at the
same time. It may be well conceived, that when to:
revenue Congress shall have: levied duties nearly to the
point of prohibition, a state having a large amount of
capital ii rested in manufactures, equal, at lens!, to sup
ply of its itvn consumption, may bo disposed to levy du
ties sonsn prohibit, the importation of Uiose articles that
item rappi vSuch n measure will exempt il from con
tributing nn. hingtotlio treasury ofthe I S,mid willutl
ly subject it ti payment of tlioiiuties which it shall have
fmpajsd which 1 '.pay to tit; manufacturers n'-eordiruj
to inv theca v ; but according to the manufacturing theory, 1
which you seem to have adopted, will subject them to no|
hfoher once, but absolutely procure those articles at a ,
cIuMiKT rate than they obtained them before the imposi
tion of the prohibitory duties. I think Mr. . ladiso i
efonrly wrong in his reason. Let us now see if he is
more fortunate in his memory. Luther Martin in Ins
retort to the Legislature of Maryland, page -If, 4l!i vol-
Elliott’s edition, says: “ By this section (10th of Ist art.;
everv State is al=o prohibited from laying any imposts or j
duties upon imports or exports without the permission,
of the General Government. It v.as urged, that, as al
most all sources of taxation were given lo Congress, it
would be but reasonable to leave the Plates the power of
bringing revenue into their treasuries by laying a duty
upon exports, if they should think proper, which might
be .so light as not to injure or discourage industry, and
yet might Le productive of considerable revenue. Also,
that there might bo cases in which it would he proper
for the purpose of encouraging manufacturers, to lay du
ties to prohibit the exportation of raw materials, ami c
ven in addition to the duties laid by Congress on imports
for the sake of revenue, to lay a duty to di.seourrgc the
importation of particular articles into u State, or to ena
ble the ’manufacturer here to supply us on ns good terms
as they could be obtained from a foreign market. How
ever, the most we could obtain was, that this power might
he exercised by the States with, and only with, the con
sent of Congress, and subject to its control ; and so anx
ious were they to seize on every shilling of our money
for the General Government, tiiat they insisted even, the
little revenue that might thus arise, should not be ap
propriated to the use of the respective States where it was
collected, but should he paid into the Treasury of the U.
States: and accordingly so it is determined.” 1 his
report is dated the 27th January, 1788,0n1y a few months
after the adjournment of the convention. Mr. Martin
was an active and intelligent member of the convention ;
remarkable fur his comprehensive and tenacious mcnio
rv ; was dissatisfied with the constitution formed by that
convention, and particularly, because ho could not ob
tain a more efficient protection of manufactures, as ap
pears by the foregoing report to the Maryland legislature.
The clause of the Constitution giving to Congress the
power to regulate commerce, is in a section of the con
stitution preceding that which Mr. Martin says was in
stated to enable the States to protect their manufactures,
•nndjiad been adopted previously. If the convention had
believed tiiat the power to regulate commerce carried
with it, the power to protect manufactures, Mr. Martin
would have been told that the power had bccncnnfcrrt and
upon Congress, and there was no need of vesting the
pow rin the States. But the provision was inserted,
which proves, I think, satisfactorily, that the convention
did not believe that the power to ■regulate commerce d-J
invest Congress with the right or the power to protect
manufactures. If this report of Mr. Martin proves that
the convention did not believe that tlmj had vested that
right irt Congress by the grant of the power to regulate
commerce, thctxtract from the journals of the conven
tion previously cited, proves as conclusively that the
convention did not intend to vest any authority in Con-
fess to pro’ect manufactures. It appears to me, that
the extract from the journals,and that from Mr. Martin’s
report, cover the whole ground, and tiiat there is no room
for doubt or hesitation upon the subject. It is true that
the evidence is principally dehors the constitution. The
journals ofthe federal convention is hut one degree re
moved ftoin the constitution itself, and in all cases of
’doubt is the best evidence that can he ottered to remove
that doubt- The evidence of the journals then in the
present case is the highest evidence of which the case
admits, and that evidence is conclusive against the right
of Congress to protect manufactures. The testimony of
Mr. Martin is supported in some degree by the constitu
tion itself. The provision which--he declares was insett
ed to enable the States to protect manufactures, is in
that instrument, as be represents it, and was not in any
original proposition presented to Congress, and no at
tempt has been made to account for its insertion for a
different purpose than that ascribed to it by Mr. Martin,
has within mv knowledge been made public. Mr. Madi
son in rejecting Mr. Marlin’s account of it, has not at
tempted to assign any other office to the provision.—
Considering that Mr. Martin’s report was made shortly
after the adjournment of the federal convention; tiiat in
the report ho accounted for his conduct; to his consitu
ent, the Legislature, and that he slates a transaction in
which he appears to have taken a deep intetest, there
can I think be no room for doubt in receiving Ins account
of the transaction in preferanceto Mr. Madison’s, which
is made known more than 40 years after the adjon" .incut
of the federal convention. A careful consii' .atiou of
the federal constitution will lead to the same conclusion
as the evidence winch I have jgst submitted and examin
ed. Upon a deliberate cmamination of Umt instrument,
1 think it is apparent, that its powers were given princi
pally forexterior objects, and those which are necessary
for the proper management of those objects.; That there
do not appear to me more than two grants of power in
the constitution which authoize Congress to interfere
with the great mass of individuals, ami their interests or
concerns. The reverie, or rather that part of it which
authorizes Congress to lay taxes and excises, and the
power given over the militia; both thes ■ powers are
necessary to the management ofthe exterior relations of
the United States. The State Legislatures, in the
scheme of the federal government, were considered as
exclusively charged with the domestic relations and in
terests of individuals, except in the two cases before
mentioned. When the convention first met. very differ
ent views appear to have been entertained ofthe powers
which ought to be vested in the federal government,
than were finally vested in it. As 'he federal govern
ment has been administered it would have been much
better to have adopted Mr. Hamilton’* plan of the legis
lative powers of Congress, which was to pass all laws
tiiat titey should deem necessary. If that plan had been
adopted- I verily believe but one law would have passed,
which has not been enacted, Under Mr. Hamilton’s
plan it is possible, nay probable, considering the fanati
cism which has been displayed in some States, that a
law would have passed fertile emancipation of slaves.—
In the enactments of Congress they have devised the
means of passing ail the laws, which in their fantacy they
deemed necessary.'
i admit that if the United States were governed by a
consolidated government, the power to regulate com
merce would, in the abs-.-ncc ofthe journals of the con
vention and Mr. Marti)s’srepoit, have authorized the
protection of manufactures. If the state government
and state lines were obliterated, the protection of manu
factures might be effected under the power to regulate
commerce, because it has been dono by rno.-i of the. ci
vilized states in the world. But the ’i'liritf is clearly a
measure of consolidation, and so are measures of internal
improvement which have been carried on by Congress
without a shadow of authority. It is this reckless legis
lation Congress tiiat has produced the present alarming
crisis in the alf.iirs of the Union, arid the present is hula
commencement of difficulties of that kind, unless a
speedy return to the true principles of the constitution is
t fleeted. The difficulty of warding off the blow aimed
by South Carolina, ought to admonish the fcdctal gov
ernment of I lie necessity of moderation, and a rigid ad
herence to tin- powers granted, and such as are necessa
rily incident to them, ami without which they cannot be
carried intocfilct. The publication of (lie journal of
the federal convention and other documents connected j
with it, has thrown much light upon the powers of the I
!• der.il government. I verily l> -lieve if th< v had been 1
published before the organization ofthe federal govern
ment, neither the Bank of the United Slates, the iissump.!
lion of the state debts, or a protective tariff would have
ever been fount! in the federal statute hook.
Vv lieu I made up my opinion upon the hank question
in I K II, tiiat opinion was founded exclusively upon the
constitution. Tile publication of the journr.U whicn I
h iv- row parsued for the first time, has changed that
opinion. You formed your opinion upon the protective
svg icin' {'ic si!me way, before the publication oi thejottl’n*
j, me! probably without having seen Luther Martin
If - vi 'v, I beseech you, the whole ground ; lay asolc
during the review ofail prc-concoived opinions upon the
subject, and I entertain a hope that vve shall agree in the
conclusion. You say the revenue may be reduced to
the necessary expenses of the government by reducing
or entirely abolishing the duties upon unprotected arti
clcs : that tnis course will relieve the nation from a large
portion of its burthen, and ought to lie acceptable to ah
the states. This is a mistake. Such a reduction will
only increase the inequality which already exists. But
the Tariff States are wholly mistaken if they t, ink the
murmurs of tftc south are principally produced by the
revenue collected for the use of the government. No,
the people of tile south have never complained of paying
what is necessary to support the government ; but they
do complain, and will complain as long as Congress by
its Legislation shall enable the manufacturers to levy
Contributions upon them equal to those they pay to the
government ; ami rest assured, if these exactions are
continued much longer, the Union will be dissolved,
ihit ydu say if the protective system be abolished the l -
nion will l»e more certainly dissolved, than by its con
tinuance. This is possible. I can offer no opinion up
on it ; but if .1 be so, look at the difference in the situa
tion u( the southern and tariff states. The former say
hands <;!f, “Laissez nous faiae.” The latter say it we
are not authorized to fleece the southern states ad libi
tum, -.r<- will dissolve the Union ; or aa»Hezckiah Niles
says, ‘ vve w ill present a million of muskets in defence of
our rogil rights secured to us by the tariff.” You disbe
lieve t?at the tariff docs operate oppressively. You say
no aontjduiut arises against it any where but at the soul!),
for the simple reason that there is no oppression. I can
verily itiagine many reasons why there is no excitement
agaiiistthe ta ri IV in the tariff states. Most of the men of
wealth n.d influence in those stales have capital inves
ted in manufactures. Wherever there is a manufactu
ring establishment, a market is furnished to a certain
distance around it, for every article that can bo raised
on a farm. All those who furnish the maiket arc com
pensated, and more than compensated, for the burthens
of the Tariff. I ajn not sufficiently acquainted with the
location or extent ofthe manufacturing establishments in
those states to determine upon the relative proportion
of the population thus benefitted by those establishments.
Besides these two classes, all those who are employed
in those establishments, and their families, are recon
ciled to flic tariff. But, independent of these classes,
there can be' little doubt-that the popular name with
which the tariff has been dubbed, has had a tendency to
render it popular. In Kentucky, there can be no other
cause for its popularity, aided by Mr. Clay’s address ami
influence, it may be Safely laid down as a general rule,that
manufactures cannot be beneficially introduced into any
country except where there is labour and capita! w hich
cannot find employ withou their introduction. In Ken
tucky there is neither a superabundance of capital or la
bor. Manufactures can only exist there as a hot-house
plant, and must be supported at an expense greatly be
yond the value of the articles pro*need. The tariff sys
torn has been introduced in disregard and defiance of
the principles of sound political economy.
You say that manufactures to the amount of 12 or
fifteen millions of dollars, purchased by the produce ot
the southern states, are annually consumed by the nor
thern and middle states, anil triumphantly ask if that is
not a benefit derived from the Union; and add, that
-those states arc desirous of furnishing those articles
themselves, but the southern states object and insist upon
their consuming that amount of British manufactures
for the benefit of British manufacturers. In reply to
these serious allegations, I will say, in the first place,
that the South never has objected, and docs not now ob
ject to tint tariff states furnishing themselves with all
the aritcles necessary for their convenience and comfort.
They have never insisted that the tarifl states should
consume 12 or fifteen millions annually of Britssh man
ufactures or any other amount. I will say, further, it is
the lirst time in the world, that n party, who lias been o
hligcd, at his own request, with an advance of 12 or 15
millions annually, should conceive that he had laid the
party making the advances under any obligations, or
that the party receiving was aggrieved, by receiving vo
luntarily such advances. The true state of the question
is this : the tariff states not only insist upon furnishing
themselves with these articles, but also the southern
states; and that the southern states should pay them,
not only to enable them to supply themselves but the
southern states also. The southern states have never
requested any thing’to ho done for them at the expense
of a sister state, whereas the tarifl’ states ask that the
whole people of the United States should he enormously
taxed lor their special benefit. But you deny that the
tariff has operated to raise the price of manufactured ar
ticles : on the contrary, you allege the tariff has
reduced the price of protected articles. In other words
you have adopted the theory and opinions of the manu
facturers. Actions speak louder than words, and when
words and actions are contradictory, actions arc to be
believed in preference to words. During the last ses
sion of Congress Mr. Appleton, of Boston, 1 believe,
allcdgcd,that cottons under 10 cents the yard were not
protected by the tariff of 1828, and needed no protec
tion. One provision of the hill under consideration
directed, that all plain cottons costing less than 30 cents
should "be estimated, in calculating the duties, as having
cost 30 cents. A motion was made to strike out all
cottons costing less than 10 cents. This motion, was
resisted successfully by the friends of the tariff. I am
informed that cottons are made in England as low as 0
Cents. A duty of 25 per cent, levied on such cottons,
estimated as having cost cents, would amount
to o;m hundred and twenty-five per cent, ad valorem.—
This single fact proves conclusively that no reliance can
he placed upon the representations of rite manufacturers
and ought to discredit tin ir evidence with all impartial
men)of common sense. For what would they desire to
keep on tin enormous duty upon an article that needed no
protection ; was it merely to insult the people, or to shew
them the absolute power that they wielded over them 1
If this was their object, they have certainly succeeded
in if, and if protection, in order to vend their goods at an
i normous profit was their object, they have equally suc
ceeded. 1 hope, after considering this fact, the advo
e. !, sos the protective system v, ill cease to tell us, that
the tarifl'reduces the price of manufactured articles.—
It'this bo true, the tariff is injurious to them and benefi
cial tons. Wo do not think so. We wish it repealed,
and they ought so to wish it. Why, therefore, is it not
repealed? Simply because it enables the inuiiiif.ictu
rers to levy contribution upon the people. All their de
clarations of this kind are hypocritical and faiae.
1 reject Nullification. I equally reject Mr. M’Duffie’s
doctrine, that the producer pays all the duty. 1 admit,
that this doctrine hasaggavated the discontents of the
South. 1 admit, also, that the oppressions ofthe tariff
upon the South arc aggravated, and yet, I assert, that
tlie South is oppressed beyond the Eastern and Middle
States—that the tarifl’ is unequal, unjust, as I Lope
! I have proved to your .satisfaction, unconstitutional, or
I ot least .-in abuse of the Constitution. * It operates more
: oppressively on the Southern than upon the people ofthe j
i tariff States. Ist. Because there arc no manufacturing [
establishments in those States, consequently no loeui I
market created. 2d. Because none of the laboring class !
are employed by means of the tariff. 3d. Because enpi. j
talisU have invested po capita! in them; and Ith, we are i
at n greater distance from the workshops which supply
us with tiie necessary article*. Tito freight, insurance j
commissions, and other necessary expend s, inhancc the J
price of those article % <o the consumer in the tioutltcrn
s, in a {uglier degree, than in tho tariff States, la j I
these four particulars, the tariff is iu'ore oppressive to tnoji
citizens of the Southern States than of the 'tariff States <
Kvru in IY-nnsylvania, 1 was informed by an intelii.
pent gentleman of that State, the people are begin- :
ning to open their eyes, to* the oppressions of the ta
riff. lie informed me that the member of Congress
elect from his district, was elected under a written
pledge, to reduce the tariff". There can be no doubt
that the tariff is injurious to the interests of the great
body of citizens in every part of the United States..-
It is a measure for the benefit of the few, at the ex
pense of the many. It is worse still, it is far .the bene
fit of a few rich men, at the expense of tite great bo
dy of the people, it is calculated to make tin? rich I
richer and tlic poor pdotcr. inequalities in wealth, in
civilized communities, will necessarily arise, fe'o tor as
this inequality is inherent in the nature of man, it must
lie submitted to, but any system of legislation whic h has
a tendency to create or hasten tiiat inequality, deserves j
the execration of the human race. Such is the tarill j
svstem. Hut this is not all the objection to it. If it were
constitutional and exempt"from the tendency to produce
inequality between the citizens of the Republic, it would
still he injurious to the United States. The atanufttetu.
ring state of society will arrive in all well regulated civil
society. It is as natural for such a society eventually to
become manufacturing, as a boy in due time to become a
man. When the period arrives it ought to be submitted
to us all other dispensations of providence, and then tl»y
are introduced without any effort to sacrifice, and is pro
ductive of no other inconvenience than.what results from
sedentary instead of active laborious employment ; and
even this should not he considered aji evil, for on my i
supposition-, it only employs those who, without the in
troduction of manufactures, would he idle, and any em
ployment, nut absolutely mischievous, is better than idle- j
ues3. If this theory be correct, and it is believed to be j
so, is it not mischievous to hasten this state of things by
legislation, to the great injury of the existing state of so- |
cicty ? Conceding tho constitutional powers to pyiss such j
laws, is it not apparent, that the order of nature, and na-i
lure’s laws, arc deranged by such legislation ? That a I
state of society is prematurely forced upon (lie nation, to
the injury of its national force, and to the destruction of
capital that would otherwise have been tnoic profitably
employed.
But you justify the tariff on the ground of retaliation
upon England, because she refuses to receive the bread
stutfs grain growing States. Let us examine this
proposition. Great Britain, in order to encourage agri
culture and to product,"if possible, bread stuffs enough
to support the people, prohibits the introduction of bread
stuffs, generally, except when her crops fall short of a
supply. This prohibition extends to us in common with
other nations. Every nation has a right to manage its
own internal affairs in its own way, and other nations
have no right to complain, or interfere. But as Croat
Britain docs not receive the grain of other nations, we
have no right to complain or adopt measures of retalia
tion. We have no right to say to Great Britain, take
onr grain, or you shall not have our Cotton and llice, es
pecially when she is almost our only customer, and cer
tainly our best in those articles. The grain growing
States have no right to jeopard those great interests with
a view to force Great Britain to abandon a policy which
she had a perfect right to adopt, if she. thought proper.
Commerce between nations has been properly defined
to he an exchange of Jose articles of which oric nation
has a redundancy, u#l the other a deficiency. When
two nations have or deficiencies of the
same article, there can be no beneficial commerce be
tween them, in their indigenous products. In the pre
sentcase, if the grain growing States make a redundancy
of grain, and Great Britain feels no deficiency of grain,
there can be no beneficial commerce between them in
grain. But there is no cause of complaint, no cause of
retaliation, least of all a retaliation in which a mutually
profitable commerce is carried on to a very great amount.
The Tariff cannot be justly supported as a measure of
retaliation.
I think I have shewn—first, that the protection of
manufactures was not confided by the constitution to
Congress ; second, that it lias been confided to the States;
third, that the tariff is unjust and oppressive to the great
body of the People of the United States; fourth, tiiat it
is still more oppressive to the people of the Southern
States; fifth, that it tends directly to produce inequality
of wealth in the Republic, which is unfriendly to ltcpuh
lican Government, and that it cannot be supported as a
measure of retaliation. If all or even one of tiiese points
are made out to your satisfaction, I hope you will con
cur with rne in the result at which I have arrived. Jn
discussing the various questions presented by your very
interesting letter, 1 have endeavored to avoid every thing
calculated to irritate or offend your feelings, or <he feel
ings of any persons with whom I differ upon this all ab
sorbing question. Before I conclude, 1 think it neces
sary to state, that by the term manufactures in the pre
ceding pages, no allusion is made to the household man
ufactures. To them lam decidedly friendly. It is ow
ing to those manufactures that we have been enabled to
withstand so long the injurious effects oflbc tariff, i
had intended at one time to say something about Nullifi
cation, hut I will say'only, he temperate and resort to
force only to repel force. It is in times of high excite
ment that the most vital stabs arc given to liberty. Cod
bless you, and direct your counsels at thia'alarming cri
sis. Contrary to my predictions of last spring, you are
permitted once more to deliberate within the walls of the
capitol, on the tariff. The question now presented to the
manufacturers is, will you he content with tho incidental
protection afforded by the collection of duties for reven
ue, or will you dissolve the Union ? If the Union is dis
solved, the tariff will he worthless. It is true, your re
spective States can afford you protection within your
States, except against smuggling. They can afford” the
same protection tinder the Union* Why w ill you, there
fore, insist upon dissolving the Union, since its dissolu
tion cannot benefit you ? In this controversy the South
ern States have acted on the defensive. You have h» n,
and now are, the aggressors. Will you cease to oppi <ss ?
If you say no, I cannot say God speed ; but I will sav,
upon your heads fall all the evil which I lip dissolution
of the Union will inevitably cause.
1 am, my dear sir, your friend and most obedient ser
vai,t > WM. 11. CRAWFORD.
The Hon. Mahlon Dickerson, Washington City.
II..
REVE.NUE COLLECTION BILL.
The Senate then proceeded to consider the bill to
provide further for the collection of the duties on im
ports.
Mr. Tyler of Virginia, addressed the Renatc-
Hc thus concludes—There was ambiguity about this
bill. The prophecy bad already rorie forth. T|, e Pre
sident had said that the laws will he obstructed. The
prophecy, therefore, had gone out, and tuc President is
said to he armed with power, which he will probably call
| into operation before his prophecy shall bo fulfilled,
j He had not only prophesied, but lie’had already assem
bled an army. The city of Charleston was attliismo
| ment almost entirely blockaded, and bore flic appenr
j ancc of a beleaguered city. The cannons of Fort I’inc!
j " rB directed against it ; and although tney arc now
jqmetly sleeping, they arc ready to open their thunders
I V'T7'u ! 10 vo,cc °f authority shall give the command,
i -* nt * llicsi’ horror* be let loose? on tint peaceful cit\ 7 *
lie hoped that Smith Carolina would give no cause for
c.iHiiig the bj ll ""o operation. I hope, ronlintn-d Mr. I
1. that a voice winch has gone forth from my Slate w ill 1
reacl, he. in tin r. | have heard Virginia iianu and slight. '
mg )ns the mediator State. Wc are ,And I could i
wir,.., sir, cm I hi.- floor to act spas to sustain that cliirae. I
.►rfmcwiy .Slat,, here. Insucl.a cause 1 would joy- !
fully press foiward whenever there was an oocmnir
success. I trust, sir, that South Carolina will ' no t s °,r C
our mediation to be unsuccessful, but that she will s *-
pend her--ordinance and her laws until after the |, U *
session, if things'‘should not be previously restore/*
tranquility.
He. found, however, that the course ofjhb me-n
meat had not be-, n calculated to prevent a rupture. £
cry tiling which bad been done was calculated to'ch f
tiie spirit of that honored and lofty State. An army h '
been sent, thither, revenue cutters, an armed ship* •,
:i proclamation bad been issued. These were not' ci y
culatml to allay the excitement which had been
duced. A belter course might have been pursued.' t
the President bad followed up the sentiments oflf
I im ,-s-igrt at the opening of the session, the Tariff Wou i
!by this time, have been shivered to atoms, hut it «
j l he nature of man, and, be was sorry to admit it, t u (j„i
| lor morn y. Sonic of tile advocates of the Tariff wei
j ready to yield a portion, but lie feared that the tcis'-atk,
j presented by a high rate of duties was too great t 0
j resisted. It the recommendation of the message
• been acted on, these disquietudes might have ben a
j settled. It was a bad mode of settling disputes to set
out soldiers in uniform, to threaten to hang up citizei
is traitors and the like. Let it be disguised as it n,i„[,
-tlie bill was a declaration of war against a sovcrei/
, -State ; • and be would not give to the President the po,
i cr, at his will and pleasure, to declare war againsta fra
• i eign country ; and be called on the Senate to say iftj,
. j was not a more important question which gave power" I
i' if dare v. ar against a Sovereign State. J
li the majority should pass this hill,they must Join
tlit-ir own responsib : -.ty. lie.could have no part in
Still the I>\ tleral Union must he preserved. Could g«
tletr.cn hope to preserve it by force? Was that them
to preserve it! Suppose that they were to goon an
suppress the State of South Carolina, and reduce Itef
the situation of a province, and hang tip her goVerno
and her Legislature ns traitors: and suppose that herd
iy.i-ns were hunted ii -o those morasses into which Sing
ter and Marion r ti'cd, when they were obliged to tj
relieve from tho British army? Would they after a
have s:iv, ,1 the Union by striking out one of these StaU
and Umt one of the Old Thirteen/ Gentlemen lit
boaster! of the flag of our country, with its thirteen sta
and stripes. Would that any longer be the flag mu]
which onr farthers fought when we shall have oblitci
ted one_ oS-thesiT-statcs? If wo were to go striking a
star after star, what would finally be left but this cent)
and burning sun, withering anil consuming every thin
The flag, said be, which 1 wish to wave over me, ist
flag of my fathers, which waved over them during th
Revolutionary war,and which btrrewpon it the tlsirtei
Slavs, of which South Carolina was one. I hone s™.
Carolina will listen to lior friends, give us her confident
and abide in the conviction of returning sense on th
part of the I‘cop'uof the United States.
llis mode of preserving tbo Union would have lee
different from that which had been pursued. lie tou
have taken the principal remedy which he had point
out. There is an excess of six millions of dollars ii t
Treasury. He would destroy that excess. Yel
would not rashly anil rudely lay hands on tho TariQ, f |
had power to do so. While restoring harmony ton
section, fie would he cautious not to produce discord
another. It was a poor way to appease discord in o
section, arid to raise it in another. The manufacturt
desire time. lie would give them lime—ample tin
If they would come down to the revenue standards
abandon the protective principle, he would allow tin
foil time. He presented these amendments, for he -«
anxious to preserve tire country from civil wars. 1
begged the Senate to bear in mind, that there was
great difference between preserving the Union and p
serving the Government. They might destroy t!
States, and still preserve the Government, lie was!
preserving the Federal Union, and for bringing bat
that peace u bid) seemed to have fled freftn us j
It bad been said that it would not do loofler ten
while 80. Ca. maintained her menacing attitude. H
was a wrong view of the subject. lie would thro
South Carolina entirely out of the question. The
were ottn r Southern States wliish coiled for inodificatio
lint even in it wasSoutb Carolina alone, pride was ii
worst of all counsellors, and its counsels were usual
product i vc of evil. Against this pride Lord Chatham'!
Mr. Burke lifted their-voices in the British Parliami
at the time of the revolution. The besotted Govri
ment of England said it did not comport with their and;
ntty to make concessions. The last of all monit
should be pride. The statesman can offer terms to!
weak, am! by concession exhibit bis magnamiinity. 1
it is with Government: This principle of pride, (
caused more bruised bones, than any other princij
which lias ever iriflin need the actions of men. He wo
rather adopt the suggestions of prudence, and exhilitj
willingness to do justice. By such a course, Pol*
might be saved to Russia—lreland to England—!
South Carolina to the United Slates : not asaprovioi
with her Palmetto trailing in the dust, hut as » Sot
reign and Independent State. If wc conquer Sbj
Carolina, what can we do with her?
If we drive lieivciliz-'iis into tlie morasses whore M
lion and Sumpter found refuge—after we had trodd
her in the dust, destroyed her citizens, slaughtered tb
wives and children, and established a military dcspolil
ill South < "arolina, where should wc find the glory a|
honor of the enterprise? Gracious God! said he, is
necessary to urge considerations of this sort on the.
mcrican Congress? Have the days of the revolutio
passed, without leaving any of its .spirit behind! W
had darker days than the present—some ofthcmintli
course of the war'.but an appeal to the spitit of the J
mcrican people had pffcventc 1 any disastrous result!
and wo had gono on happily until now. But away fort
—it is the madness of the times that suggests fore
Are wc to satisfy the discontents of the people by son
—t>y shooting some, atid bayoneting others? Y’ou
make slaves by force, anti by tho application of fort
convert tree men into, laves ; but after ypu have ISM
them slave* will they look with complacency ontwj
chains? V. ben you have subdued South Carolina, lo*
crcrl her proud flag, and trampled her freedom in t!
dust, will slu- love von for the kindness you have shout
hir! No : she will hate and despise you. Mould yo
follow the example of that miserable despot thoEtnpfif
of Russia, who lias exiled some of (be bravest of the sol
ol Poland, in order to win the hove of South Carolina
Pol ini will fiate Russia until she is again free ; so
would lx; with South Carolina. 1 tvpuld,said he, that;
laid moral in/Itiencc enough to save my country . in tin
hour ol pcial. i know myself, I would peril ail—Hl
nml strength—could I be the means, in the retnotc,fj|
grew, of pacify inn- t | ic agitated billows. 1 have no Mid
I>o»ver. I stais.'! here. m uiacLd in a minority, fbrlcai
count but I -j \ otc,i in this Senate. You, who are th
majority, have the destiny- of the country in yottr liantl?.
It war should grow out of this measure, you will be res
pon. ibl . j u iil wash my htindsof the business- JuWj
or than give !:iv aid i would surrender my station ncre,
for I aspire not to imitate the rash boy who set fire to “' o '
Ephesian dome. No, sir, I would lend no * V* 8
passage of this bill, 1 bad almost said, ‘1 would rather be
a dog,and bay the moon, thansuclia Roman.’ IhfflJJ
had her Uurti —Alliens,"her Leonidas— atid Sjwrt* :
band el dev oft .'! m i!rints : and, no matter who the j
may h. wlm> .-top. forward to r-cscue us i"ini our pen
situation, though he may never wear the crown. j
I--tine sir.ll w the an evergreen around bis Lro", 3 ■
| k's iiHilo -ball tank with that of the proudestp«m*i
iel I pi. Old. St diint-s. I 'mlrr these circumstances WM
\\ as iipjm ;< rl bill. ]|c was devoted to liwcoub*®*
and tin In r nli.iis in,on tins peettsirtn, offered up
sol/isli i-nii-i ■ ! in.! inn. 1
‘ irClirit.topl.cr flatn.u, we are fidii. owed §*» prem***' “ 1
«" M " ’ ,u ,n * * ! i!! in :