The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 446
xxiv, 696 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
446
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
stead of the value of domestic manufactures being
$200,000,000 it had sunk down to $36,000,000.
Mr. S. adverted to the charge' diat the protective
system had introduced an uncertainty and insta-
bility of legislation which necessarily involved
ruinous fluctuations. But who, he asked, was it
that had got up agitation against the existing law;
and who wanted to render it unstable, even m the
face of the fact that never had a law in so shorl a
time doile so much for the good of the country as
this very act of 1842 had done?
On the subject of profits on the investments of
manufactures, Mr. S. said there was a diversity in
the nature of the different kinds of business requir-
ing investments of capital—some, kinds of business
requiring very large capital to be invested, and some
very small; for instance, cotton factories contrasted
with shoemaking. Twenty per cent, of product
on the capital invested in one kind of business might
be a dead loss, while ten times the amount of cap-
ital invested by the shoemaker in his lasts, awls,
■wax, and lapstones, might be a very moderate re-
turn.
With reference to the table set forth in the speech
of the senator from New Hampshire, stating that,
on eighteen articles, the duties of the act of 1842
were more excessive than the duties of the act of
1828, he (Mr. S.) denied that ten of the3e articles
were contained in the act of 1828 at all.
Mr. WOODBURY asked, would the senator
maintain that these ten articles were not subject to
duty under the act of 1828?
Mr. SIMMONS replied that he did maintain they
never were either mentioned in the act of 1828, or'
subject to duty of any kind under that act. He en-
tered into specifications of those ten articles. What
he understood the senator from New Hampshire to
maintain was, that the act of 1828 had imposed du-
ties so high as to justify the epithet given to it of "a
bill of abominations," and that his objret was to
show that the act of 1842 was even more richly de-
serving ot the epkhet. Now, in answer to all this,
he (Mr. S.) maintained that the duties on the arti-
cles contained m the table of specifications adduced
by the senator from New Hampshire, had
been imposed by the tariff laws prior to the
act of 1828, some of them twenty years before
that period. These duties were only sullered
by the act of 1828 to remain, and the articles them-
selves were not once mentioned in that act. He
then came to the eight articles of the senator's spe-
cification, mentioned in the act of 1828, some of
which he (Mr. S.) said were therein made subject
to duties which were really revenue duties; one of
these was silk, which, neither at that period nor the
present, was subjected to a duty beyond the revenue
point. Another article was steel, the duty of which
was ijl 50 per 112 lb. by the act of 1828; and lie
(Mr. S.) insisted, that from the manner of averaging
the duties on steel under the act of 1842, there could
not be a difference of 20 per ceat. Next, with ic-
gard to glass, &c. Mr. S. entered into various spe-
cifications, with a view of showing that the duties of
the net of 1842 were calculated, with regard to such ar-
ticles, as nearly as possible in conformity with the
act of J828. With regard to cottons, he insisted
that the duties being ditlvrently calculated by the
value of the square yard, in the act. of 1812, and
the act of]h2H, it was only on a quantity of the
respective kinds, taken in the iiggicgate, iliat a
parallel could he drawn; but by taking 100 yards of
each of the various kinds, and ascertaining the ag-
gregate value, and by applying the duties of the two
acts, it would be found that the same kind of
cottons yielded 75 cents less under the act of
1842 than under the act of 1828; and so with
woollens. Upon the same principle he argued
that the duty ou cotton bagging was less under the
act of 1842, than under the act of 1828. So he also
argued that the duty on molasses, under the act of
1842, was less than under the act of 182^. He pro-
posed to give way to the senatoi fioni New Jlanip-
shire for either explaining or retracting his state-
ments as to the act of 1842 having imposed lnghei
duties on those articles than the act of 1828.
Mr. WOODBURY inquired if the senator wished
tor his explanation now, or after he had concluded
his remarks.
Mr. SIMMONS said now. He would yield the
floor for the senator's explanation.
Mr. BENTON observed that if the senator from
Rhode Island yielded the floor, he (Mr. 13.) would
feel himself entitled to take it. He objected to this
mode of interrogation.
■Mr. CRITTENDEN appealed to the Chair if it
was not in order to yield the floor for explanation
to the senator from New Hampshire?
Mr. BENTON observed that the senator from
Rhode Island had first impugned his (Mr. B's) ta-
bles, in explanation of which, should the senator
yield the floor, he was entitled to priority.
Mr. CRITTENDEN thought that, in this in-
stance, it was according to the usage of the Senate
to let the senator from New Hampshire explain.
The CHAIR observed that there could be no
doubt of the uniform practice of the Senate. If the
senator from New Hampshire preferred making his
explanation, it was perfectly in order for him to
proceed.
Mr. WOODBURY said that, as the gentleman
gave way for explanations, he was happy to say
that the expression used in the table—by the act of
1828—was not so technical and proper, perhaps, as
to have said under, or after that act. But the re-
vision of the tariff by that act was so extensive, it
had been customary to speak of the duties left in
force after its passage as the tariff of 1828, when, in
fact, some of them, specified in former laws, had
not been altered, but left by its scope and policy at the
same amount. With this explanation, he hoped 110
one could be misled—if any had been already—as
to the duties intended.
Mr. W. said he would adveit to the other partic-
ular objections to the table under consideration,
without going into the argument or general reason-
ing of the gentleman. As to the statement about
silk boots, here was the act of 1842, malting them,
in some cases, even higher than the rate given in
the table; but, as in some other esses they were
lower, the sum in the table, probably, was consider-
ed a fair average.
As to the next article, coal, the duty before 1842
was by the bushel, and then by the tori. He had
taken pains to give two modes of comparison, as
the number of bushels in a ton might be computed
differently by different persons. But it was not pre-
tended that he had stated the sums too high; but, on
the contrary, the duty in 1842 was printed twenty-
five cents too low.
Concerning cordage, the whole table was correct,
though in the speech he had justly complained that
all cordage, untarred and tarred, was too high, and
was a heavy burden.
Next as to cottons, the statement was under rather
than over the aveiage, on account of the specific
minimum now being as high on an article not worth
half as much as it was m 1828. At the time of the
speech he had fully explained this.
In respect to glass bottles, here was the act of 1842,
and one kind was the same rate he had stated as
the highest. The next complaint was as to silks.
But it did not pretend there was any error in the
table; but was, that the new duty originated in
others than the manufacturers.
In relation to steel, it was admitted, also, that one
kind corresponded with the table, and that twine
had been raised as was represented.
In respect to woollens, if the gentleman would
turn to carpeting, he would find the duty reached
quite as much ad valorem in both years as was
stated; and the table spoke of some woollens and not
all kinds.
As to molasses, he knew that article and salt had
both been reduced in or near 1828; and therefore,
in the next table, he had stated the latter article to be
soon fulling to 10 rents per bushel. But inadvertently
he had not inserted this qualification as to molasses,
though it did not fall to 5 cents per gallon till Ig.'iO.
This was a mistake as to the precise year when the
reduction took effect—it having been not til! 1830
instead of 1S28.
Mr. SIMMONS resumed his argument, the point
of which was, that the senator from New Hamp-
shire had imputed the levying of those duties which
were "discreditable to American legislation," (quot-
ing Mr. Clay's words,) to the act of 1828, and
then had asserted that the act of 1842 was more a
bill of abominations than the act of 1828, inasmuch
as it imposed higher duties than that act.
Mr. WOODBURY said his meaning was, not
that the act of 1828 had imposed those particular
duties referred to by the Senator, but that it had left
them again at such rates.
Mr. SIMMONS again adverted to the charge
brought forward by the senator from New Hamp-
shire in relation to cotton bagging, and asked for on
explanation on that point.
Mr. WOODBURY. In respect to cotton bagging,
the statement was correct as to the rate in 1842, on
each kind, whether made of hemp or gunny cloth.
The last was at a higher rate in 1842, than the duty
which was imposed on cotton bagging generally, to
take effect immediately by the act of 1828. It was
certainly correct that it was, by that act, at first to be
four and a half, and then to be five cents; and was,
by the act of 1828, at once made four and a half
cents, instead of the figure 3i, as printed m the table.
The three should be a four, and was either an error
in copying or of the press.
It would be seen, however, jn a note to the table,
(what was mentioned at the time of the speech,) that
where the specific duties were the same under both
acts, or even lower in the act of 1842, the fall in
price had been such in the article ill fourteen years,
as to make the duty, if reduced- to an ad valorem
rate, more on the value of the article m 1842, than
it was on its value in 1828.
This he believed to be the case with cotton bag-
ging; and therefore the difference did not alter the
conclusion.
Mr. SIMMONS admitted that there was no dis-
pute between him and the senator as to the duty on
cotton bagging and gunny cloth in the act of 1842.
It was in relation to the duty by the act of 1828
they differed.
Mr. EVANS said it was evident the senator from
Rhode Island could not conclude this evening. He
therefore moved an adjournment.
The Senate then adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Wednesday, March 27, 1844.
Mr. Lucas has been appointed by the Speaker to
supply the vacancy m the Select Committee on the
Massachusetts Resolutions, occasioned by the re-
signation of Mr. Gilmer.
Mr. McCLERNAND desired leave to state, that
when the bill passed the House, directing the second
regiment of dragoons to be remount'd, he was called
out of the House, on business retat'ng to ins rep-
resentative duty; that with the permission .if the
House, he would be glad to cast Ins vote for H.
The SPEAKER said that the niouoii fur leiue
w ould be out of order.
Mr. McCLERNAND then said that he was fa-
vorable to the bill, and would have voted for it as a
measure necessary to the safety of the western fron-
tier, if he had been present when it passed.
Mr. CLINTON rose and submitted the following
resolution:
Resolved, That t\ie Secretary of War be (hiected to r^poit
to this Konse j copy of an oidei or a letter s,ent b\ the ad-
jutant general to Lieutenant Brjx+on ot the I ml"<{
States aimy, on or obout the iOth < ay ot Aiyrch. instaM, ie-
quumg liini to retuinfoithwit'u to his post, while
ihagg was in the city of Washington, on ;<u unexpired
lea^e of absence; mid also to mionri the [Ioiim* on v hat *uv-
poMtiun Unit tetter or ordei was pierueated, an 1 tl.y t 'lie suit!
Seciet^ny also inform the House whotht l the s-cuel Lieu-
tenant Biagg has been airested and, if <-o, upon wli.it
chaiges, ami whether the proceeding against hint wei e not
induced by the feats o? suspicions ot the major genets!
Commanilni£-in-ohiet of infonaation st>>d Lit uu-nant l)ic"igg
w as supposed to be imparling to cominitt«es oj member- of
this House, and the said feeciet.ii_\ inform the Hon<-e
whether the yaid Lieut'-muit Bia^g v. as not art'e.sTed toi
remaining 111 Washington, when in f<tt'>nddnct: before ,t
committee of this House, aftei the ui'julanr i>'neial b;el
be?n nifointed by the chanman ot the committee that Mich
was tin' case.
Mr. DROMGOOLE objected to die resolution.
He thought this* House should not undertake to
supervise the military establishments of die eouti-
try.
Mr. WELLER said the gentleman from Virginia,
would perceive, from the Litter part of the resolu-
tion, that the mutter related to a witness, called he-
fore a committee of this House, which had power
to send for persons and papers. The witness, while
he was such witness, received notice fjoin tlie ma-
jor general to report himself at another post, while
the committee before which the witness was called
was engaged in an investigation of the conduct of
that major general in the Floiida war. it was, there-
fore, a question affecting the vn\ilexes and powers
of this House.
Mr. DROMGOOLE feared the prosecution of thi;>
inquiry, in tins form, would load to many difficul-
ties. it would be necessary to ascertain whether the
subpeena was regularly signed by the Speaker; other
questions, too, would arise; and hence he was of
opinion that it would be better not to take it up now.
Mr. WELLER said tins was a matter which
should be investigated; and, therefore, li* mo^ed a
suspension of the rules, for the purpose of getting m
the resolution.
The SPEAKER put the question on the suspen-
sion of the rules; and he announced 74 in the affirm-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/470/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.