Newspaper Page Text
jmg ( 'o\%t i rn f
n »r ? f#;r 4* jw
1/ TERMS—Fu! the semt-wxckly paper, j übliahcil
every Tuesday and Friday morning, [e r nnnuin:■
rad for the K, p kly S 3, a.l payable in advance.
■ITT’ AD\ I.R riSEMiare inserted weekly for €3
!•- fonts per sp- rr ; somi-woekly G 2 1-2 cent* for the 1
li.'!, and 13 3-1 rents tor each <--nh.«c<|UOr>t insert; >n,
and monthly fur St I. 00 pc-r square for each insi rtioii.
Far ye .rlj'adve rt:-oni'-ntf private arr mirerii' -at* arc
to ho in mV. A deduo . is made on the a»lvci i-e
--rnf nts ?■ fT«'-»■ r"•
1/" F -i >v inns' i. ■ >rji ! onh tors of Visinus?.
ADDRiisM
Tolu Peoj.lt of the Congressional District of |
( h irlesUm :
I’kuow.l i iitirv-i : —ln consequence of the
mar approach of the period when the payment!
of the public debt was anticipated, it was natur-1
ally expected Mid d< sired, that tho late Uon
gre-ss, befor i’s adjoufiiineu*, would revise and
«*o modify the tariff act of I -'■ir*. as to reduett, ■
e onsid '•nb!v, tin; amotint of the revenue winch
it jv-eivi <-! Ji>r, and also the rate of the du'icsj!
Wi.icb ff* levied under it, upon the h .porta- j
tion of pro‘tfed articles. As early as .faima-ji
ry, 1832, two re-solutions of tho House of lie-It
presentativ . s directed the Secretary of tho! 1
Treasury “ to collect information as to certain 1 ]
manufactures in the United States, andtocom-jj
numicate tho same to the House, wit n such sug*j
gestions as he mitvlit think useful, with a view
to tin adjustment of the tariff, and with such a <
tariffed’ duties on imports, ns might, in his opin- i
ion, Ik- best adapted to the advancement ot the i
public into rest.” In the report made by the ;
Secretary of the 'Treasury in compliance with j
these resolutions, he remarked, “ that the im
jxjst svstem e* the; 1 oiled States has been for j
many years, iimih n illy, but se> intimately con
nected with the growth and protection of Ame
rican capital and labor, us to have raised up:
great national interests indispensable to the
proslKtrify of the country, and which cannot be
lost sight of, in any new adjustment of the sys
t in. In the circumstances which require, at
ores nt, a general reduction of the revenue, it
* not deemed practicable to preserve, for any
length of time, tli<- degree of protection hither
to afforded to these interests which have grown
up under the past legislation. 'The stated'pub
lic fading throughout an important portion of
the country, which with greater or less intensi
ty, calls fur a revision of the existing Tariff,
is not to be disguised. Uuth patriotism and wis
dom dinte■nt that this s ntiment should he ros
jw -fed, and as far as may be compatible with the
common weal, that it be satisfied, not from any
unworthy motive, but under that obligation of
duly v. hicb requires that all be regarded with
equal eye : that all ho borne upon with an
equal hand; and under that no less solemn ob
ligation, to preserve by any reasonable conces
sions our inestimable Union.” In the spirit of
these s nthu ids, which redound so much to the
erode’' lead and heart of the Secretary,
he pn i/ula bill for Congress, which with some
iiltera.ions, would, in my judgment, have been
pcc- i: u ; v adapted to meet the exigencies of the
times. 'This bill was referred to the Committee
mi Manufactures of the House of Rcprc-s■.-n ta
15v - who professed to make it the basis of ai
bill r ported by them, which, after having re
ceived vo ions amendments, became a law on
the 1 M»V* July, 1832.
For the vote which was given by me upon
the final passage of this bill, all the newspapers,
throughout the State, which are attached to the
doctrineof Nullification, have charged me with
having sacrificed the interests of my constitu
ents, and with having acted, inconsistently, with
opinions which I had, previously, expressed.
Anxious tlfat my I'How-citizens, whether they
be my jroliiical friends or foes, should be in pos
session of the motives of my political conduct,
in order that they may bo enabled to determine
whether I merit their confidence, or have justly
exposed myself to their censure, I will sub
mit to them —tho reasons that governed me up
on the subject under consideration.—The pro.
visions of the Tariff Act of 1832, arc, by no
means, such as I desired them to have been, but,
■when they were under discussion before Con
gress, the problem for the solution of tho mem
bers of that body, was not, in ordinary circum
stances, what a tariff act ought to he, nor in
what manner it should he drawn, so as to satis,
fy the manufacturers of th r - North, or the a<m
•7 . n
culturists of the South —'Ik exclusive friends of
protection, on tho one hand, or of free trade on
the other—but whether any middle course could
be devised, which would reconcile conflicting
prejudices and interests —allay the fury raging
i;i the bosoms of tho two great tar iff parties in
to winch the people were divided, and prevent
that collision between them, which might, not
only disturb the harmony, but endanger tiro ex- 1
istenre of *ac Union.
Tire ffioultv i effeciinc this arrangement,:
• *—• c? *
was i rchahly greater than any which had ever
been presented to the deliberations of Congress,!
si act. tl>c adoption of the Federal Constitution. I
A\ J»il a large majority of tho people regard a
proto*. e tariff to be unauthorised by the con-'
Citation, a majority of them have arrived at a
diametri -Ml p, oslte conclusion. If all those
v-kow jstile to a protective tariff, pronoun-
Ceil it ;o ec unconstitutional, and all those who
were in favour of if, pronounced it to he consti
tutional, ii might naturally lie presumed that
these discordant inferences resul ed from sec
tional prejudices of individual interests. But
such is not the relative position of the contend
ing parties. The advocates of protection are
unanimous on their side of the question, where
as its adversaries differ among themselves. Ma
ny of the most intelligent delegates to the Free
Trade Convention, which met in Philadelphia {
in September last, expressed their conviction of
the legitimate power of Congress to pass protec
tive tariff acts, though they condemned their
principle, as fraught with evil and injustice, and j
the same opinions were avowed by Mr. Galla
tin, *be author of a memorial from that Con
vention, in which the injurious consequences of
legislative interference with tho capital and la- ’
bor of individuals, are demonstrated with an a- !
bility and. clearness, which have not been c- ;
quailed by any production which has issued j
from the American press. The majority of the '
pxq !e not only think that protective duties are)
constitutional, Lut they areas confident, that:
they arc essential to the advancement of tho
general weal, and m support of their views,
they rely upon th 3 numerous protective tariff
acts vhich have been passed, and upon the ap- '
probation cf them by every President of the
United States. The minority arc as thorough.
Iy convinced, that a protective tariff impaiife the
property of the great mass of the community,
raid subjects them to a heavy taxation for the
benefit of the comparatively few. When the
people thus differ upon a subject, in which their
interests are deeply involve I—when those in
te rests are believed to be for creti or depressed
by logisladon, according to geographical poai
tions, it must be obvious, that Congress could
pass no act so modifying protection, ns to give
complete and genera! satisfaction. The only
it
course, therefore, which the lute Congress couidjji
adopt, to calm the public excitement, and soar-U
rest the perilous march of deep and bitter dis-T.
content, was to propose a lav* upon the basis of j
mutual concession and compromise, I pos this i
basis the act of July, 1682, was founded, by ;;
■ which the conditions of concession and compro- .
mise were understood to be that the advocates
of res*riction should consent to a considerable
reduction in il*e rate of protective duties and in i
the amount of revenue to bo collected from iin- ;
ports, and that some changes should be made in
those parts of the system where irs pressure was
peculiarly obnoxious. The ui’ra-restrictionis's,
and tin- partizans of Nullification did not.sffi- \
scribe to. these terms, the former being averse
to any diminution of tii protective duties—the
latter repudiating every species of compromise ,
which did not incl ide the abandonment of the
.principle of protection. These ultraists, how.
itver, were a minority. Tho majority acquits-. :
<■<■■l in fhccompromi.se which has been mention
ed : bat where the real or the supposed inter-1;
jests of the parties were so variant, it was vain
iloexjiect, that anv compromise could bo so exc- ij
Icutcdasto be exempt from mutual objections.
\n approximation towards that which each of ,
1 4 •
them desired, was as much as could have been, J
; reasonably, calculated upon, in the passage of j
'the first tariff act which bad been introduced, ,
'during so many years, with tho declared inten- f
I tion of reducing the rates of protection. That ,
I approximation, it seemed to me, was-etfected by !
Übeart of 1832, inasmuch as by it the ininimums
'.upon woollens were repealed, and tho aggregate
jof the revenue and the amount of tho protective
j duties considerably diminished.
Being satisfied, that this act was, incompara.
jbly, better than that of 1828, I accordingly
(voted (br it. Upon wliat ground I can, even
plausibly, he charged with impolicy or inconsis
jtency, fi>r thus voting, ham unable to discover,
it is true that 1 have always, expressed myself,
adverse to the constitutionality and the cxpcdl
j ency of a protective tariff; but whatever may
bo my opinion and the opinions of the larger por
tion of the citizens of the sou f h, lam compelled |
to admit, that the constitutionality of a protec- i
live tariff, is not only a dcbateable question, up- ]
on which wise and honest men may and do dis
agree, but that the weight of numbers and of
great names preponderates in favour of those
who maintain its constitutionality. Under these,
circumstances, wlien 1 reflected, that the act of
1832 diminished the existing duties, repealed the!
ininimums upon woollens, (among the most odi
ous devices of a most odious law,) and lighten
ed, generally, the burthen of taxation, 1 felt my- :
self not merely justified, but imperiously requir-j
ed to facilitate its passage, by every means in!
jmy power. Had I supported a hill which ang
mented tho protective duties, which extended
j the deceptive minimums, and which added to the]
:public burthens, the impolicy and the inconsis
tency of my conduct might well have been no
ticed ns meriting the severest animadversion.
It has also been alleged against me, that I
gave my sanction to a law which recognized
“ the protective system ns the settled policy of
the country.” Upon what authority this allega
tion is made, lam ignorant. It is not sustain
ed by any words which I have uttered, or by any
language in’be context of the law, or by rai}'
I inference to be drawn from either. If it is to
| be interred from the fact, that the restriction
i.-‘s, in the compromise which they declared
themselves willing to enter into, did' not agree ■
to abandon protection, which they claimed as a
fight, it is admitted that they did not. Nothing
is more certain, than that no law would have
been passed, had this abandonment been de
manded as one of its conditions. The basis up
on which the law was professed to be (bunded,
was that of mutual compromise and concession.
Now where one side surrenders the very ground
which is in dispute, there may he victory or de
feat, but mutual compromise and concession arc]
terms, utterly inapplicable to such a position of
the parties. If by tho allegation, the meaning!
is intended to be conveyed, that Messrs. Bi.ua
and Mitchtim. and myself, who voted for the
Act of 1832, in any mode or manner, recog
nized “ the protective system as the settled po
-1 1 11 iox* of the country,” it will be sufficient to do-
Jny the imputation, and to ask for the proof.
| But neither the conduct of those of my col
leagues whom I have named, nor of myself,
,is susceptible of an ambiguous interpretation.
—Upon the floor of the House of Rcpresenta-
I lives, 1 repeated what I had often stated, both
•jj there and elsewhere, that in my opinion a pro
tectivc tariff was unconstitutional, unequal and
i 'oppressive: I called upon thefiiendsof Free Trade
I —not to acknowledge the Constitutionality or
; j the policy of a protective Tariff—not to yield
, any principle or to sacrifice any interest —but to
j forbear from insisting upon the sudden abandon.
I ment of a system, which would be attended with the
. ruin of millions —to endeavor to obtain an ame
jlioration then of its provisions, by compromise
j with their opponents, and to postpone all efforts
,! for its repeal, to a future and more auspicious
jj period. Gen. Blair so far from conceiving that
ij Irfs vo+e was a recognition “of the settled policy
| of the protective system,” declared, that he “di'd
j not vote for the bill as a compromise of the snb-i
i ject, or as a quietus of the complaints of the!
South, but on the principle of reduction and
Mr. Mitchell, who spoke at length against the!
bill, gave foil his support, for reasons similar to
those which had been assigned by Gen. Blair.
Had my conduct in relation to this bill been the!
reverse of what it was, had I voted against it, 1
and had this vote been cited, to establish that 1
hail been inconsistent, and treacherous to my du
ty, I should have felt that I was incompetent to
defend myself against grave accusations. I
i might have urged, as a subterfuge, that I would
not suffer my name to lx' enrolled in favor of any
protective tariff; but would I not have been con
i founded and silenced by the reply, that if the
j law which I refused to vote for, had been reject
ed. a law more grievous, and which contained
protective duties more onerous, would be in force;
land that by declining to exert myself to accom
plish the passage of the act of 1832, I virtually
contributed to rivet upon my fellow citizens the
greater oppression of the act of 1828? The
i compromise winch I recommended in the House,
jof Representatives, was intended, and was de
; dared to be intended, to meet the existing crisis,
j which, in the apprehension of many wise and
'patriotic men, threatened the destruction of tho
Union. To avert this deep and dire calamity,
an immediate remedy was necessary—that reme
dy could not be administered without fheco-ope
ratioa of the friends and the adversaries of pro
tection: that co-operation, to the extent which
J has been mentioned, was obtained: ii was un
connected with any compact, erpmsed or h-i
--iplied, as to ‘the settled policy of the country ,’ or
as to the true construction of the powers ‘to lav
and collect taxes or ‘to regulate commerce, j
That the protective principle is contained in the
act oi 1832, is undeniable; it was also contained
in the bill which was reported by Mr- M‘Duffic,
as the chairman of the committee ot ways and
means; for in that bill duties of 25 per cent, ad
valorem, for prescribed periods, were to be levi. j
cd upon the protected articles of Iron, Salt, Su- I
gar, Cotton Bagging, Woollens, &c.; aterwards.
the. duty was to be gradually reduced to 12} per
ccnhirfi, ad valorem, which un(Lr that Bill, aMsjj
estimated to he the rote of duly which trio ncces- l
sary for revenue. The constitutionality of the I
protective system was as plainly admitted, by
legislating for trie continuance of-some protected !•
items, during a single year, as by legislating for j
all of them, without any limitation as to time. 1
Although the j'.r ir ip’e" of protection has never
been abandoned by any Congress: although it is
embraced within the provision of the act of 1832,
1 have yet, never supposed myseli less at liber-;
ty now, than formerly, to use all my exertions
to erase it from cur Statute Book: and I derive j:
no little confidence in the repeal of protective^
I tariffs, from true fact, that a diminution of the |
power of those who have hitherto been regarded ;
* . - ' ' I ■
to bo the veteran and uncompromising support-j
,ors of protection, v. as .uanitested, by the passage
of the act of July last, in spite of their unremit- ,
ting and strenuous opposition to it, aided by the |
• co-operation of set eral ofthose who term them- .
!selves the friends of free trade, among whom •
•were included, bo h of our Senators and six of ;
our Representatives. These Senators and Re- ;
j present aiives might have been able to reconcile j
gheir conduct with what they conceived to be
ipolicy and duty. 1 could not imitate their ex- .
| ample, nor shall 1 be prevailed upon to think thatjj
II ought to have done so, until I shall be persuaded jj
'that the burthen of protective duties is increased -i
fy reducing their rule and amount; —and that ||
| where the choice is submitted to a representative j
lof subjecting his constituents to a greater or a;
lesser evil, he ought to prefer inflicting upon j
them the greater.
A meliorations in the existing Tariff have been i
achieved by the Act of 1832. When that'
change shall take place in Congress, which will
be produced by the election of new members,;
according to the Apportionment Bill of the last.
session, there is eve ry reason to expect that still j
further advances will be made,towards the fulfil-j
ment of what is desired by the friends of wn-i
restricted industry. In the interim, what has 1
been done, cannot f.npedc, but will rather ac- i
\celeratc the progress of more just and liberal |
j legislation. Were 1 called upon to state what J i
;i firmly believe, to be the cause of the taritfsy stem ,
which now convulses our State, I should, con-1
! scientionsly reply, that it is to be attributed to \
the Act of the 27th of April, 1810, the passage!
of which was so strenuously advocated by three 1
:j fourths of the delegation from South Carolina:
they insisted upon‘the necessity of affording pro
lection to manufactures, to put them beyond the
reach of contingency from foreign, competition.' |
The restrictive measures of the government j
before the late war with Great Britain, and the j
interruption to our Commerce, during that war, |
had virtually protected domestic manufactures-; j
but when the Act of April, 1816, was under dis-;
cussion, the dirties which were intended for
protection, were generally so light as almost to
(have escaped observation. In April, 1816, the j
:j principle of protection was openly avowed, and
! enforced in many instances, by correspondent
' duties. Then was invented the mischievous &
delusive contrivance of the minimimis, which
"1 was first applied to that fabric, the raw material
;of which const itu s os the great staple of the South,
jit is true that a provision was inserted, that the
| rates of duty upon manufactures of cotton ana
wool should be reduced within three years ; but
these were the only restrictions in that Act. Its
protective character in other respects, was pre
served. The minimum upon Cottons, by the
operation of which those of the East Indies were
driven from our market, was to he retained at
*2O cents instead of 25 ccn’s, without the annexa
tion of any limitation as to t ; mc. High duties up
on other commodities were imposed, without any
| reservation; and among them the duty upon
salt, which is now ten cents the bushel, was fixed
at 20 cents, and the duty upon brown sugar,
which under the act of 1832, will be 21 cents
the pound,was fixed at 3 cents the pound. From
the era of the passage of the Act of April, 1816,
.tie transfer of capital was invited and rapidly
diverted from its natural channels, into invest
ments iu those employments of labor which were
stimulated by legislative protection. These in
vestments have been made upon so extensive a
scale, that a withdrawal of them cannot be at
tempted, otherwise than slovvlv and gradually,
without the inevitable ruin of millions of our
fellow citizens, a large proportion of whom were
originally, as hostile to a protective tariff as are
; now the inhabitants of our State. The sin or
the error of having aided in the passage of the
Act of 1816, cannot be imputed to me. lam
neither responsible for that law, nor for the
I I calamities of which it has been the baleful
; source. I have never given, a vote upon any
question, in favor of its principles. These princi
ples I have always resisted, and I shall continue
i to resist them, by all the means in in}' power,
which are consistent with the obligations of
■ honesty, a respect for the letter and the spirit of
file federal compact, and lire preservation of the
integrity of the Union.
; Since the date of my letter to a Committee of
the State Rights and Union Parly, I have receiv
ed from the Register of the Treasury, a“s‘ate-
C? m/ y
. ment exhibiting the amount of duties according
to the present rates, compared with the duties as
modified by the act of 14th July, 1832, predicat
ed upon the imports during the year ending 30th
Sept. 1830,” which I have left with the Editor of
the Southern Patriot. Upon the assumption,;
that the dutiable articles will be the same in
quantity and price, after the 3d of March next,
as they were in the year 1830, this statement
shows that under th tariff act of July 1632, there;
will be a reduction of 81,869,056* from the
amount of duties on protected articles, and of
85.187,078 from the amount of revenue to bej
derived from the customs.
Notwithstanding these deductions from the rc-;
venue, and from the duties on protected articles, 1
i f is asserted in an Address ‘To the People of j
South Carolina,’ from our Senators and six of
our Representatives, tha. the burthens imposed!
upon the Southern States, will be greater by the
: j net of July, 1832, than they are by the existing
i Puriff. As this assertion mav make an injurious
• • •
impression upon the public mind, I will transcribe
that part of “ the Address” which is intended to
establish it, ami briefly annex such remarks as
, may prevent the errors which it is calculated to:
disseminate. According to certain passages in l
‘ the Address,’ “ The burthens of the protecting'
duties are decidedly increased, estimating the!
cash duties and diminished credits : and they'
now actually stand at an average more than 50
* l T pon the protected articles of ?,Glasses and Salt. :
there was a reduction of the duties by the acts of 1830,'
amounting- to 8953,121, which, added to §1.869,056. !1
makes the whole reduction since the act of 1 8.2.8 to I'-' 1
§2.825,177.
The value imported in 1830, of protected article?. H j
mounted to 829,120,623
Consisting of Wool, Woollens, Cottons,
Wood and manufactures of do. Glass-ware, I
j ron, & Steel, and manufactures of do. Cloth
ing ready made, Hats, Carpeting, Sail Duck,
Cotton Bagging, Molasses, Brown Sugar, In
digo, Cordage and Twine, Hemp, Salt, Coal,
'5 indow Glass. Leather, and manufactures
iof do. Marble, and manufactures of do. Oil
. Cioth«. Japanned, Plated, Gilt, Pewter, Bras®,
i and Leaden Ware —duty on the above arti.
ides under the existing Tariff, 12, Q 31,772
j Duty under the Tariff of July, 1332, 10352,716
Reduction on protected articles 81,869,056
I per cent.; while the duties on the unprotected r
| irticks, which upon principle of equality and jr
ijustmc should sustain the principal part of the jr
i burthens of taxation, are with a few inconsider- t
I able exceptions, entirely repealed. Upon those • I
!manufactures which arc received in exchange 1
I for the staple productions of the Southern States, “j[
fiie aggregate increase ci the burthens of (nxa- 1
tion. bevend what they were under the Tariff of t
1828. is believed to be upwards of 81,000,000, s
while the reduction or repeal of the duties on ;|t
those imports which arc received in exchanged
f>r the productions of the Tariff States, amounts ;i
tu about c 4,000,000. h nite, therefore, the agg ;>
!r<-’grOe burthens of taxation are diminished p
84,000,000 by this bill, the positive burthens;::
of the Southern Slates are not diminished at all, ;i
and their relative burthens are very greatly"]
• i ••
; increased. . 1
It has already been noticed, that the Tariff, <
; Act of 1832. as compared with that which is now ,
fin force, reduces Ihe duties upon protected articles j <
iby {lie amount of 81,869,056. It, notwithstand- j
; ihg this reduction, the protecting duties arc in. j“
| creased, this increase must be occasioned by i cs- p
ft mating the cash duties and diminished credits.'
Now tha rash dutiesare confined to the importa
|llions on Woollens, and their amount would bo
j;equal to per cent, in the rate oi duty, upon
|j Woollens not costing more than 35 cents the
11square yard, upon which the duty is 5 per cent, j
II and on Woollens costing more than 35 cents the |
ijsquare vard (of which the value of between 2
|;aiul 3 millions are imported) it is 23 per cent, ij
jl increase in the rote of duty, such cloth being sub- ij
ject to a duty of 50 per cent, on the rest ol our ;
| j importations, ‘tiic diminishcdcredits are equal to j j
(an increase of a fraction less than £ per cent, |<
('the average rate of duty on all importations, ex- j
I'cepting Woollens being about 25 per cent.*
ij It not a little excites my surprize, tha* a pa- |
"per of so grave a character as ‘the Address,’ j
|! which it is presumed, was drawn up with the jj
j| utmost deliberation, should hazard the assertion, |j
I that the duties on the unprotected articles, are, I
| with a few inconsiderable exceptions, entirely. j
i repealed,' when the amount of all the duties de- \\
: dared free by the Act of 1832, are estimated, in !
lithe statement of the Treasury, at no-more than |
1 §400,090f ‘ The Address’ has not furnished |
j us with any data to support the positions, that i
; upon the ‘ manufactures received in exchange ]
for the staple productions of the Southern States'
—the aggregate taxation is believed to be in-!
| creased upwards of 81,000,000 beyond the ta-j
jj riff of 1828, ‘ while the reduction’ or repeal ofj
lithe duties on these imports which are received j
fin exchange for the productions, of the tariff j
|(states, amount to about 84,000,000.’ How j
j! this gross inequality in the distribution of bur
rjthens and benefits is produced, by the act of
;1932, I am unable to imagine. Upon some!
j woollens, the duties will ho rather higher than I
; they are now, but the aggregate of the duties jj
upon woollens, will be very considerably less.
The duties upon cottons will be reduced in al
most every instance, and increased in none.
Upon silks, the duties will lie largely reduced.
;||The duties upon iron, hemp, cotton bagging,
j;sugars and wines, are all diminished in greater
for smaller ratios. The staple productions of
: the Smith being received in exchange fcr sv©ry ;
• j one of the commodities which I have enumera- j
6 ted, if tlie duties upon them be reduced , it ne
• cessarily follows, so far as it relates to these
commodities (and they constitute the great ar
; tides of importation) that the burthen of south- j
ern taxation will be diminished. Neither can |
• I discover what 1 reduction or’repeal of theji
• duties on those imports which are received in
■ exchange for the productions of the tariff States,
i amounts to about 84000,000.’ I have specified
I the important articles upon which the duties
will be reduced, after March, 1833, and it is
i known to every merchant, that for the more
i valuable proportion of them, the productions of
, the South are received in exchange, in a great
" er degree, than are those of the North, whilst
■ ‘the Cotton and Rice of the Southern States are
fij almost, exclusively, exchanged for the Wines
■i of Spain and Portugal, and for the Silks and
ij Wines of France, and their rice and lumber for
. the sugars of the West Indies. The north will
. !| be benefitted by the reduction of the duties up
• on indigo and upon raw wool not costing more
■ i than 8 cents the pound, and by the repeal of the
> .duties upon madder, wood, cochineal, and some
- i other materials used in dyeing and as ingre-
J “ ~
;;;dients in the process of manufacturing; but the
ii! community participates in those advantages, as
• 1 the effect must, necessarily, be to lower the
1 (price of manufactures. With respect to the
■ repeal of the duties upon teas and coffee, and
• the reduction of the duty upon India silks, I •
ji will submit the following communication which
,1 I have received from one of the most enlighten.
f 1 cd merchants in this city : ‘ Nothing is more
fj certain than that the Southern States will be
more than proportionately benefitted by any
j! increased consumption of Teas and East India
f j silks, that will take place in consequence of the
•jj reduction of the duties upon them, because the
. ji course of trade is now so changed, that compar
ted with former times, little or no specie isex
i| ported. The India merchant now either furnish.
•| es himself with bills drawn by the United States
ijjßank on London, at 12 months dattf (which
•*' i ♦
J *Oi a close calculation, omitting llio 13 nnd 2*> per.
cent, addition to the value on g<mds paying ad valorem
j duties, the following is the difference arising from the
'I alteration ot the pound sterling, and the casli duties with
;; shortened credits.
The reduction on protected article will he §1,369,056
, Deduct interest on cash duties on
, i Woollens, amount of which being
1,953 ,lw>9, for 10 months, at C per ct.
. per annum, §97,658
j Do. on duties on other pro
jected articles, amount being 1
i §9,009,557 for 5.J mo. at G per
.j cent, per annum, 257,763
j '
j _ 8355,421
Difference originating from
change in the pound sterling,
affecting imports from Great
Britain, paying ad valorem du.
ty, amount of these imports
; being §14.514 657, and the dif
ference §1,070,160, at the av
erage rate of duty on protected
j articles 37jj per cent, is 404,52 s
Net reduction on protected articles, §1,109,107! .
i: Adding the 19 and 20 per cent, would in
crease the above to about §1,550,000 j
ij t A ■'X- ■- ::,:e amount of duties under the new Bill, I :
; is estimated at §15,126,959 : i
Deduct duti -son protected
jj Leaves a duty n unprotected articles of 4,164,243
ij A interes iu* - 54 months shortened cre
.idits, at tae rate of 6 per cent, per annum,
ji . §114.516
:j P icrence from change in the i
■ pound sterling on imports from ]
i »reat Britain, paying ad vu’orem
I duties, etnount >; the import be
jir-4 §7.400,852, & the difference
! -3548,210, at the average rate of
duty an unprotected articles, 142
ii ?er cent. 73i805
| I
umount oi duties on unprotected articles, 4,357,564 O’
rease ot the aggregate amount o r the duties, j
lu and 29 per cent, and adding the difference .
'■'V" ' valuation ot tlie pound sterling with cash
: ' ■ credits, is §953,270, equal to about
I t per cent, j
• 4
pay in India at a premium) or he purchases
merchants’ bills, at ordinary sights on London, i
raid lodges his funds there, ordering his ship to |
touch at Gibraltar, where he can draw for his I
London funds, at 10 als per cent, advance, and .
he has dollars at par, oral most 1 to 2 per emir. Id
premium, these dollars being procured, entirely,
from Spain in payment of our rice, cotton, to- ;
bacco, Nc. carried into that country by her own
subjects clandestinely. L the Lank lntmsl.es i
the India Bills, it covers them, by merchants’
drafts on England. 'J bus whether the India
cargo be procured by Bank bills or specie, they
are all raised l>v bills on England, v. inch bibs
are almost altogether {bund by Southern rice
and cotton. Thus it plainly and incontrovcrti-,i
blv appears, that the South furnishes the prmci* |
nal part of the funds for India cargoesjand con- ;
sequently, must he greatly benefitted by the in- i
creased consumption of those articles ; and who '
will deny, that in the increased consumption oi |
jeofiee by being free of duty, that the Buuth is |
|benelitted, in a double ratio, when they are told, '
|tha? the Island of Cuba alone takes about 30,000 i
leasks of rice, with lumber and other articles of,
[its produce ? No State in the Union furnishes'
more, if as much of West India cargoes, usj
South Carolina.’ The want of the semblance of;
|a foundation for the assertion in the‘Address'j
i; hat the positive burthens of the Southern States;
jure not diminished, and their relative burthens
very greatly increased’ is plainly demonstrated’
by the facts which J have stated. As to those;
[items exempted from the payment of duties by j
| the act of 1832, to which I have not particular-j
!ly adverted, 1 will only remark, that the South ||
jand North are relieved by those exemptions, ex-ij
iactly in a ratio proportionate to their consump-,
j It is alleged in all the newspapers in tins State!
which adopt the reasoning of the “ Address,”:
jthat no spirit of compromise or conciliation eu
jtered into the composition of the late Tarill Act, d
■ and that its sole object was to confer additional i|
•bounties upon the Tariff States, and to increase |i
j the burthens of the planting States. My opinion jj
jofthat Act I have already expressed; and it is j
not my intention now to ascribe to it merits ,\
which 1 have hirlierlo denied to it; but I cannot ! !
refrain from admitting, that the Act of July, |
1832, docs contain some provisions which pro- !;
needed from a spirit of compromise and concilia- j
tion on the part of the advocates of Protection. |j
It is notorious that loud and reiterated complaints j
were made in the Southern States, and par-,
ticularly in South-Carolina, on account of the I
high duties upon coarse woollens and blankets,
and upon cotton bagging, and that the duties up-1
on them were diminished, to gratify and con
ciliate the South. After March, 1833, upon;
coarse woollens, of a value not exceeding 35
cents the square yard, and upon blankets, of a
value not exceeding 75 ceuis each, the duty
will be almost nominal, being 5 per cent, ad
valorem ; and upon cotton bagging, the duty
will be reduced from sto 3y cents the square!
yard. I have read in numerous publications in j
the newspapers of this city, that the woollens j
and the blankets which are imported by the j
planters for their negroes, cannot be purchased ij
at the prices limited by the Act, so as to be in- ij
eluded within the reduced duty of 5 per cent, i!
j.'Jy reply to this statement, I should presume,i|
I would he perfectly satisfactory. lam inform-j I
ed by the most competent and respectable au- i!
thority, that such woollens and blankets as the j
■ planters arc in the habit of importing for their
negroes, can now be purchased abroad at the;
iprices specified in the Act, and that no doubt is :
entertained that this will lie the case, after that;
Act shall be in force. Should this, however, j
be an error, as the reduction of the duties upon
these articles was made, and was expressed to
be made, by the advocates of the protective sys-1
tem, exclusively, for the accommodotion of thej
South; and as they repeatedly and positively j
declared, that the articles could be procured at I
the prices mentioned, I cannot hesitate to believe,
if the fact be otherwise, that upon satisfactorily
establishing it, such a law would be passed at;
the next Session of Congress as would rectify j
the mistake. However desirous the restrict-j
tionists maybe, and unquestionably arc, to pro- 1
serve what they consider to be their interests, it'
would be doing them injustice to suspect them
of so gross a dereliction of principle, as a de
-1 liberate design to defraud, or of the commission
of so egregious an act of folly, as to calculate up-1
on being able to deceive, when the means of de-!
tection would be so soon and so easily afforded.
The miniinums upon woollens, which created
peculiar discontent, for the strongest and most 1
obvious reasons, have also been abolished for
the gratification of the South. In several of
our newspapers, it has been insisted, that the!
benefit ot this abolition has been more than 1
counterbalanced, by the imposition of a dutv, i
under the Act of 1832, of 50 per cent, ad va. 1
lorcm upon all woollen cloths costing more than
35 cents the square yard. Lot me briefly de
monstrate the unsoundness of this objection. Bv !
the existing tariff, woollen cloths not cosMngi
more than 33j cents the square yard, pav a du
ty of 14 cents the square yard, which is, actu
ally, 54—15 per cent, ad valorem. Woollens
costing 33 j cents the square yard, and not more; (
than 50 cents, aie estimated at 50 cents ihe|| ;
square yard, and pay a duly of 45 per cent ad |
valorem, which is, actually, 48 per cent. Wool- j
lens costing 50 cents, and not more than 81 the ,
square yard, are estimated at 81, and pay a du- ,
ty of 45 per cent, which is, actually, 50-59 per ,
cent, ad valorem. Woollens costing 81, and ,
not more than 82 50, the square yard, are esti- ,
1 mated at 82 50, pay a duty of 45 per centum,
|ad valorem, which is, actually, a duty of 54-82 i \
per cent, ad valorem. Woollens costing 82 501 ]
and not more than 4 the square yard, are esti-! ,
mated at 84, and pay a duty of 45 per cent, ad i j
valorem, which is actually Gl-59 percent, ad ,
valorem. All woollen cloths costing over 84 i ]
the square yard, pay a duty of 50 per cent, ad \
valorem, which, with the additional 10 per cent. I ,
under the Tariff of 1828, is 55 per cent, ad
valorem. The foregoing duties, which 1 have; ,
stated as actually paid, are taken from an offici- 1
al documentor the Treasury Department. It' ,
is thus seen that the existing"duties in every i. ,
tem, exceed those of the Act of 1832, except.l ,
ing upon woollen cloths costing between 33 j- ,
cents, and 50 cents the square yard, and be
tween 50 cents and 81, the square yard, when j
they are less, in a very small degree ; but upon ,
such as cost more than 81, the square yard, they <
are considerably higher. This difference in the ,
rate of the duties is, by no moans, the principal .
benefit derived from the late Act; for bv the' i
substitution of ad valorem lor minimum duties, 1 1
the manufacturers are deprived of what amounts' !
almost to a monopoly, in the home market, asi ]
to all woollen cloths, the prices of which are f
between the minimum reductions. This fact £
was, evenly, and repeatedly avowed in the! '
House of Representatives, during the peadenev [
0i l^e Bill, in the last session of Congress, and s
it was owing to the abolition of the minimums 0
upon woollens, that the leading advocates of 1
“tiie American System” were so hostile to the! *
passage of the law.* ' |
1 T
> z
* -Mr. Everett, of Vermont, said what, in substance,!
was repeated by several other members who advocated! h
protection, that “he considered that system [tiie mini-! t
I have thus, Fcliow-Citlzms. submitted
mv Reasons lor the vote which I gave upon thr
passage of the late Tariff act, and my views o'
that act, both in its immediate and t
compared with the exis ing Tariff. I feel cot.
fident that my vote will be approved of he ail 0 r
i you, who prefer conciliation and comproniso to
a rupture with the members of our corn's ieracy.
Wlien a system has long been established, which
oxtcnsivel v controls the national capital and la.
bor, however unwisely it may have been in.
(reduced, it cannot, sn Idenly be
without spreading desolation and ru '-inon
‘millions, and communicating a perilous shock to
! our tranquillity and security. However in niav
[deprecate a protective tariff, in its principle and
lin its details—however indignantly, \ve rn av
;arraign the motives in which it originated nnri
1 the consequences resulting from it, the majority
iof tlie people are nevertheless, convinced, ih : )
jit is warranted by the Constitution, and ivooi Jr .
] mended by the sound: st policy. From the pro.
'valence of these sentiments among the majority,
land the legislative encouragement, of them ijv
liigli and stimulating protective duties, imnu-nso
capitals havt- been invested in numerous and
complicated branches of human in lus rv, which,
it must lie obvious, ought not to he interfered
with, exeeptine with the utmost caution, deli here.,
lion and forbearance. I bus impressed with the
importance, the intricacy, and tiie delicacy of
tills subject, when the consideration of the Tad
was brought up, during the last session of Con
gross, my aniieipa ions of its improvemon wep
limited to such alterations, as would lighten same
|i>t its burthens, oblitcra’c some of its no.-c <•!»•
[noxious ci;at Imcrts, and manifi s! atr nq.er ind
disposition indicative of still further ameli ;n.
tion. When the foundations of the s t sT-ra
should be tluis undermined, iho cheerin' 1 ’; -o.
spect would be present d, that Congress would
gradually act upon ih - principles wh ; cii m;!;-
| never to be lost sight of—that domes i-- Indus'it
■should only he incidentully protect.'- '. by d;.ri ..
j upon foreign importations. Although tiie ‘ riff
| of 1832 is, in my opinion, imperfect, ai'homd*;■
I retains no small portion of its anch-n* d.-li-cts,
laltliongh it still requires great aiv! radical im*
(provernents, yet it does appear to me that it
j makes such approaches to what it on-’ ' oho,
as to render it worthy of acceptance, ;,t ;his
time, to every patriotic and reflect!,-o- sir inn
jwho seeks to obtain the recogri'ion oi :h< pin.
[ciplcsof Frbe Trade, by temper', o and juvc-tic.
able means.
To what extent the duties and the revenuo
will be reduced by the late Tariff'Act, i have ah
ready shown, fchm-ly, v diminution in tUn pro.
tecting duties of 81,809,055, and in the aggre
gate oft lie revenue from the customs 0f8G,187,.
078, is a relief, in the gross and in the <!• -tail.
Surely a diminution in taxes, which reduces
their nett receipts from 817,288,045 to c-i>.
101,507, is a general benefit. These amo
liorations, combined with some coneess.ons to
[the Soutli, and the repeal of the mini mums upon
j woollens, ought to be hailed with some sntisfac.
|tion, as the harbingers of better times, and as
| leading to a more auspicious consummafion; and
{ more especially, ought, we to be inspired widi
confidence, when it is recollected that these r-;.
j formations were effected, although they were
j opposed, to the utmost, ly the firmest zealots j:i
'the cause of protection, and abhough the hill
which contained them, was voted against, bvs’x
[of our own delegation, in the House of 110-pro
sentatives. If thus much was achieved against
obstacles so formidable, the hope is proportion
ately flattering, that those who are willing to
sacrifice the pride of opinion, and the last of
; power, to a spirit of amity and compromise, and
o lay their resentments, and passions, and pre
judices, upon the altar of their common coairry,
will accomplish greater objects, by their judici.
ous and persevering appeals, addressed to the
reason, good sense and real interests of the com
munity-. I>y honest exertions thus directed, it
may well be anticipated, that the delusions which
have been created by a selfish throrv, will be
dispelled—that the revenue, at no distant period,
will be limited to the proper expenses of the ov.
eminent —that the tariff will be so regulated, .s
equally, to diffuse its burthens and its blessings,
among u free, a prosperous, and a united people.
M hen a career has been opened, which may
carry us to the goal rJ which we would arrive,
shall we falter in the course which we have com
menced—shall we stop short in the progress to
which we are invited—shall we, supinehq slum
ber on our posts, when the victory- may be won
by discretion and perseverance? Shall we in
stead of availing ourselves of that “fide in the
affairs of men, which taken at the flood, lends
on to prosperous fortune,” abandon whatever is
dear to us ns patriots, whatsoever renown w t
have derived from our ancestors, whatsoever ot I
glory we have acquired abroad, and whatsoever
ot liberty and happiness we have enjoyed at '
hcr-iOj and rashly barter away these inestimable
treasures, to plumre into the vortex of Nullifica
tion ■ Sha” we yield ourselves to be entangled
in the mazes of a political abstraction, which is
either so subtil or so paradoxical as to mock the I
understandings, or so false and so pernicious as
to lead us into error and danger ? Shall we, with
our senses awakened, and our faculties roused,
and our vigor unimpaired, march, tamely, unde."
the banners of those, who, while they profess to
put down usurpation, themselves usurp a power
paramount to tiie Constitution & the laws—vvlm,
while they l proclaim that they will emancipate
us from federal oppression, by a peaceful, eiSci
ent, and legitimate remedy, would reduce tU
either to tiro alternative of submitting to the go
vernment which we resisted, or of seceding from
the federal Union ? The first alternative worn'
he degrading humiliation. Should wo adopt the p
other, the United States, from the imperious die- g
tates ol self defence, would prescribe to us such
terms, as would prevent them from being injured ,
by our separate commercial laws and regula
tions; and to deliver ourselves from their inva
sion of our Sovereignty, should we resort to re
anay, the price of his aid, would be the sacriU
of our independence.
I will dwell no longer upon such glccr.g I
scenes, 1 hat the Supremo Ruler and Director j
ol human affairs, may in his merev, so incline |
our hearts and guide our counsels, as that tic ■
fierce and stormy passions which threaten v I
with civil dissention, which distract our socia
intercourse, which embitter the ha rmony of o t
< omesfic circles, shall be banished from our 1
soms, and only he remembered as solemn an-1
enduring warnings, for the future, is the ferve*
munisj as affording tho protcc-ior., )
tho least burden on the consumer. The operation of tbs’-
system had heen misrepresented. He had been surprise' E
to hear gentlemen affirm that it levied duties of 100, ■
InO, and even of 225 per cent. A yard of cloth costio-' 9
81, pays 4o cents, and a yard costing one dollar and'-"' fl|
cent, it is true, if imported, would pay 11U ccr. •■ «
which would be at the rate of 112 oor cent.; so a ya.v |fl
costing 50 cents would pay 22i cents, and a yard coff I.
mg 51 cents, if imported, 45 cents, bein'- at the rale <> ! I
00 per cent. But what was the fact ? No Cloths char? I
oo.e toith these high duties were imported. The inip“ r I
tations were confined to Cloths valued at or a little |
der the minimums. The effect then, was prohibition n:
the importation of most of the cloths between the w' y ' ; ■
mums. <Jf those excluded, the cloths of the interned it" I
values, the American manufacturer tcill have the
Market.-' Lxtract from Mr. Everett’s speech on "■ ■; 9
Tariff bill, delivered 18tb Jane,. 1532, as published ■' I
the ISational Intelligencer-