Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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*