Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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-