The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 711
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:
Feb. 1844.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE,
7U
28th Cong 1st Sess.
'The Tariff—Mr. Evans.
Senate.
tually, as by protecting their labor, and securing them a
fair reward tor what they do.
Nor is it true that we exclude the cheapest competitor. .
Our experience has not been so. When the foreigner, un-
der low duties, hud the market almost exclusively to him-
self, he exacted his own prices, (fhe could produce cheap-
>i\ it did not follow that he would sell cheaper. He added
what profits he pleased. There was indeed scarcely any
competition. Ail we have said to the foreigner in the en-
actment of protective laws R not that we will exclude you,
but we have said you ha\e made enormous:prolits—you
exact high prices, if you come to our-markets you shall
pay apart oi these profits for that privilege to the support
of our government. The effect is, that domestic competi-'
tors supply and more than supply the vacancy occasioned
.by his withdrawal. The country is abundantly furnished
with every thing which it needs, as" cheap or cheaper than
before. The domestic producer can afford to supply and
actually does supply at the cheaper rates, because he is
now sure of a market. He knows what to rely upon. He
has no apprehension of being compelled to work at a loss—to
sell at a sacrifice—by "the sudden and excessive influx of
-a surplus offoreign manufactures, designed perhaps for his
destruction,, so that the foreigner may again recover the
market at his former .prices. It is- the certainty—the sta-
bility—the assurance which he has of meeting ready
sales," that enables him to extend his operations, and to
afford h,is fabrics at the cheapest rates. The presence
of a "cheaper competitor" might, it is true', reduce prices
for a short period, at much loss to both; but when the
domestic producer is destroyed, and his productions
driven from the market, it will be found, and it always has
been'found, that the 6heap'competitor becomes in reality
the deayer. i have no doubt that if we were now to make
a large reduction in our rate of duties, prices would decline;
but this would be a temporary effect only. It might con-'
tinue a year or two—long enough to prostrate utterly all
our manufacturing establishments, and turn thousands of
laborers outof employment. The competition would then
cease—our markets would not be overstocked, and prices
would be raised by the foreign producer, and the importer,
to suit-their own interests and advance their own profits.
The final result would be, that instead of excluding the for-
eign competitor, as the senator from South Carolina sup-
poses is now done, we should effectually break down the
domestic one, and subvert the hopes and happiness and
prosperity of tens of thousands of industrious and intelli-
gent American.laborers.
In the course of the observations which I had the honor
to submit some days ago, in reply to the first speech of the
senator from South Carolina; I endeavored to show him the
fallacy of the position which he had maintained, that there
was no competition, and could be none, between the labor-
ers and manufacturers of this country and of Europe, in the
supply of the commodities for our general consumption. I
attempted to demonstrate, and I think not unsuccessfully,
that the competition was directly and immediately between
American workmen and foreign workmen. And how does
the senator meet that argument^ Why, he turns round, and
demands to know if he has not a right to employ foreigners,
ifhe chooses to-do so ? Has he not a right io do with his own
as he pleases? He employs them—they employ him. He buys
their fabrics—they buy his cotton. Is not this mutually ben-
eficial? Now, sir, nobody has denied his right to do so.
The question is not a question of right—but of policy and
expediency, founded on enlarged considerations ana com-
prehensive views of national interests. The question is,
whether such employment, in preference to employing our
owri people,"is"not'injurious to our people—whether it
does not bring their labor in competition with that of others
who live poorer, work' harder, and suffer more severely
the ills of penury and ignorance? I do not doubt his em-
ployment of'foreign laborers is beneficial to them—that it
adds to their means of subsistence and comfort; but I affirm
that it detracts precisely so much from the ability and
means of subsistence and happiness of our citizens, who
are seeking the opportunity profitable labor, which is
thus bestowed abroad. I aftirm that it tends to reduce the
condition of the laboring men and laboring women of the
United States to that of the suffering and ill-requited ope-
ratives of England, and of the older conntries of Europe.
That is the matter to be considered, and not the mere ab-
stract right of the thing. [Mr. McDuffif. said: His propo-
sition was, that foreigners employed precisely as much of
his labor as he did of theirs—and that, but for their employ-
ment of his labor, he would not have so much profitable
labor himself.] Well, sir, I will consider that, when I come
to'his argument of "homogeneous interests}" and I willeu-
deavor td satisfy the honorable senator that the foreign
manufacturer does no such thing as he imagines—that they
do not return labor for labor—or anything like it;
that, on the contrary, a very small part of their labor pays
for a large part of his. But I pass it lor the present.
I am now endeavoring to show how vastly oetter
it -is, in a national point of view, to give employ-
ments -arid th£- benefits and rewards of employment to
our own "peo'pJe/ than to bestow, thein upon foreigners.
Would it not be a positive addition to national wealth'' Sup-
pose the senator should send abroad one hundred bales ot
cotton, worth fifty dollars a halejand have it spun, wove,
printed, and colored abroad, giving employment to thou-
sand of persons. The finished fabric is returned to him en-
hanced m value ten-fold. He sent abroad $5,000 of Ameri-
can labor, and he brings back fori) -five thousand of foreign
labor added to it. Could not this forty-five thousand have
been retained at home, and would it not have made tho na-
tion iustso much richer'* But he will say, no—I bring back
only five thousand dollars of manufactures, ju<3t as much
as I sent abroad—the balance is retained, to pay the expen-
ses of manufacture So be it-the result is the same. They
workupforhim ten bales of his cotton, and he pays them
with the ninety bales which they work up for somebody
else. Have 'notali the profits ot the labor gone abroad? Has
not every dollarof his labor given employment to foreign
labor nine times greater, which might have been given to
American labor1 The senator made one admission, which
seemed to me to give up the whole argument. He admitted
that the demand for our productions by other nations would
depend upon their ability to buy and consume them, and
that their ability would depend upon the employment
which they have; and he maintained, that but for our
protective policy, they would be employed in manufac-
turing fifty millions more for us, thus enabling them to
buy iifty millions more of us. .Now, sir, let us turn this
argument rouni, if I may m> express jt—let us apply it to
ourselves, to our own condition. I endeavored to demon-
strate before %vhat the. senator admits, that oui consumption
as well of foreign as of domestic productions depends upon
our ability to pay for them; arid that ability-depends upon the
employment which we have—upon the industry, and the
rewards of the labor of our people. It is equally true of us
as of other nations. Hence, I maintained that our true and
sound policy is, to encourage and protect and promote our
#wn labor and. industry, with a vie\y to the comfort and
happiness of our people, and the elevation of their condi-
tion, increasing their consumption, thereby increasing the
demand, and thus adding to the eommercc ag well as to the
manufactures of the country. All this I maintained as well
as I could in my former remarks. The honorable senator
admits the premises. Is not the conclusion irresistible? Is
not the policy of sustaining home industry vindicated and
justified'/ But as to the conclusion which the senator has
come to in another particular, I differ from him entirely,
wholly, unqualifiedly. He supposes, but for our laws, we
should take fifty millions more of foreign productions,
which would of course require My millions more of our
productions—cotton chiefly, if not entirely, he supposed—
to be exported m payment. Now, I admit if we should buy
fifty millions more, we must pay fifty more, unless we-re-
pudiate; of which there would, in a few years' process of
that sort, be some danger. If we take it. This if, sir, is a
great word. Should we take it? How are we to pay7 The
ability of a nation, remember, depends upon the employment
of its people. We should throw out of employment thou-
sands and hundreds of thousands, who are now directly and
indirectly concerned in the manufacture of the articles
which the imported fifty millions would displace. All these
would no longer have the means of consumption. In the
infinite and diversified interests and ramifications of society
and business, what aft'ects one branch, or one class, more or
less altects all. A general stagnation—a general prostra-
tion—must take place, and consumption generally would
decline. We could not import the fifty millions, because
we could not pay for them. But if we could pay, how is it
to be done? In cotton? Sir, I argued this before. I show-
ed that England cannot take fifty millions more of cotton,
unless there be a corresponding demand for the fabrics of
cotton. Cotton is a raw material, of little value compared
with the fabrics made from it. Fifty millions of raw mate-
rial is equal to five hundred millions of finished production.
Now, is it possible that an additional consumption by us
of fifty millions, composed of all descriptions of articles—of
woollens^ silks, linens, iron, and eutlery, hats, coal, salt—
can give an increased consumption in the rest of the world
of five hundred millions of cotton fabrics? The profits of
manufacturing fifty millions I cannot even conjecture; but,
for illustration, suppose it to be thirty millions—that is, of
fifty millions of manufactured articles, the raw material may
be twenty millions, and the labor thirty. Does anybody
suppose that, by giving employment to thirty millions more
of labor, so enormous a stimulus can be afforded to the man-
ufacture of cotton as to require fifty millions more of the
raw material and four hundred and fifty millions of labor7
If cotton were an article of subsistence, to which no addi
tional value could be given by manufacturing-like Hour,
beef, coffee, sugar, &c.—it would be quite reasonable to sup-
pose that other nations, who require it for consumption,
would tajte as much in value from us as we would take of
their manufactured productions. The laborer who earned
a dollar in working for us, would be likely to want his pay
in an article of subsistence. But if we pay hijn a dollar
now, he requires very little of it for cotton fabrics. He
needs it for bread and meat, which he will not take from us;
and tea, and coffee, and sugar, of which we produce none to
supply him. No, sir; we may buy fifty millions more of
foreign fabrics, if we please, but it would afi'oid a very
small additional demand indeed for our cotton—less than it
would destroy at home.
The senator has spoken of the great interests of the dif-
ferent sections of the United States as coniiicting interests;
and he expressed a fervent wish that all our interests were
alike—homogeneous; and, in the conclusion of his remarks,
he illustrated his meaning, by supposing the Union to be
divided into three distinct confederacies—the northern and
eastern, composed of manufacturing and navigating States:
the west, of agricultural; and the south and southwest, ol
planting. Each of these would have homogeneous inter-
ests, or rather each would have but one interest. Now, sir,
l am very sure the honorable senator finds no warrant in
Adam Smith for the preference he has expressed of a nation
of homogeneous interests; but, on the other hand, I think
he will find opinions, and very strongly-expressed dl;
rectly opposed to these which he lias now advanced. v\ mi
nation in the world ever attained permanent eminence, or
wealth, or power, but by the mot>ecution and pursuit ol
several, and various, and diversified interests?
[Mr. McDpffir said, what he meant was a general dinu-
sion of all interests throughout every section ofthe Onion j
In the nature of things, that is impossible. The North
can never raise cotton or rice, and the West can never be-
come navigating. So far as a diffusion of interests can be
effected, the protective policy is calculated to effect it
Manufactures are more and more spreading, both South and
West and manv years will not elapse beiore they will no
come objects of great solicitude and importance to the*e
sections. Speaking of the importance of promoting and dp.
velopi/ig all the three great interests of nations— agriculture,
commerce, and manufactures—Adam Smith savit
country which has not capital sufficient for all these three
purposes, has not arrived at that degree of opulerce tor
which it seems naturally destined" Again: "the revmv.e
nf a trading and manufacturing countrj must, other thm«
being equul, always be much greate, than that of one u ith
out trade or manufactures'* These conclusions are moe.
unquestionably true, and the great end and ooject ot the
protective policy i-? to foster and build up all there mterfSvS,
so essential to national strength andpowpr. and a individ-
ual happiness and comfort. No nation, from the pursuit o
any one oi these great branches of human labor alone, nut
even from commerce, ever attained to permanent or endur-
ing pre-eminence and prosperity.. How was it wKh Venice,
-the greatest commercial power of the middle ages? Venice^
proud—-aspiring—wealthy—
"A r lerof the waters and their powers;
And such she was. Her daughters nad their dowers -
From spoils nations; and the exhauetless East
Poured iri her lap all gems in sparkling showers; '•
In purple was she robed, and of her feast
Monarchs partook, and deemed their dignity increased:''
Such was Venice; but what is Venice now? Owing her
grandeur and magnificence wholly to her commerce, when,
that declined; from causes beyond her' control, she sank al-
most beneath the waves of the ocean from which she at first
arose. With no agriculture, and scarcely any manufacture,
she had but one interest to sustain her, and to prop up her
falling greatness. So also it has been with Holland, the
greatest commercial natioa of the seventeenth century—to
which the otherpowers of Europe were tributary in large
degree. Yet, from causes before adverted to, Holland fell
from her proud and lofty pre-eminence. Her glory and her
strength waned away before the rising greatness of Eng-
land—a commercial, an agricultural, and a manufacturing
nation—and the thunders of a Van Tromp and a De Ruyter
will never again be heard upon the bosom of the ocean. Sir,.
I differ entirely from the senator in the opinion he has ex-
pressed, that the interests of the different sections of this
country are in conflict, or that there is any hostility between
them. They are different undoubtedly, but not adverse. It
is this very fact of difference that constitutes their harmony.
"All nature's difference makes all nature's peace." The
senator supposes that, in view of this conflict of interests
between the different sections of the country, the framers of
the constitution wisely and-expressly limited the powers
conferred upon the general government to our foreign rela-
tions; leaving our whole domestic policy, much the most
important of the two, wholly free from the control of that
government which they were about to establish. I do not
so read the history of that day. On the.contrary, the
framers of the constitution, and the sages of the revo-
lution, looked upon this diversity and variety -ef
interests—this difference of soil, climate, productions,
and pursuits, as among the causes most favorable
to the permanency of the Union, and the indepen-
dence and prosperity of the whole country. They regarded
the mutual independence of the different sections of the
country upon each other—the capacity to supply each,
other's wants—the markets afforded for each other's pro-
ductions—as tending to erect and establish, not rivalry and
conflict, but harmony and peace, mutual intercourse, fra-
ternal regard, and indissoluble union. Mr. Madison, in an
early number of the Federalist, says:
"It has often given me pleasure to observe that indepen-
dent America was not composed of detached and distant
territories, but that one connected, fertile, wide-spreading1
country was the portion of our western sons of liberty.
Providence has, in a particular manner, blessed it with a va-
riety of soils and productions, and watered it with innu-
merable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its
inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind
of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; whilst
the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient
distances, present them with highways for the easy com-
munication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation
and exchange of their various commodities.
"This country and this people seem to have been made-
for each other; and it appears as if it was the design of
Providence that an inheritance so proper and convenient for
a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest
ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous,
and alien sovereignties. Similar sentiments have hitherto
prevailed among afl orders and denominations among us."
I could find and read, if it were necessary, much more of
the same import, from the most eminent of the patriots of
that day. The idea of a conflict of interests never prevailed
anywhere. The v ery diversity and variety was regarded as
most fortunate. The convention at Annapolis, therefore,
could have been influenced by no such considerations, and.
they accordingly bestowed upon the general government
the whole power over commeice, both foreign and domes-
tic. Indeed, does not the senator well remember that onfe
of the-' leading objects of that convention was to invest
the government of the whole with this very power of im-
posing uniform duties upon foreign imports, for the regula-
tion of trade, aird for the purpose of arresting what was
then a great evil, an excessive importation and consump-
tion of foreign productions, to the great injury of the indus.
try of the country'* The power was conferred, with a view-
to being exercised, for the very end we now exercise it; and
the yery first exercise of it, in the first Congress, where so
many of the eminent framers of the constitution sat, was
declared to be, among other objects, "forthe encourage-
ment and protection of manufactures/' I see no evidence,
theiefore that the wise men who established our form of
government were actuated by any such opinion as the sen-
ator has ascribed to them, that the interests of different sec-
tions ol the United States are in conflict with each other.
Differing again \*ith the senator, I hold it to be exceedingly
fortuna+e that there can be no such diftusjon of interests as
he desiies. What would be the result if such a state of
things actuallv existed'* Tho North and East producing
everything which the South and the West produces, and thr-
ill their turn producing everything which the East and tin*
Noith produced, Vhat internal coramcrce could exist?
What communication between the different sections.
What occasion for canals-and railroads? There could be
no trade—no transportation of commodities—no domes-
X'r and interior navigation; but, on the contrary,
thp trade of every part, it trade it could havn at all, would
be with foreign dependencies—rivalries and jealousies
would grow up, and interests really conflicting would in-
evitable ensue. With no internal commerce, no business
connections, little or no personal intercourse, the different
puts of the Union would be almost whoilv strangers to each
othei, feebly held together' and ready to break asunder on
the highest occasion. The senator desires this diffusion of
interests, so that the practical operation of ail laws should,
be equal on every section of the country—a very desirables
object, I am free to admit I have before endeavored to
maintain that the protective policy does not bear upon th^
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/m1/721/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.