The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 340
viii, 784 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:
340
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOfrE.
Feb. 1844.
28th Cong 1st Sess.
The Tariff—Mr. Phelps.
Senate.
tion, and has become unprofitable, diminish it—the
less yon have the better; but when you have made
it profitable, extend it as much as you please.
The senator from South Carolina complains that
we have reduced our imports to the extent of forty
millions. Well, sir, if we have imported more than
we can pay for, why should they not be reduced?
If a foreign debt has been contracted which has pros-
trated the banks, destroyed the currency, depre-
ciated property, and threatens general bankruptcy,
is it not me part of true economy to retrench? If
you have reduced yoUr importations forty millions,
you have reduced the tax upon your productive in-
dustry to that amount,. But this is not all: you
have ceased to import because you supply your
wants at home by your own labor, and have thus
added forty millions to your own wealth, from the
true and legitimate source of wealth—your own
labor. In one case, you tax the labor of this
country to the amount of forty millions, to pay for
foreign commodities; in the other, you not only
avoid the tax, but you increase your production at
home to the same extent. The difference is eighty
millions. And, to produce this result, you have
taken nothing from the value of labor in agricul-
tural employment, (a branch of industry afready
overstocked,) but you have diverted the surplus and
useless labor into a useful and profitable channel.
Sir, if we were a purely agricultural people, the
world would not furnish a market for our produc-
tions. We have exceeded the demand already; and
what will be the state of things for the future, with
an increasing production which no mortal can esti-
mate, I leave senators to conjecture.
Mr. President, let us look at the effect of our pol-
icy upon the great articles of production and export-
ation. The senator from New Hampshire looks to
the agricultural interest, strictly speaking—the pro-
duction of breadstuffs, and other articles of human
sustenance; and the senator from South Carolina to
the planting interest, or the growing of cotton and
tobacco. The senator from .New Hampshire asks,
will you exchange the great foreign market for agri-
cultural produce for the paltry and insignificant mar-
ket created by a few manufacturers? No, sir; we
design no such thing; but we intend to create an ad-
ditional market at home, in aid of the foreign mar-
ket, for the consumption of our agricultural produc-
tion. The assumption that the creation of this do-
mestic market will destroy the foreign, is one of
those erroneous assumptions which have misled the
.senator, and given to his array of facts a wrong di-
rection. Asa general rule, each nation produces
within itself enough of agricultural production for
its own subsistence. Most nations have a surplus;
and those who have not, all supply themselves to a
very great extent. The demand for foreign com-
modities is even with them confined to the deficien-
cy. It is limited to their necessities. Beyond that
point, they will not go—fall short of it they cannot.
The market, then, is one which cannot be enlarged
by any action of ours; nor can it easily be diminished
by any economical regulation on their part. The
great error of the senator consists in supposing that
f.'ie foreign market for breadstuff's depends upon our
importation of foreign fabrics instead of the neces-
sities of other nations. Experience has taught us
something on this head. During the period when
this whole country was prostrate under the pressure
of our immense debt to England—the produce of
the northwestern farmers (the class of men to whom
the senator appeals, and to whom his argument was
addressed) was rotting on their hands, unsaleable
at any price, because it would not bear transporta-
tion to market. If there were ever a state of things
favorable to the operation of the senator's theory,°it
was this. Our importations had been extended
enormously. We had incurred a vast debt, which
we could not pay except m our produce, and that
they would not take; yet they could get nothing
else. If the importation of manufactured articles
from England would create a corresponding market
for our produce there, surely the importation in ad-
vance, and upon a credit, would have that effect.
Our indebtedness to them would have o powerful
tendency to reduce to them the price of our produc-
tions, while the impossibility of satisfying the debt
in money would furnish a strong inducement to re-
ceive those productions. Yet their necessities did
not call for it, and their policy forbade it. Does the
senator imagine that, if the experiment were re-
prated, the i esult would be different? Does he sup-
pore that, even if we imported the very hats and
H.ioen which we wear from England, she would
lake from u^ an article which she does not want
and which she will not suffer to be imported except
under the pressure of necessity? Sir, the theory
that we can extend our exportation indefinitely, by
increasing our imports, is one of the strangest
fallacies which ever found a lodgment in the hu-
man brain. You can export what is demanded
abroad—what the necessities of other nations call
for; you can go no further. If you have luxuries,
superfluities, to spare, you can exchange them, I
admit, for the luxuries and superfluities of other
nations, and in that way find a market; but 1 am
speaking of the flour, the beef, and pork of the
West—articles of necessity, not of luxury. If lux-
uries are added, it would consist rather of wines
than salted pork. The true rule is, to graduate your
importations to your exports; but the senator re-
verses the rule, and would buy what we do not
want, in order to dispose of our productions. He
goes upon the assumption that a diminution of our
imports must necessarily affect our exports. To
determine whether this will be the case, it is neces-
sary to advert to the state of the trade. The creditor
nation may, in some cases, find it difficult to restrict
its importation, without producing this effect. If
the people with whom it deals are taxed already by
their importations to their utmost capacity, a refusal
to receive their productions will diminish that capa-
city, and disable them from purchasing foreign com-
modities. Such has been the condition of England
in relation to this country for a few years past. Our
enormous debt to her disabled us from purchasing
her fabrics as we had been accustomed to do; and
her refusal to receive our breadstuffs has undoubted-
ly diminished her exportation to this country. But
with the debtor nation it is otherwise. Whenever
it finds itself embarrassed with a debt growing out
of its foreign trade, it must necessarily diminish its
importation. I am aware that an unfavorable bal-
ance of trade with one nation may be met by a fa-
vorable state of trade with another; but whenever
that balance transcends the ability of the nation, re-
trenchment becomes indispensable; and that re-
trenchment may be made without affecting its ex-
portation, until the equilibrium of trade is restored,
and its imports brought down to the standard of its
exports.
Sir, when the senator drew the comparison be-
tween the English market and the paltry home
market of New England, it would have been well
had he stated their relative value. As he professes
to deal in facts, I will furnish him some which I
commend to his special consideration. The State
of Massachusetts c«nsumes more of the flour of the
western States than the whole exportation of that
article amounts to; the little State of Vermont con-
sumes from 150,000 to 900,000 barrels annually,
nearly as much as is sent to England; and the man-
ufacturers of New England use as much of the
same for starch for sizing alone as is exported to
Great Britain. It is ascertained that they use an-
nually, for that purpose, 200,000 barrels. We ex-
ported to England in 1842 about 205,000 barrels.
Our exportation to Great Britain and her dependen-
cies for that year was as follows:
Flour.
To England and Scotland
To Canada -
To British West Indies
To all other dependencies
Wheat.
To England -
To Canada
To West Indies
Barrels.
208,024
369,048
237,479
18,830
833,381
Bushels.
143,330
655,503
14,920
813,753
In all ...
If we compute the barrel of flour to
require 4J bushels of wheat, the
833,381 barrels arc equal to - 3,750,214
Whole exportation to Great Britain
and her dependencies, in bushels - 4,563,967
The senator stated that Great Britain and her de-
pendencies took two-fifths of all our surplus bread-
stuffs. If he had said of our exportation, he would
have approached nearer the truth. His calculation
is deceptive, as he takes the amount actually ex-
ported as constituting the surplus, setting down the
residue for home consumption. The true mode is
to ascertain the amount produced, and deduct from
u the amount necessary for home consumption, and
the difference is the surplus, or what we are capa-
ble of exporting. The returns of the last census
show an annual production of eighty-four millions
of bushels of wheat. Mr. Ellsworth computes it in
his annual report, made at this session, at one hun-
dred millions. Assuming that our population at this
time is 20,000,000, I estimate that sixty millions of
bushels will meet the necessary home consumption,
leaving a surplus of forty millions. Of this Great
Britain takes a little over one-tenth.
The production is increasing rapidly, but the ex-
portation of flour to Canada has ceased. 1 have
bsen under the impression that the flour exported
Canada found its way to England, but such is not
now the case. The people of Canada demanded
protection for their industry, and discriminating du-
ties have been imposed with that view. Our wheat
is admitted at a low duty, to be manufactured there;
but flour is subjected to a heavy duty, so that the
exportation of it to that country ias ceased. Thus
the protective policy, so long adhered to by England
at home, has been extended to her remote depen-
dencies. It is worthy of notice, also, that the small
amount of this article exported to England does not
go into her domestic consumption. It is bonded
and stored, and re-exported, for the supply of her
marine, commercial and military; and thus, as I
suppose, the duties are avoided.
To the British West India islands we sent about
240,000 barrels. This market, such as it is, is one
of necessity—those islands not producing the arti-
cle. Our trade with these islands furnishes a striking
illustration of the fallacy of the senator's theory, that
reducing our importation will necessarily destroy
our export trade. We formerly imported from them
sugar, molasses, rum, &c., which are now made to
to a great extent at home; yet our exportation has
not sensibly fallen off. The exportation to those isl-
ands in 1842 amounted to $3,200,000—our importa-
tion thence $826,000, or one dollar for every four
exported, leaving a balance of three in our favor.
The British market, whether in Europe or the
West Indies, is a market of necessity. She takes
from us only what she is compelled to take, to
avoid starvation. It is regulated by the demand,
and that demand is limited to the amount necessary
for the subsistence of her people. She steadily
protects her own industry, and never permits the
agricultural productions of other countries to come
in competition with her own. Should she abandon
that policy, and you seek a market there, you would
then encounter a competition from the north of .Eu-
rope, who could and would undersell you. Sir,
what was our experience on that subject, when the
failure of the corn crop in England in 1839, struck
down the price of cotton there, and produced a re-
vulsion in this country. The capital usually in-
vested in cotton was diverted to the purchase of
breadstuffs; and where did it go? To the continent.
Had it come here, for the purchase of our flour, we
should have experienced no revulsion. Whether
they took our cotton, or our wheat, would have
been immaterial—either would have served as a
means of remittance, and saved us from embarrass-
ment. But, when seeking that investment, it unfor-
tunately took another direction.
Sir, the formers of the ~VVest can never rely upon
the British market; and, should they derive from
that quarter their manufactured articles, they would
never be able to pay for them in their agricultural
productions. A home market must be created and
sustained; and this can be done only by diverting
labor from agricultural to other employments. In
this way a market has already been created of more
importance to the western farmer than all the for-
eign markets put together. Yet this market de-
pends altogether upon your policy—-withdraw youi
protection, and prustrate the manufacturing interest,
and it is gone.
1 he argument in relation to wheat and flour i?
equally applicable to beef and pork, and other pro-
ductions of the West, and to the produce of the
dairy, common to both the North and West. It
need not be repeated.
_ Mr. President, the protective pohcy has met with
violent opposition in a quarter which I admit is,
from its great exportation of cotton, deeply inter-
ested. The planters seem to think that the manu-
facturers could not be true to their own interests,
without being at war with the cotton grower, and
to assume that the manufacturing interests of New
England are inconsistent with their prosperity.
This is, ill my judgment, a radical error. It is ea-
sily demonstrated that the demand for cotton will be
increased by the extension of the manufacture.
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 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2368/m1/350/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.