The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 342
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:
342
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
Feb. 1844.
28th Cong.. -1st Sess.
The Tariff-—Mr. Phelps.
Senate.
human industry in which all are equally interested.
If these sectional considerations are to prevail, and
the peculiar interests of no one section can be the ob-
ject of your legislative care, the whole, with all its
great interests, its means of prosperity and happi-
ness, must be abandoned. It is only by consulting
the interests of each portion, that the prosperity of
the whole can be promoted.
The senator from New Hampshire asserts that
three millions of dollars are annually taken from the
pockets of the people, to sustain the sugar planter,
and sixteen millions as a tax upon the necessaries of
life, "which the people might have, if it were not
for the protective system, for precisely sixteen mil-
lions less." This is an unfair mode of stating the
question. The sixteen millions is needed for the
support of the government. Suppose the duties
taken off: the revenue must be had, and how^will the
people be gainers if they get these necessities at an
expense less by sixteen millions, and yet are com-
pelled to pay that sixteen millions into the treasury
in the most odious form of taxation ever adopted—
a direct tax? Sir, the true mode of stating the ques-
tion is this: If your revenue is kept within the
limits of your necessities, is the mode of levying it
by duties, graduated with a regard to the produc-
tive industry of the country, more burdensome to
the people than a direct tax or imposts laid without
reference to that object'
Much is said of "the rich and the poor," as if
our legislation was for the rich alone, and all the
burdens fell upon the poor. Sir, the great mass
of the people of this country are neither rich
nor poor. They are in a condition to command the
necessaries, the comforts, and the conveniences of
life; but they are all, more or less, in debt, and de-
pendent upon their daily industry for the comforts
they enjoy. It is for this class of people that we
legislate; and if taxation is imposed, as it must be in
some form, let it be in a way that bestows the abili-
ty to meet it. While we impose burdens, let us con-
sult the means of those who bear them, and let us
foster the resources upon which we draw. Sir, the
poor man, if such there be in this country, is the
man whose daily labor is his only resource. Is the
policy which gives him employment, which prefers
tim to the foreign laborer, adverse and oppressive to
him?
An effort is also made to convince the farmer that
his interest is sacrificed to that of the manufacturer.
The senatorfrom New Hampshire takes this ground,
and, as an illustration of' this chargp, adduces the
article of leather. He tells us that the duty upon
leather is from 30 to 35 per cent., while that upon
hides is only five. That if he sell his hide, he gets
but five per cent, additional; but if he buy the leather
made of it, he pays 30 to 35. I have already stated
that none is imported, and of coursc the price of
leather is not affected by the duty. But suppose a
duty is imposed upon the raw hide, of 30 to 35 per
cent., to give the farmer protection: not a single ad-
ditional hide would be produced in the country. No
man raises cattle for the sake of the hide. But the
supply m this country is not equal to the demand.
We import yearly four millions' worth of this arti-
cle, (raw hides.) If, then, a duty were imposed of
30 to 35 per cent., upon the senator's own principle,
it must be paid by the consumer; and the farmer
would have to pay 30 to 35 per cent, to the
manufacturer, and the same upon the raw material;
so that he would be taxed 60 to 70 per cent, on this
necessary article. Did the domestic supply equal the
demand, and the foreign article come in competition
with it, the case would be different. This is a very
fair illustration of the force of the objection.
The tax upon salt, also, is agrevious burden upon
the poor. The whole amount imported is about
six millions of bushels, the duty on which is about
two cents and a half to each person in the country.
What the poor man pays, who needs it only for his
table, I have not computed.
The senator from New Hampshire has also al-
luded to the article of wool, as exhibiting the partial
operation of the tariff of 1842. This argument is
addressed particularly to the people of New Hamp-
shire and Vermont—his constituents and mine. He
has alluded to certain resolutions of the legislature
of Vermont, which I had the honor to present, de-
manding equal protection to all branches of industry.
He approves this principle; but he labors to show
that the interest of the wool-grower has been sac-
i ificed to that of the manufacturer.
Sir, I thank the senator for his allusion to the
people of that State, and to this their principal
production. They will always be gratified to learn
his opinions, upon this or any other topic of na-
tional interest, although they will not fail to subject
those opinions to the severest scrutiny. Should he
be disposed to enlighten them, I commend to his
first and special attention his political friends in that
State, nine-tenths of whom are decided protection-
ists. They complain not that the act of 1842 is
based upon the protective policy, but that it is not
protective enough. I trust his first effort will be to
convice them that this last objection is unfounded.
He states that the wool grower of Vermont is pro-
tected by a duty of 5 per cent., but for his own pro-
duce, in a manufactured state, he pays from 25 to
60. The senator has mistaken the duty. On all
wool which comes in competition with the growth
of this country, the duty is 30 per cent, ad valorem,
with the addition of a specific duty of three cents per
pound. If we assume that the average price of wool
is 30 cents, which is as high as the market has been
for some years past, the duty is 40 per cent.; and
this is precisely the duty on the woollen cloth. The
raw material has always been deemed equal in value
to one-half the fabric; in other words, the labor of the
manufacturer is equal to the value of the material.
It is a common practice to manufacture the wool of
the farmer for half the cloth. As, then, the wool
grower and manufacturer contribute equally to the
fabric, and are equally interested, they receive equal
protection. If further illustratiou be necessary, let
us suppose the duty to be added to the price which
each receives. The farmer receives from the manu-
facturer forty per cent, for the duty,- and the latter,
upon his cloth, when sold, receives the same. Forty
per cent, on the cloth is equal to eighty on the wool.
The manufacturer therefore receives 80 per cent.,
which he divides equally with the farmer, retaining
40 for his labor.
Coarse wool costing less than seven cents per
pound is subject to a duty of 5 per cent. only.
This species of wool is not produced in this country.
The only complaint on this head is, that, by admix-
ture of coarse and fine, and by importing it in a filthy.
state, and other devices, a portion of wool of the quali-
ty grown in the country is introduced under this low
duty. If this is done, it is an evasion of the law, and
not the fault of the laW itself. If that be defective in
guarding against the evasion, I trust the senator will
unite with us, and remedy the defect. But this de-
fect, if it be one, has been vastly overrated. That
the act of 1842 has given efficient protection to the
wool grower is apparent, from the immense falling
off of importation. In the year ending September
30, 1842, we imported over ten millions of pounds,
costing less than eight cents, and amounting m value
to $685,000. For the year ending September, 1843,
the importation is about two or two and a half mil-
lions of wool, costing not over seven cents, and
amounting, at the maximum price, to from ^>140,000
to $175,006. Now, it is certain that a large amount
of coarse wool, of a kind not raised heie, is con-
sumed here; and if wool of the value of thirty
cents is introduced in this way, it is clear that a
very small portion of the mass costing not over
seven cents can be of this finer quality, certainly
not over one-fourth or one-fifth. And when we
consider, further, that three pounds of this are equal
to only two of native growth, it follows that not
more than $100,000 worth, even at thirty cents the
pound, is introduced in evasion of the law. But
whether the quantity be more or less, if the law be
defective, let it be amended.
Will the senator advise us, if the protection be
insufficient, to abandon it altogether? Sir, if tins be
his policy, and this his advice to the people of Ver-
mont, I can assure him in advance he will make no
converts there. The people of that State under-
stand their true interests. The resolutions from her
legislature, which I had the honor to lay upon your
table at the present session, protest against the re-
peal of this law. That legislature was composed
pjincipally of farmers—men engaged in this identical
business; and they knew well that if this protection
is withdrawn, their business and their State are
mined. The senator advocates the cause of the far
mer, but he would withdraw protection from the
manufacturer. If you destroy the manufacture and
the home market for your wool, what will you do
with it? Send it to England? You will there meet
with competition from Spain, Germany, South
America, Australia, the Levant—in short, the whole
world—and that with no choice of markets, as
England must, in that event, become your only
market. The policy is absurd.
Sir, it is in vain to attempt to convince the people
of that State that the duty upon woollen cloths is
an oppression upon them, for the benefit of the
manufacturer. I am a woftl-grower, and profess to
know something of the matter; and I know that for
every dollar which you impose upon me m the
shape of duty upon the cloth I wear, you add ten to
my income. How should I be the gainer if you
relieve me from this paltry tax, &"d at the same
time ruin my business and destroy tL'c value of my
property? This is not my view only, out the opin-
ion of us all. If you abandon the protection, and
rum the wool-growing interest, you sacrifice the
senator's constituents, and mine. What -can we uo.
We cannot make breadstuff's—in beef a "id pork,
and even in the produce of-the dairy, we are al-
ready rivalled, even in our own market—nay., even
in the heart of New England itself, (Boston)-—by
the productions of the more fertile and genial re-
gions of the West. There is an over-production .of
these articles, even now. Sir, there can be no mis*'
take here. If this policy be not sustained, New-
England must become a desert; that fair portion of
your country, to which you are so much indebted
for what you are, must be abandoned. Her indus-
trious and thriving population, her talent, her en-
terprise, and her moral worth, her social insti-
tutions, surpassed by none, if equalled by any
upon earth, will be found there no more. The
fairest portion of the heritage which God has given
us must be made desolate, and the nursery from
which has gone forth so much of the elements of
your national power, prosperity, and happiness,
must be broken up. Her sons, whose energy and
enterprise have already founded States, and built an
empire in the West, and who have carried your
commercial enterprise to every quarter of the globe
where the sails of commerce could waft it, will be
called to abandon the place of their nativity, their
domestic firesides, and the temples of their God,
and seek a new home with the retreating and per-
secuted savage upon your remote western waters—
losing themselves and their distinctive character in a
new mass, and leaving behind them the institutions
of their fathers—institutions which, in their new
condition, would never be replaced.
Does the senator from New Hampshire desire this?
Yet the senator from South Care[ina, his coworker
and associate in the cause of free trade, predicts it.
He presents to our imaginations a stranger familiar
with the present prosperity and happiness of New
England, revisiting that region after an absence of
ten years, during which his free-trade system shall
have been in operation, surveying the ruin, and ex-
claiming, "what demon of wrath has visited this
once happy country, and spread over it the desola-
tion which surrounds me ?" Does the honorable
senator expect by this appalling picture to seduce
us from our political faith, and win us to his
theories? If the abandonment of the protective
system is to lay waste our country, to exhibit its
effects in the grass-grown streets, and the deserted
and mouldering ruins of our fair towns, does he ex-
pect us to join in promoting this work of desola-
tion'
But the senator from New Hampshire has pre-
sented his objection in another light. He insists
that a duty upon the article received by the farmer
in exchange for his produce is equivalent to a tax
upon his produce, and therefore that he is doubly
taxed. I agree with him, that it is not important
whether we consider the matter in the light of a
tax upon the foreign article consumed by him, or
the production of his farm given in exchange for it.
But I cannot agree that in either aspect he is doubly
taxed. It may be one or the other—it cannot be
both.
But, sir, this argument is no better for being
turned into this shape. It depends, as before, upon
the assumption that the duty imposed upon the for-
eign article enhances the price to the consumer to
the extent of the duty. The reasoning is this: if
the cost of the foreign article is relatively increased,
it is equivalent to a reduction in that of the domestic
article. I have already endeavored to expose the
fallacy of this assumption. It is, I suppose, the
enormous tax upon iron, leather, &c., which we
have already discussed, that constitutes the tax up-
on the farmer's produce. I will not repeat the ar-
gument, further than to say that if the article is pro-
duced or made at home, the duty on it when im-
ported will not enhance the price, because it is kept
down by domestic competition. I fan article be one
of necessity, and is not produced at home, a duty
would enhance the price; but it is not a part of the
protective policy to tax such articles.
But suppose it is true that the tariff of 1842 is. as
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/m1/352/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.