The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 737
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.
nr
28th Cong 1st Sess
The Tariff—Mr. Huntington.
Senate.
they desire to be iree from the vexation and ruin consequent
upon the- perpetual change of legislation on this subject
Let them alone Suffer the present policy to continue, and
soon the sails of our commerce will whiten every sea, and
the inhabitants of every clime he clothed in the fabrics of
our looms. Let it continue, and under the smiles of approv-
ing Providence our "barns will be filled with plenty, and
our presses burst out with new wine."
Sir, I hope ever to be found on the side of the people, sus-
taining their interests, and defending their rights. As a
Pennsylvanian, as an American citizen, my highest ambi-
tion is to advance the prosperity, the happiness, and the
honor ofmy country.
SPEECH OF MR. HUNTINGTON,
OF CONNECTICUT.
In the Senate, February 12 and 13, 1844—On the tariff.
The bill to modify the existing duties on foreign imports,
which was introduced by Mr. McDutFiE, referred to the
Committee on Finance, and reported to the Senate with res-
olutions that it is a bill "for raising revenue" within the
meaning of the seventh section of the first article of the
constitution, and therefore cannot originate in the Senate,
and that it be indefinitely postponed, being under considera-
tion-
Mr. HUNTINGTON addressed the Senate, in substance,
as follows:
Mr. President: It is with unfeigned reluctance that I enter
upon the discussion of the various topics which are con-
nected with the subject to which the bill introduced by the
senatorfrom South Carolina [Mr. McDuffie] relates. Not
because I think such a discussion would tend to remove or
weaken the foundation on which the tariff act of 1842 rests—
an act which stands forth in the volume of our laws as a
measure which has already conferred great benefits on the
country, and which, if permitted to remain without essen-
tial alterations, is destined to produce still greater benefits.
I do not regret that this debate should proceed, from any
want of confidence in the wisdom which originated this act.
Its friends are ready, willing, and able, at all times and
places, to defend it; but several reasons exist which led me
to indulge the hope that the discussion, at the present time,
would have bepn confined to the only legitimate question be-
fore us, viz: the constitutional power ot this body to origin-
ate this bill. Among these reasons are the following: The
existing law ought to have a fair trial. ' The deleterious ef-
fects upon the business concerns of the people, of frequent
alterations in the laws regulating the duties on imports, and
especially before a reasonable opportunity is afforded of as-
certaining the entire practical operation of the one in force,
are too obvious to require to be stated. Before such a trial
is made, a disc ussion, while it can tend to no practical good,
is calculated to excite doubts and uncertainties among all
classes of our citizens as to the stability of any revenue law.
To sccure all the benefits of an act providing for the wants of
the government, and at the same time upholding the nation-
' al independence, wealth, industry, and prosperity, its per-
manency is as important as its revenue or protective fea-
tures. Men of business of every kind require stability m the
legislation of the country on this important subject Without
it, no prudent man can make arrangements for the future, or
enter upon business with a reasonable certainty that it will
not be deranged or destroyed by the vacillating policy of
Congress, ihis act, too, has already proved so beneficial,
and promises such an increase of benefits to the people, that
it ought not now to be disturbed. It has revived business of
all descriptions-j it has enabled the government to pay its
expenses; it has restored the credit of the country; it has
given employment to American labor, with a remunerating
reward; it has imposed no additional tax on the community.
Entertaining these opinions, I hoped the act of 1842 would
be permitted to shed its beneficent effects throughout the
length and breadth of the land, without encountering oppo-
sition at the present session. But this course has not been
approved by some of the senators. They have considered
it not only proper, but necessary, that this discussion should
commence ana proceed, and it seems to be the pleasure of
the Senate that it should not now terminate. And although
I have no doubt that a majority of this body believe that this
bill cannot constitutionally originate here: it being a bill "for
raising revenue'"—a general discussion of its principles and
details seems now unavoidable. I am ready to take a part
in it, and to defend the act of 1942 as a wise, just, and benefi-
cent law. I regret that the senator from South Carolina [Mr.
McDuffieJ deemed it necessary to apply such harsh epithets
to that act, and to what lie supposes are the false principles
on which it is founded. His high and commanding talents,
his great experience, bis extensive knowledge, his acute ob-
servation, did not requue the aid of such strong expi essions.
The argument of the senator could denve no support from
describing it as a formless monster, oppressive, a bantling,
having falsehood and deception stamped on its face, and de-
formities which excite hori?pr—an idol worshipped by the
men of the East. While these expressions could no good,
they were calculated to excite feeling. But I have known
the senator long, Invebeen associated with him in legisla-
tion in the other branch of Congress, and know how deep
and conscientious are his feelings of opposition to a protect-
ive tarifl. 1 believe they have led him to use these terms to
convey his strong sense of its injustice and oppression, and
not to* impute any unworthy motives to those who differ
from him. They do not, however, form any part of the ar-
gument, and I do not think they are justly deserved; for I
believe the act of 1842 to be an excellent revenue bill, while
at the same time it biistams the labor and the productions of
our own country of ail kinds and descriptions. In my re-
marks to the Senate it is not my purpose to discuss at large
the doctrines of free trade, and protection, and revenue. _ It
is impossible for the human intellect to discover anything
new in theory or in principle regarding them. They have
been the topic of so many essays, reviews, and speeches,
that they have been exhausted. Since I have been a mem-
ber of Congress I have had occasion to discuss them several
times; and, as has been said, few things ar^ more disagreea-
ble than to repent either one's own words or the ideas of an-
other. I shall endeavor, therefore, to confine m> self princi-
pally to a reply to what has been advanced by those from
(47}
whom I differ, and especially to the remarks of the senator
from New Hampshire, {Mr. Woodbury.]
That senator began by remarking that he should sustain
his views by facts, and just conclusions from facts, although
there might be some contradiction about the facts, and some
diversity as to principles. I shall endeavor to be guided by
facts—not a part of ttiem only—but all which have a legiti-
mate bearing upon the subject. I think there can be but lit-
tle it any doubt what those facts arc; and as to the principles
there would seem to be but two which are applicable to the
matter; the one is free trade, as it is understood and
practised in modern times; and the other, adequate pro-
tection to the industry and productions our own country
against foreign competition and restrictions, to be afforded
by imposing suitable discriminating duties on imports.
The senator then prodounded the inquiry, does the pres-
ent tariff law require revision? and added,*that if such a re-
vision was demanded, it ought to be made now. Before he
proceeded to answrer this question, he anticipated an objec-
tion which he supposed might be made to an examination of
the subject, and to which 1 have referred, viz: that a fair
trial and experiment ought to be made of the existing act;
and said that there would be force in the objection if the
subject was new, or its principles doubtful; but that the one
was very old, and the other had been the tbeme of discus-
sioa for many years. It is true that the act of 1842, in one
sense, is not new, for it is a bill laying duties on imports, of
which there has been one in force since 1789; but the rates
of duty are different, and the circumstances of the country
are different now from what they have heretofore been; and
a bill framed with reference to such circumstances, and
with new and different rates of duty, is a new bill, and de-
serves to have a fair trial made of its merits. As to its
principles, there is not, I think, any doubt as to their cor-
rectness, or of the value to the country of the measure
founded on them.
The senator said that it was proper to revise the act, be-
cause several senators who voted for it had declared, at the
time of giving their votes, that the act was in many re-
spects defective, imposing higher duties in some cases 'than
were necessary, and that they should cheerfully concur m
amending it; and paragraphs of the repoited speeches of
some of these senators were read. With all the respect
which is due to the opinions of these gentlemen, I cannot
discover that this furnishes a reason for a general revision
of the tariff, unless it be so defective as to require it; and
whether it be so or not is a point on which we differ.
"Whether the opinions imputed to these gentlemen be cor-
rect, it is not for me to say. Some of them are here, and
can speak for themselves. A portion of the constituents of
one of them would seem to entertain different views of the
opinions of their senator from the gentleman from New
Hampshire, if their proceedings be correctly reported, for
they state that it was owing to him th.it the act was passed,
and that it is one which ought to be sustained.
The senator said that a former member of this body [Mr.
Clay] had declaicd that if this tariff has defects, they ought
to be corrected by supplemental legislation But did this
distinguished individual say it had any defects, or any of
such a character as to demand a general revision of the act?
Or will any man of candor contend that Mr. (.lay is to be
understood to admit that, if it were in any particular defect-
ive, it required an essential, entire modification, such as is
proposed by the bill of the Senator from South Carolina,
[Mr. McDuffie]—a bill which is intended to produce such a
great change in the existing law? This has not been said;
nor can it be said with truth, when, in the same letter, and
in many others, Mr. Clay expresses the opinion that the
present tariff is in the main rignt, and working much good.
But the senator says Mr. Clay has declared that the act of 1838
was highlydiscreditahle; and as the senatorthinks the present
tariff is as bad, if not worse than that, he adds that therefore
this tariff should be revised. "Will the senator state why it
was so discreditable? Who forced into it matters which
gave it so much discredit and such a name? Who loaded it
with provisions which were deemed so offensive"? Will he
aftirm that they were the friends of protection? Were they
not the friends of free trade who proposed and voted for
these provisions in the form of amendments,
The senator having, as he supposed, made it evident that
if the act has delects they ought to be cui ed by showing
that some persons have said that the act requires revision,
and that others had declared that if it was defective it should
be corrected, proceeds to answer the inquiry, doe? it need
revision'? This answer is in the affirmative, and several
reasons are assigned by him which I propose to examine.
They may be stated m the form of propositions advanced by
him, to each of which a reply will be given.
The senator saj s it is a bill foi direct protection to one
class of the community, and thdt a very -small one, (the
manufacturers,) at the expense of the rest of the com-
munity.
This is an old stereotyped charge, often iepeated, and as
often di^proied, and having not the slights! foundation in
fact. But I will examine the reasons by which tins serious
charge against a law which has received such signal marks
of approbation from the people, is attempted to te «upport-
ed. And one is, that it was asked for only by one class.
By what authority is thitf assertion sustained7 Ihis bill
was not solicited by any particular class ol oui citizens It
true that a portion oi the laboring classes of our people
asked of Congress that, in assessing the duties on imports to
raise revenue, such a mode might be adopted as that their
labor might be sustained against the pauper labor of Euiope
and the restrictions of foreign governments. This was a
reasonable request—it was a just demand, it was met in the
spirit with which it w as made; it w ns responded to by Con-
gress; it was complied with But no petition or memorial,
so far as I know, contained the synopsis of a tarifi bill—no
one contained the outlines of this act Congress, in its wis-
dom, and under its high responsibilities, prepared and en-
acted. this law, which is shedding on all the people its rich
blessings. Another reason stated is, that this tarJffwas vin-
dicated as a bill for one class only. The senator greatlv
mistakes when he so speaks I am sure he misapprehend^
or forgets the discussions which took place here. Was an
appeal made in this body m behalf of the manufacturers
only? So far from this, did not the friends of the bill urge
its passage on the same grounds on which they defend
now—that it was a proper revenue bill, and that it would
afford protection to all classes of our citizens, to people of all
trades and employments and professions—to the farmer, the
planter, the merchant, the manufacturer,, the mechanic,
the laborer? Did we not insist that it would diffuse its
benefits throughout the entire community—that it would
relieve the treasury, revive business, give steady em-
ployment to our laboring people at reasonable, wages, invite
investments of capital—in short that it would restore the
country to its former prosperity? Are not these the grounds,
on which we urged the passage of the bill? And how
far our expectations have been realized, let the presentcon-
dition of the country and of its great interests and pur-
suits answer. A third reason stated by the senator is, that
the effects of the tariff are partial, confined to one class, to
the injury of all other classes. This is an assertion moroly,
which I meet by expressing the opposite opinion. Which of
us is right maybe seen when we examine the grounds on
which our differing opinions rest. In my judgment, its effects
are beneficial to the entire country, raising revenue and af-
fording protection; and, while it protects, it produces com-
petition in the market, and a reduction in the price of articles
to the lowest extent which will maintain the industry of the
people.
The senator says the act is protective, because heavy du-
ties are laid on certain articles which cannot have been laid
as revenue duties, and he specifics many of these articles.
In one sense, they are all laid for revenue—in that sense
which has reference to all the elements which constitute a
revenue bill. The amount to be raised by a tariff bill must
be determined by regarding all the importations from,
abroad, as well as the business, the employments, the com-
merce of the country. In framing such a bill, our inquiries
are not to be limited to a single isolated article. The aggre-
gate of the articles to be imported is to be regarded as well
as the consumption. To.obtain the required amount of
revenue, many considerations are to be examined and
weighed in assessing the duties—such as the stato of the
marlcet at the place of growth, looking to the quantity and
price of the article, the state of the foreign markets, the
ability of the country to pay and consume. The latter is a
most important element in the assessment of duties. Th©
amount of revenue depends on the means which the people
possess to purchase imported goods, and these depend on
their property, or the product of their labor- Hence it is
apparent that in laying duties for revenue, we must exam-
ine carefully ail the matters which have a relation to the
whole amount to be raised. Consequently, although a par-
ticular article may be assessed at a high rate of duty, on&
which would seem, when first viewed, to be of itself, and.
without reference to other considerations, too high as a
rpvenue duty, yet when examined in connection with all
the other assessments of duties, and the reasons for them, it
will be found to be a duty for revenue, and the act, as a
whole, a suitable act to raise revenue. By assessing coarse
calicoes at 30 per. cent ad valorem, you enable those who
manufacture them here, by the produce of their labor, to
buy more of other articles paying a less revenue <^uty, be-
cause you enable them to provide the means by which they
can purchase them. So by this act you prevent the for-
eigner from obtaining the monopoly of the market here,
which he will secure by forcing out all competition from
our own people, and finally compelling us to pay such
prices as he may demand, to secure to himself extravagant
profits. The history of this country affords many illustra«
tions of this foreign monopoly. It is the essenee of free
trade. It is enriching foreigners, their agents and factors,
at the expense of the comfort, the welfare, the prosperitj-
of our own people. I repeat, therefore, that with a prudent
foresight, and a just regard to what was due to American
labor of all descriptions, every provision of the act of
1842 was inserted with reference to revenue. "We will,
however, refer to some of the articles specified by the
senator: sugars, silks, woollens, iron, molasses, spirits,
were named. Were not the duties imposed on these laid
for revenue? And salt, about which there has been so
much unfounded clamor, was not the duty assessed on that
article for revenue7 For ten years we have imported about
six millions ot bushels annually, which is not far from tlie
quantity annually manufactured in the United States. And
is not a duty of eight cents a revenue duty * K may not be
out of place to consider the injustice which has been don©
to those who have been favorable to a duty on salt. This
article is indeed one of necessity, one necessary for our
whole population. Within the recollection of most of the
Senate, certainly of many of us, the price of Turk's Island
salt, the most valuacle, the most in common use, was one
dollar per bushel. When the duty of eight cents was im-
posed, the price was (1 am told) twenty-five or twenty-six
cents. Now, it is for sale in New \orkat twenty-eight
cents. Before the article was manufactured here, it com-
manded a high price in our market. In Turk's Island it
was not far from twenty cents—now. it is said to be from
eight to ten cents perbuthel. The reduction in price has
been occasioned by the piotection given to the v-anulccru-
rer of the article here, which has raised up establishments,
given employment to labor, increased the prices of land to
the farmer, and produced a competition which has biout ht
down the great profits of the foreigner, and given an excel-
lent article to the consumer at a reasonable price. But how
small is the tax paid by the consumer of salt' If the popu-
lation of the Union is estimated to be twenty millions, and
six millions of bushels are imported, the proportion, to each
person will be about one-third of a bushel. II the price
since the duty has risen from twenty-six to twenty-eigh;
cents.it has been increased two cents, and the consumer
pays one-third of two cents on every bushel of salt he con-
sumes—-a trifling amount indeed. But ii he should pay the
whole duty of eight cents, (which he does not, because the
price does not advance to that amount.) he w ould pay only
one-third of eight cents, and this would be a veiy inconsia-
erabie tix. Besides, u e ought not to be dependent on for-
eign nations for a supply oJ thirf article. In time of war,
we should suffer for want of it; in time of peace they woulc
exact an exorbitant price for n. The repeal of the duty
would destroy capital invested upon the faith of the govern
ment that it should not be impaired, and deprive of emplo j •
ment great numbers of cur industrious citizens.
The senator says there are certain articles which are freo^
and others which pay a small duty only^ and that on these-
some duty ought to be laid, or an additional one for tqv^
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/m1/747/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.