The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 710
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:
110
28th Gong 1st Sess.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE..
The Tariff—Mr. Evans.
Wb. 1844.
Senate.
of which was enacted in 1650. Can any body say that those
acts—strictly, protective acts—did not call into existence
wealth an# power—individual and national—to an extent be*
yond the operation of all other causes combined? Has it
not-niade England the vast commercial naval power
■which she is? Has it done nothing but transfer, wealth
from one to another? At the time of the enactment of
those great measures of national protection, England
was quite inconsiderable as a maritime State, compared
with Holland. I am not able to state - precisely their
relative importance at that period? but, forty years after
wards, when England had undoubtedly mg,e great advan-
ces, and Holland had in some degree declined, the tonnage of
the former, according to McCulloch, was only about 500,000
tons, while that of Holland was over 900,000—fully equal to
one-half of all the tonnage of all Europe. Probably the
difference was even greater than this, as McPherson states
the tonnage of England, in 1701, to be only 26l;222-tons, em-
ploying about 27,000 men. So vast a supremacy had Hol-
land at that period overthe now-boasted mistress of the
seas One of her patriotic songs, with a poetic license quite
commendable, appeals to the mariners of England—
"Whose flag has braved, a thousand years,
The battle and the breeze/'
Yet it can scarcely be forgotten that, not over a century and
a half before that'noble strain was sung, "the meteor flag*'
had quite as much as it could do to float in safety even in
the Downs, where "the fleet was .moored." The Dutch
squadrons, on more than one occasion, entered the Thames,^
and fought the English there, besides blockading and rav-
aging their coast and ports in many places. Van Tromp,
De Ruy ter, and De Witt, for a long time contested, and often
successfully, the sovereignty of the British channel, but at
length the Dutch naval and commercial power was hum-
bled and vanished away before the rising and triumphant
splendor ofithe^British flag. Nothing contributed so effect-
ually to this result as the navigation act of Cromwell, to
which have referred. The tonnage of that kingdom, w hich
was estimated at 500,000 in 16M), but probably much over-
estimated, undoubtedly having been then largely increased
after the passage of that act, has gone on steadily advanc-
ing, until it is now nearly 4,000,000, spreading o\ er every
ocean of the habitable gipbe—founding colonies in every
corner of the ear.th—sending manufactures and people to
every-clime, and bringing from the most distant lands rich
returns, to add to the wealth, and strength, and grandeur,
of the British empire. In view of these immense results,
does the senator still suppose that legislation can add noth-
ing—create nothing—build up nothing'? How was it with
our own navigation act? Why does not the senator, or
some other advocate of free trade, strike at that, as a mea-
sure oi odious protection? The navigation of this country,
fiom a very early period, has been a highly protected in-
terest, and very wisely indeed has it been protected. Ithas
grown up with astonishing rapidity; and has it added noth-
ing to our wealth''to our national importance? Can any-
body doubt that it is owing, in a very great degree, to the
protection it has received irom acts of legislation that it has
so eminently prospered'' So of the sugar interests of Lou-
isiana. Have they not grown up under the fostering care of
legislation, which the senator says can do nothing but rob
one for the benefit of another' Who has been injured by
it? Its cultivation has gh en new markets to the North and
the We^t for provisions and manufactures—has furnished
new employment to our vessels in transporting these sup-
plies, and has also benefited the other cotton-growing re-
gions, by withdrawing a part of the land and the labor
which would otherwise have been devoted to the raising
of that great staple. Nobody is injured. Everybody is
benefited. - It has become a great and valuable national in-
terest, promoting the agriculture, the commerce, and the
manufactures of the country} and it is altogether the fruit of
legislative protection. Take another illustration—railroads,
A railroad cannot be constructed without an act of
legislation; a^d yet a simple enactment, "that there shall be
a railroad from A to B," does nothing of itself. It does not
spring into existence from the mere mandate of the law.
Laws do not execute themselves. They Require human
agency to carry them into effect. If an act authorizing the
establishment of a railroad oiler sufficient encouragement
and sufficient inducement for its accomplishment, it will be
accomplished by human means. The'law furnishes the in-
ducement. Men do; the work. Is anybody injured or rob-
bed? Is there aie any transfer of property from one to an-
other? On the other hand, the wealth of all is promoted.
Agriculture finds readier and better markets—consumers
cheaper and more abundant provisions—labor greater de-
mand and surer reward. Does not all this spring from legis-
lation—from law—from protection? We cannot, by law, says
the senator, produce a blade of grass or an ear of corn, where
they did not grow before. Certainly, no act of Congress "ex
j.roprio vigor?" can do so; but if an act of Congress shall stim-
ulate human hands to greater effort—human skill and sci-
ence to more vigorous improvement, they will find methods
to make not one only, but ten grow where none grew before.
Give incentives—give inducements—give encouragement-
give protection; and industry and enterprise will accomplish
- results the most important to individual and national wealth.
The idea that an act of legislation can add nothing to the
amount of productions of human labor, but that its whole
eftect is to transfer from one to another, seems to me very
much like the notion, which Adam Smith successfully refu-
ted, that neither commerce nor manufactures added any-
thing to the sum of the world's wealth. The doctrine of cer-
tain political economists before his day was, that all wealth
was derived from agriculture—from the fruits of the earth.
Here, they argued, was something positively gained—some-
thing created which did not exist before. Manufactures,
they said, only changed the form of things—and nothing of
wealth was gained by it, because the manufacturer, while
engaged in the process, consumed as much in value of the
productions of the earth as he added to the value of the raw
material by changing its form. Commerce, they said, merely
transported commodities from place to place It added noth-
ing to the bulk or quantity of them. Nothing could be
gained in commerce by one man or one nation, unless it was
lost by another man or nation.' It merely transferred—
[Mr. McDurnr. That is not my doctrine.]
J kn<?w it, and I do not impute it to the senator; but his ar
gument against the efficiency of legislative enactments to
develop and call out individual and national resources seem-
ed to me, I said, very much of the same kind. AH these
doctrines, to which I have adverted, Smith very trumphant-
ly refuted,"demonstrating that both commerce and manufac-
tures do add largely to national wealth. Labor, he main-
tained, human labor, was the source and foundation of all
wealth) and cannot labor be stimulated—promoted—encour-
aged by laws—by governmental protection? If it cannot,
then all the civilized nations of modern times have greatly
mistaken'the powers, and functions, and operations of gov-
ernment on human affairs.
The senator has attributed to me another argument, which
I certainly did not use. He says that I maintained the posi-
tion that it was better to btfy at high prices at home, than
at low prices abroad—tobuy dear than to buy cheap. Now,
sir, I maintained no such tlxing. On the contrary, I endea-
vored to demonstrate that one of the great benefits of the
protective policy was, that we were thereby enabled to buy
cheaper at liome than we could if compelled to rely solely
on foreign manufactures. JTor the proof of this I reierred to
our repeated experience, T said there was a-great deal of
delusion as to what constituted buj ing cheap, and attempt-
ed to illustrate that it was often really cheaper to buy of
one, though at a higher nominal price, than ol another at a
nominally less p ice. Whether an article be cheaper or
dearer in the one place or the other, depends in a very great
degree on the facility of payment, Iriat is the cheapest
where payment is the easiest. Buying and selling Is but an
exchange oflabor for labor, and he buys cheapest who ob-
tains most for his own productions Now, although the
price abroad, represented m money—the standard ot value
—may be lower than the price ol similar articles of domes-
tic origin, yet, when we come to look at the facilities of
payment; it may be, and often is, really higher. Gan a far-
mer in Illinois get more of cotton, or woollen, or iron man-
ufactures, for his wheat and flour, or niarmer in Maine for
his hay and potatoes^ in Liverpool and Manchester, or in
Lowell or Pittsburg? Can he not make the exchange
on better terms at home than abroad? "If, then, he pay
easier and obtain more, ho buys i cheaper, notwithstand-
ing the nominal price abroad be less. Suppose a far-
mer has a bushel of wheat to sell, and wishes to buy a
shovel: "he can obtain one made in Birmingham of the im-
porter for ninety cents. The domestic manufacturer cannot
sell one of similar kind short of a dollar. So far the foreign
is cheaper. But how is he to pay ? The importer does
not want the wheat, but the money, to send abroad. He
will, however, take the wheat, trusting to find a market at
seventy-five cents per bushel. The home manufacturer
needs it for consumption in his own family, and will give; a
dollar for it In the one case he obtains a shovel for his
wheat, and fifteen cents besides, and in the other he obtains
it for his wheat alone, saving liltcen eents to buy something
else for his wife and children? Which is cheapest? Now,
sir, I recommend to buy where you- can buy cheapest—
where you can obtain most for your own productions, and 1
maintain the protective policy, because it adds greater value
to our own labor and industry, enabling us to reccive more
in exchange for it, laving out of view the mere nominal
prices, upon which s'o much stress is laid. Potatoes aie a
great deal cheaper in Ireland than they are here; but hun-
dreds and thousands of Irishmen prefer to come here, wheie
they are so much dearer, and where they can get a bit of
beef, too, t& put in the same pot. The answer of one of
them solved the whole mystery of cheapness. He com-
plained of the shilling a peck which he had to pay here, say-
ing he could get them in Ireland for a sixpence. "And why
did you come here, then? why did you not stay where they
arc so cheap?" "And sure it's the six pence I could not get
there, at all at all,'5 said he; and his answer contained the
whole philosophy of cheapness.
The senator attributes to me not only the argument that
it is best to buy dear, but also that it is good policy to sell
cheap. He is quite as much out of the way in the lat-
ter as in the former supposition. I did not at all admit
that the act of 1842, or any act of protection, could or did
affect the prices of the great staples of export, of which
the senator complained. I maintained that the pnee of
cotton in the markets of the world would be governed by
the great law of supply and demand. If it can be shown
that, inconsequence of our policy, there is a less demand
for, and consumption of, cotton fabrics than there otherwise
would be, the argument would be entitled to some consid-
eration. But who can doubt that the consumption of cot-
ton is in fact considerably increased by the domestic manu-
facture of it, and at the same time that the price abroad is
enhanced by the competition which the demand for it here
occasions? Cotton from Brazil, Egypt, India, meets Ameri-
can cotton in Livei pool, and undersells it, keeping the price
down. Dees anybody suppose that mir cotton sells for any
lesp, because we have a protective tariff, and that theirs sell
for any more because they have none? Such a thing is im-
possible. Suppose all our imports from France should be
tree of duty: does any one imagine that cotton would bear
a higher price in Havre than in Liverpool? How is it now?
Is it more profitable to impoit a cargo of free goods than of
dutiable? Is it more advantageous to the seller of cotton
to exchange it for foreign productions which pay no duty,
or for specie, than for commodities which do pay ? All oth-
er things being equal, the commerce being fairly conduct-
ed, there is and there can be no difference. I maintain no
such policy as that of reducing the prices of our staples
abroad, but, on the other hand, endeavored to piove that no
such effect followed from the protective policy. I showed
how very inconsiderable a demand for cotton would arise
from an increased import of British manufactures of forty
millions value—a demand more than counterbalanced by
the inevitable decline which would take place in the con-
sumption of it in our o\\ n country.
I have reason to complain, also, that another portion of
the argument which I had the honor to deliver to the Sen-
ate has not been fairly met, or fairly understood by the sen-
ator. He says that I maintained the bold proposition "that
a high rate of duties upon imports diminishes their price,
and a low rate enhances them." He supposes that I have as-
serted as a general, an invariable principle, without limita-
tion, without exception, that the effect of imposing high du-
ties is to reduce the price of the article upon which they are
levied. Now, sir, I have asserted no swell thing. What t
said, in the first place, was in. reply to the honorable senator
upon a matter of fact. He asserted that the act of I84S had
operated very oppressively, by increasing prices. "lhis i
controverted, and showed that the fact was not he sup
posed. Prices had not increased, but in many-instances.had
diminished. The senator asks, How- can this be? Do*s
high duty reduce prices? The "fundamental law in ^polit-
ical economy teaches that'it enhances prices preciselyto
the extent of the duty imposecf. Now, sir, X finely admit
that the tendency of increased duty is to increase the price
of the article, the identical article uporLwhich it is imposed:
and such would generally be the effect, if not counteracted
by "other causes. 1 have not maintained that the imposition
of the duty of itself reduces prices; but I have inaintaiaed
that it calls into action—into being—other operating and effi-
cient causes, which do produce that result.' Itis not the du-
ty as a duty, the tax as a tax, which effects this; but it is the
existence of other agencies and other influences, -which
have their origin in the stimulations which the impositipn of
such a duty affords. It is,not the duty which of itself does
this, but it is the competition in the supply of a similar kind
of article that occasions it. If there were no domestic pro-
duction consequent upon the duty—if the markets and the
consumption of the country were still dependent upon for-
eign supply, undoubtedly the imposition of duty would en-
hance the price; but when the effect is otherwise—when
domestic competition meets the foreign—when, in addition
to the foreign supply, the home production is added, noth-
ing is more reasonable than to expect a reduction of przee.
I have not asserted that the article on which a duty is im-
posed sinks in price as the immediate consequence of that
duty—but I do maintain that it sinks in consequence of meet-
ing a similarrarticle in ,tho market, brought there in compe-
tition with it under the operation of the protective policy.
That is the cause of the decline, and not the duty ' per se.'
Hence it is manifest, that upon a great many articles, the
imposition of a duty, high or low, has no effect whatever.
All descriptions of commodities which we wholly or in great
degree ■supply ourselves, such as hay, beef, pork, corn, See.,
are of this class. Foreign nations raise none of these things
to supply our markets. Of course, a high duty on them_ex-
cludes nothing designed for us, and has no effect on priced
abroad. On some aiticles. undoubtedly, an increased duty-
would enhance the price. This is the case with nearly a 1
such as w e do not and cannot furnish for ourselves, and with
which we have nothing to come in competition. Quicksilver
is an instance of this, and perhaps tin also, and probably mad-
der, and divers other articles of dye stuffs. But even to this,
there are some exceptions; we do not produce coffee or tea;
and yet it has not been found, practically, that a small duty
upon them increases the price al all. The reason is, that these
are commodities abundantly procuded, the consumption of
which is very great in this country—greater in pioportionto
numbers, I believe, than m any other country on-tlie globe.
Anything, therefore, which should check their importation
in any sensible degree, would throw ft large surplus upon the
other markets of the world, or leave it uncalled for in the
hands of the producer. As the demand for our consumption
would be reduced if prices here increased, and thus a sur-
plus be occasioned abroad, the natural tendency is, that the
price abroad sinks, as it invariably does, when the demand
declines: and if it sink abroad, the articles can be imported,
notwithstanding the duty, and sold as low before. The
class ofarticles, therefore, which are ultimately aftected in
price by protective duties, are those which other nations ex-
tensively manufacture for us, but which we have the skill-
capital—ability, to manufacture for ourselves. If they are.
articles not supplied to us by other nations, then the duty
cannot affect them at all. If we have not the means to sup-
ply them ourselves, nor any substitutes for them, they are
generally liable to be enhanced by additional duties. But
wherever there is an extensive production abroad" for our
consumption of commodities which we can readily furnish
for ourselves, anything which tends to bring our own sup-
ply into' the market, whether it be high duties or anything
else any cause which enlarges and increases the amount of
our products, necessarilv and inevitably tends to reduce the
price of the "foreign. If this competition reduce it m a great-
er degree than the duty would otherwise have raised it, then
the price positively declines. It becomes actually less than
it was before—not because a duty is imposed upon it, but
because a rival article has met it in the maikut. Sir, I
hope I am understood in this matter, for I do not de-
sire to be represented as maintaining the broad, un-
qualified proposition that a high duty, under all cir-
cumstances, upon whatever article imposed, neces-
sarily reduces its price. That the ultimate effect of pro-
tecting American manufactures and American industry, is
to reduce the prices of all commodities-thus made at home,
is corroborated by so long a course of observation and ex-
perience, as no longer to admit of doubt. Not to see it, is
not to see the plainest evidences which can be addressed to
our senses or our understanding. But the senator regards
all this as "iocomprehensible:,, as a "confusion of ideas."
How can foreign commerce increase under high and pro-
hibitory duties'. 'How do you inciea>e competition by ex-
cluding the cheapest competition'" These questions imply
two things, which are not true in point of fact: First, that
the duties are prohibitory, and next that the foreign compe-
tition can or does furnish at the cheapest rates. Foreign
commerce, itis admitted, could not be benefited by a scale
of duties generally, or in great degree, prohibitory. That
such is not the character of the act of 1S42, is demonstrated
by the fact, that very excessive—too excessive imports are
now daily made—too excessive, I mean, if the same propor-
tion should long continue. If the' act is not prohibitory,
then I can well understand how foreign commerce may be
improved, and imports increased, by every thing and any-
thing which improves the capacity and ability of the coun-
try to obtain and consume articles of foreign origin, and I
endeavored in my former remarks to show that the protec-
tion and encouragement of. our own laborers, and our own
people, was the most efficient means of improving their
ability to consume such commodities. High duties or low
duties—it matters not, your foreign commerce has nothing
else to rest upon, but tne ability of the people of the country
to buy and pay—and if you would increase your imports,
you must increase the means of payment of those who are
to consume them; and this you can do in 110 way so eftec
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/m1/720/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.