Newspaper Page Text
No. 50 Vou V.]
CONGRESS.
DEBATE ON THE TARIFF.
Extracts from the Speech of Mr. Webster, of Ms.
in the House of Representatives, April 1824.
Allow me, sir, in the first place, to state
my regret, if indeed 1 ought not to express
a warmer sentiment, at the names, or des
igaations, which Mr. Speaker has seen fit to
adopt, for the purpose of describing the ad
vocates and the opposers of the present
Bill. It is a question, he says, between the
friends of an “ American policy,” and those
of a “ foreign policy.” This, 9ir, is an as
sumption which I take the liberty most di
rectly to deny. Mr. Speaker certainly in
tended nothing invidious or derogatory to
any part of the House by this mode of de
nominating friends and enemies. But there
is power in names and this manner of dis
tinguishing those who favour and those who
oppose particular measures, may |pad to
inferences to which no member of the House
can submit. It may imply that Ihere is a
nhore exclusive and peculiar regard to
American interests in one class of opinions
than in another. Such an implication is to
be resisted and repelled. Every member
has a right to the presumption, that he pur
sues what he believes to be the interest of
his country,-with a sincere a zeal as any
other member. I claim this in my own case;
and, while I shall uot, for any purpose of
description, or convenient arrangement,
use terms which may imply any disrespect
to any other men’s opinions, much less any
imputations of-ether men’s molives, it is my
to take care that the use of such terms
by others he not, against the will of those
who adopt them, made to produce a false
impression. Indeed, sir, it is a lit'le aston
ishiug, if it seemed convenient to Mr. Spea
ker, for the purposes ofdistinction, to make
use of the terms “ American policy,” and
“foreign policy,” that he should not have
applied them in a manner precisely ih n re
verse of that in which he has in fact used
them. If names are thought necessary, it
would be well enough, one would think,
that the should he, in some measure,
descriptive ot'the thing; arid since Mr. Spea
ker denominates the policy wbich-b
----mends “ anew policy in this country;”
since he speaks of the present -ciiwwure as
anew efa in our legislation ;
fesses to invite us to depart frorti niJWic
costumed course, to instruct oulselves by
the wisdom of others, and to adopt the pol
icy of the most distinguished foreign stales ,
oue is a little curious to know with what
propriety of speech this imitation of other
nations is denominated an “ American pol
icy,” while, on the contrary, preference
for our own established system, a it now
actually exists, and always has existed, is
called a “ foreign policy.” This favour
ite American policy is what, as we ate
toid, foreign states have never pursu
ed. Sir, that is the truest American
policy which shall most usefully employ
American capital, and American la
bour, and best sustain the whole population.
With me it is a fundamental axiom, it is in
terwoven with all my opinions, that the
great interests of the country are united ami
inseparable ; that agriculture, commerce,
and manufactures, will prosper together,
or languish together; and that all legisla
tion is dangerous which proposes to benefit
one of these without looking to consequen
cj.-s which may fall on the others.
* * * *
Mr. Chairman: I will say a few words
upon a topick, but, for the introduction of
which, ioto this debate, I should not have
given the Committee, on this occasion, the
trouble of hearing me. Some days ago, I
believe it was when we were settling the
controversy between the oi! merchants and
the tallow chandlers, the Balance of Trude
made its appearance in debate, and I must
confess, Sir, that 1 spoke of it, or rather
spoke to it, somewhat freely and irreverent
ly. I believe 1 used the hard names which
have been imputed to me ; and I did it sim
ply for the purpose of laying the spectre,
and driving it back to its tomb. Certainly,
i Sir, when I called the old notion on this
‘subject nonsense, I did not suppose that I
should offend any onej unless the dead
should happen to hear me. All the living
generation, i took it for granted, would
think the term very properly applied. In
this, however, I was mistaken. The dead
and the living rise up together to call me
to nccount, and I must defend myself as well
as 1 am able.
Let us inquire, then, Sir, what is meant
by an unfavourable balance of trade, and
what the argument is, drawn from that
source. By an unfavourable balance of
trade, I understand, is meant (hat state of
things in which importation exceeds expor
tation. To apply it to our own case, if the
value of goods imported, exceed the value
of those exported, then the balance of trade
is said to be against us, inasmuch as we
have ruu in debt to the amount of this dis
fcrence. Therefore, it is said, that, if a
nation continue long in a commerce like
this, it must be rendered absolutely bank
rupt. It is in the condition of a man that
buys more than he sells; and how can such
a traflkk be maintained without ruin? Now,
Sir, the whole fallacy of this argument con
sists in supposing that) whenever the value
THE Ip SSI ONA RY.
of imports exceeds that of exports, a debt is
necessarily created to the extent of the dif
ference: whereas, ordinarily, the import is
no more than the result of the export,
augmented in value by the labour of trans
portation. The excess of imports over ex
ports, in truth, usually shows the gains, not
the losses of trade; or, in a country that
not only buys and sells goods, but employs
ships in carrying goods also, it shows the
profits of commerce, and the earnings of
navigation. Nothing is more certain than
that in the usual course of things, and taking
a series of years together, the value of our
imports is the aggregate of our exports and
our freights. If the value of commodities,
imported in a given case, did not exceed
the value of the outward cargo, with which
they were purchased, then it would be
clear to every man’s common sense, that
‘he voyage had not been profitable. If
such commodities fell far short in value of
the cost of the outward cargo, then the
voyage would be a very losing one; and
yet it would present exactly that stale of
things, which, according to the notioo of a
balance of trade , can alone indicate a pros
perous commerce. Oo the other hand, if
the return cargo were found to be worth
much more than the outward cargo, while
he merchant, having paid for the good* ex
ported, and all the expenses of (he voyage,
finds a handsome sum yet in his hands,
which he calls profits, the balance of trade
is still against him, and whatever he mav
think of i<, he is m a very had way. Al
though one individual, or al! individuals
gain, the nation loses; while all its citizens
grow rich, the country grows poor. This
is the doririne of the balance of trade. Al
low me, Sir, to give an instance tending to
shew how unaccountably individuals de
ceive themselves, and imagine themselves
to be somewhat rapidly mending their con
dition, while they ought to he persuatl-d
that, by that infallible standard, the balance
of trader they are on the high road to ruin
Some years ago, in better times than th>
present, a ship left one of the towns of New
England with 70,000 specie dollars. She
proceeded to Mocha, on the Red Sea, and
there laid out these dollars in coffee,drugs,
xoices, &c. Willi this new cargo she pro
reeded to Mm,,..., _ .h iri k 0 f it were
sold in Holland for $130,000, wtirm
ship brought- back, and placed in the same
Bank, from (he vaults of which *he had ta
ken her original outfit. The other third
was sent to the ports of the Medi'erranc an,
aod produced a return of 25,000 dollars in
specie, and 15.000 dollars in Italian mer
chaodise. These sums together mak-’
170,000 dollars imported, which is 100,000
dollars more than was exported, and i?
therefore proof of an unfavourable balance
of trade , to that amount, in this adventure.
We should find no great difficulty, Sir, in
paying off our balances if this were (he na
lure of thorn all.
The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that all these
obsolete and exploded notions had their or
igin in very mistaken ideas of the true na
lure of commerce. Commerce is not a
gambling among nations for a stake, to be
won by some and lost by others. It has
uot the tendency necessarily to impoverish
one of the parlies to it, while it enriches th*
other; all parlies gain, all parlies make
profits, all parties grow rich, by the opera
tions of just and liberal commerce. If the
world had hut one clime, and but one soil;
if all men had the same warrts and the game
means, on the spot of their existence, to
gratify those wants; then, indeed, what
one obtained from the other by exchange,
would injure one party in the same degree
that it benefited the other; then, indeed,
there would he some foundation for the bal
mice of trade. Bot Providence has dispos
ed our lot much more kindly. We inhabit
a various earth. We have reciprocal
want®, and reciprocal means for gratifying
one another’s wants. This is the true ori
gin of commerce, which is nothing more
than an exchange of equivalents, and from
the rude barter of its primitive state, to the
refined and complex state in which we see
it, its principle is uniformly the same; its
only object being, in every stage, to pro
duce that exchange of commodities between
individuals and between nations, which shall
conduce to (he advantage and to the happi
ness of both. Commerce between nations
has the same essential character, as com
merce between individuals, or between
parts of the same nation. Cannot two in
dividuals make an interchange of commodi
ties which shall prove, beneficial to both,
or in which thp balance of trade shall be in
favour of both? If not, the tailor and the
shoemaker, the farmer and the smith, have
hitherto very much misunderstood their
own interest. And with regard to the in
ternal trade of a country, in which the same
rule would apply as between nations, do
we ever sp -.ak of such an intercourse being
prejudicial to one side because it is usetul
to the other? Do we ever hear that, be
caue the intercourse between New York
and Albaay is advantageous to onp of those
places, it must therefore be ruinous to the
other?
* * *
I will now proceed, Sir, to state some ob
jections which I feel, of a more general na
ture, to the course of Mr. Speaker’s ob
servations.
Ofall (ho j l f” l he wo , r .* < ?’ aD( * the Goepel to every creature.— Chrul.
Os all the dispositions and habite wh.ch lead to politipal prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable rapports- Wathington.
MOUNT ZION, (HANCOCK COUNTY, GEORGIA,) MONDAY, MAY3I, 1824.
He seems to me to argue the question as I
if all domcstick industry were confined to j
the production of manufactured articles; as i
if the employment of our own capital, and i
our own labour, in the occupations of com
merce and navigation, were oot as emphat
ically domestick industry as aoy other occu
pation. Some other gentlemen, in the
course of the debate, have spoken of the
price paid for every foreign manufactured
article, as so much given forthe encourage
ment of foreign labour, to the prejudice of
our own. But is not every such article the
product of our own labour as truly as if we
had manufactured it ourselves? Our labour
has earned it, and paid the price for it. It
is so much added to the stock of national
wealth. If the commodity wpre dollars,
nobody would doubt the truth of this re
mark; and it is precisely as correct in its
application to any other commodity as to
silver. One man makes a yard of cloth at
home; another raises agricultural products,
and buys a yard of imported cloth. Both
these are equally the earnings of domestick
industry, aod the only queslions that arise
in the case are two: the first is, which is
ttie best mode, under all the circumstances,
‘>f obtaining the article ; the second i. how
far this first question is proper to be decided
by government, and how far it is proper to be
left to individual discretion. There is no
foundation for (he distinction which attrib
utes to certain employments the peculiar
appellation of American industry; and it is,
in my judgement, extremely unwise, to at
tempt such discriminations. We are asked
what nations have ever attained eminent
prosperity without encouraging manufae
tures? I may ask, what nation ever reach
ed the like prosperity without promoting
foreign trade? I regard Ihpse interests as
closely connected, aod am of opinion that it
should be our aim to cause them to flourish
together, I know it would be very easy (o
promote manufacture's, at least for a time,
tint probably only for a short lime, if we
■night act in disregard of other interests.
VVe could cause a sudden transfer of capi
al, and a violent change in the pursuits of
men. We could exceedingly benefit some
classes by these means. But what, then,
becomes of the interests of others? The
• lower of collecting revenue by duties on
—i Kabit of the government of
collecting almost its whole revenue™ mai
mode, will enable 11s, without exceeding the
hound? of moderation, to give great advan
tages to those classes of manufactures which
we may think, most useful to promote at
home What I object to is the immoderate
use of the power—exclusions and prohibi
tions; all of which, as I think, not only in
terrupt the pursuits of individuals, wiih
great injury to themselves, and little or no
benefit to the country, but also often divert
our own labour, or, as it may very proper
ly be called, our own domestick industry,
from those occupations in which it is well
employed and well ppid. to others, in which
it will be wor e e employed, and worse paid.
For my part, I see very little relief to those
who are likely to be deprived of their em
ployments, or who find the prices of the
commodities which they need, raised, in any
of the alternatives which Mr. Speaker has
presented. It is nothing to say that they
may, if they choose, continue to buy the
foreign article ; the answer is, the price is
augmented : nor that they may use the do
mestick article ; the price of that also is in
creased. Nor can they supply themselves
by the substitution of their own fabrick.
How can (he agriculturalist make his own
iron ? How can the ship owner grow bis
own hemp?
But I have a yet stronger objection to
the course of Mr. Speaker’s reasoning;
which is, that he leaves out of the case all
that has been already done for the protec
tion of manufactures, and argues the ques
tioo as if those interest# were now, for the
first time, to receive aid from duties on im
ports. 1 can hardly express the surprise I
feel that Mr. Speaker should fall into the
common modes of expression used else
where, and ask if we will give our manufac
turers no protection. Sir, look to the his
tory of our laws; look to the present state
of our laws. Consider that our whole rev
enue, with a trifling exception, is collected
at the custom house, and always has been;
and then say what propriety there is in cal
ling 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. It is wholly
forgotten that iron and hemp, for example,
already pay a rery heavy and burlhensome
duty; and, in short, from the general ten
our of Mr. Speaker’s observations, one
would infer that, hitherto, we had rather
taxed our own manufactures than fostered
them by taxes od those of other countries.
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 011
imported articles very great additions of
tax; in some important instances, indeed,
amounting to a prohibition.
Sir, on this subject it becomes us at least
to understand the real posture es the ques-
tion. Let us not suppose that we are be
ginning the protection of manufactures, by 1
duties on imports. What we are asked to
do is, to render those duties much higher, :
and therefore, instead of dealing in general
commendations of the. benefits ol protection,
the friends of the bill, I think, are bound to
make out a fair case for each of the manu
factures which they propose to benefit.
The government has already done much
for their protection, aod it ought to he
presumed to have done enough, unless it be
shewn, by the facts and considerations ap
plicable to each, that there is a necessity
for doing more
On the general question, Sir, allow me
to ask if the doctrine of prohibition, as a
genera’ doctrine, be not preposterous? Sup
pose all nations to act upon it; they would
be prosperous, then, according to the argu
ment, precisely in the proportion inAvhich
they abolished intercourse with one anoth
er. The less of mutual commerce (be bet
ter upon this hypothesis. Protection and
encouragement may be, and are doubtless,
sometimes, wise and beneficial, if kept with
in proper limits, hut, when carried to an
extravagant height, or the point of prohibi
tion, the absurd character of the system
manifests itself. Mr. Speaker has referred
to the late Emperour Napoleon, as having
attempted to naturalize the manufacture of
cotton in France. He did not cite a more
extravagant part of the projects of that ru
|pr, that is, his attempt to naturalize the
growth of that plant itself in France;
whereas, we have understood that consider
able districts in the south of France, and in
Italy, of rich and productive lands, were at
one time withdrawn from profitatble uses
and devoted to racing, at great expense, a
litlle bad cotton. Nur have we been refer
red to the atlempts, under the same sys
tem, to make sugar and coffee from common
culinary vegetables; attempts which serv
ed to fill the priut shops of Europe, and to
shew us how easy is the transition from
what some think sublime, to that which all
admit to be ridiculous. The folly of some
of these projects has not bepn surpassed,
unr hardly equalled, unless it be hy the phi
losopher in one of the satires of Swift, who
so long laboured to extract sunbeams from
cucumbers.
The poverty and unhappiness of Spain
.a*., V... o —, ih, want of protec
: tion to her own industry. If by this it tt
---• meant that the poverty of Spain is owing to
1 bad government and bad laws, the remark
I is, in a great measure, just. But these very
• laws are bad because they are restrictive,
partial, and prohibitory. If prohibition
were protection, Spain would seem to have
had enough of it. Nothing can exceed the
1 barbarous rigidity of her colonial system, or
the folly ot her early commercial regula
tions. Unenlightened and bigoted legisla
-1 tion, the multitude of holydays, miserable
I roads, monopolies on the part of govern
ment, restrictive laws, that ought long since
, to have been abrogated, are generally, and
1 I believe truly, reckoned the principal can
■ ses of the bad state of the productive indus
i try of Spain. Any partial improvement in
’ her condition, or increase of her prosperity,
1 has been, in all cases, the result of relaxa
-1 turn, and the abolition of what was intended
for favour and protection.
1 In short, Sir, the general sense of this age
sets, with a strong current, io favour of
freedom of commercial intercourse, and un
1 restrained individual action. Men yield up
their notions of monopoly and restriction, as
they yield up other prejudices, slowly and
reluctantly ; but they cannot withstand the
general tide of opinion.
—————————
A COMPEND OF
JEWISH ANTIQUITIES.
[To be continued weekly.]
Q. Who were the Publicans ?
A. The tax gatherers for the Roman
government. These taxes were of three
sorts. 1, Portorium , a tax on goods import
ed and exported. 2, Scriptura , a tax upon
cattle that fed on lands claimed by the gov
ernment. 3, Dfewna, a tenth part of all
corn raised in the country. Publicans
were of two sorts. 1, They who farmed
out the revenues of the government, who
were commonly men of distinction; these
were called by the Romans Mancipes, and
pyohably the same a those who in the New
Testament are called Architelonai, of which
class was Zaccheus. 2, They who were
assistants of (he first sort; these actually
• were the collectors of the taxes, of infa
mous character, spoken of with equal con
tempt by Jews and heathen. They were
io the habit of extorting from the people
much more than was due, and in other re
spects were so bad, that we find them clas
sed in the New Testament with harlots
and sinners. The contempt which the
Pharisees entertained for them is strongly
represented by our Lord in the beautiful
parable of the Publican and Pharisee.
Q. Were there any other sects among
the Jews ?
A. The whole body of the Jews was for
‘ a long time divided into two great sects, the
Caraites aod the Rabbinists. The first ad
hered to the literal, plain sense of scripture
and rejected traditions. The latter, de
nominated Cabalists,or Talmudists, acknow-
[Price %3 50 per ann.
ledged a traditionary law in addition Io the
scriptures. These last have always, since
the Christian era, been the most numerous,
and al present the Caraites are scarcely
known. They are said however to exist
in Poland, Russia, Turkey and Egypt.
The Caraites were ot the school of Shara
mai; the Rabbinists, of thq school of Hillel.
These sects therefore arose a little before
the advent of Christ. Reland mentions six
particulars in which they differed from
each other. 1. The Caraites began their
m with the first appearance of the new
moon ; the other Jews by astronomical cal
culations. 2. They killed the paschal
lamb after sunset, the Rabbinists in the af
ternoon. 3. They permitted none to eat
the passover but nJnlt tnnlo..—the other
Jews, the whole family. 4. They hurnt
the reqpains of the passover on the 15th of
the month; the Rabbinists on the 16th, or
if that were the Sabbath, on the 17th of
the month. 5. They offered up the sheaf
of (be first fruits, the day after the Sabbath
next ensuing after the passover; the other
Jews on the day after thp pasover. 6 In
the feast of tabernacles, the Rabbinists car
ry about branches of trees in procession;
the Caraites allow of 00 such ceremony.
7 This may be added, that the Caraites
read the scriptures in the language of the
connlry where they teside; the Rabbinists
read the scriptures only in Hebrew, and
(heir Liturgy in the Rabbinical dialect of
Hebrew.
Q. When did Synagogues take their
rise ?
A. On this subject there are different
opinions. W'hile some suppose them coe
val with the ceremonial law, others think
they originated after the return of the
Jews from the Babylonish captivity. It is
certain they existed long before the advent
of our Saviour—Acts 22, 21 We find the
word “Synagogue” in the Old Testament;
(Psalms) but this name was employed to
express any meeting of the people, and
hence proves nothing decidedly on this
point! Il is not credible, however, that
the people, for so many ages, had no social
worship, especially on the Sabbath, except
when they viited the temple.
Q In what places were synagogues
erected by Jews ?
A. In any place where there were ten
persons of leisure , it was permitted to erect
a !-jn-igogu. Bui what description of per
sons these were, is not agreed. Probably
it means persons of independent circum
stances. The site of the synagogue was
, on the highest point of the town or city, hut
1 at the same time near to a river or running
: stream, if such existed in the place.
Q Were synagogues considered sacred
■ edifices ?
A They were consecrated by prayer
without much ceremony, after which they
were looked upon as sacred, and great care
was taken that they should Dot he profaned.
Q. Were synagogues numerous ?
A. Very numerous. The number in Je
rusalem was very great. Some say that
this city contained no less than four hundred
and eighty of them; but this exceeds pro
bability. Still, from the scripture account,
we infer they were numerous in that city,
for we read of the synagogue of the Lib
ertines, of the Cyrenians, of the Asiaticks
and of the Alexandrians. Now these seem
to have belonged to Jews residing out of
Judea. How great then may we suppose
1 the number io have been that belonged to
1 the natives of the city. In large cities out
I of Judea, where the Jews were numerous,
there were more synagogues than one, as
in Alexandria, Damascus, &c. Philo says
that there were synagogues in every quar
ter of Alexandria; among which one was
called the great synagogue , supposed to
have been more spjeudid than any other in
any country; concerning which the Rab
bins say, that “ he who has not seetrit, has
not seen the glory of Israel.”
Q. What furniture belonged to the syna
gogues ?
A. 1. The the ark, or chest, in which
was kept the volume of the Law. This
was made in imitation of the ark of the co
venant, and was placed in the synagogue
so as to front the temple. Before this ark
they hung a veil, probably in imitation of
the veil which concealed the most holy
place. 2. The next thing in the synagogue
was the pulpit, or desk, which was not far
from the middle of the house. In this, the
person who read or expounded the Law,
sat or stood. 3. The seats or pews in
which the people sat; of these, some were
more elevated, and reckoned more honour
able than the others. These were com
monly occupied hy the elders, and persons
ofdistinction. These were the chief seats
of which our Lord tells his disciples not to
he ambitious. The women were not seat
ed promiscuously with the men, but io a
kind of balcony or gallery by themselves.
The elders sat with their barks to the chest
of the Law, and their faces towards the
people. \ Lamps, fixed to the wall, or
suspended from the ceilmg, not ODly served
for ornament to the synagogue, but gave
light for the evening service. At some of
the Jewish festivals, especially at the feast
of dedication, many lights were used. 6. In
the synagogues there were certain rooms
or apartments in which were deposited
such things as were necessary for the (yea*