The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 740

                                
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBB.
Feb. 1844.
28th Cong....1st Sess.
The Tariff~Mr. Huntington.
Senate.
cil, the declarations of her statesmen who are in power,
without reference to their differing opinions on other sub-
jects. On this they are all agreed. Without repeating
them, i refer to tne quotations already read from the
speeches of her ministers and members of Parliament. And
they speak ft language which cannot be misunderstood.
• They are full for protection.
The senator says Great Britain and her dependencies re-
- ceive from us annually six arid a half millions of dollars in
value of breadstuff's. And what is this to the quantity raised
in the United States? "We raise eighty or a hundred millions
of bushels of wheat, and mors than three hundred and eighty
millions of bushels of c«rn, five million bushels of barley,
one hundred and thirty millions of oats, nineteen millions
of ryfe, eight millions of buckwheat; and Great Britain and
the countries dependent on her, receive a little more than
aix millions in value annually of all our breadstuff's! Indeed,
how small is the entire amount of breadstuff's exported to
the amount raised and consumed here! A friend has fur-
nished me with a'table of the exports, for several years, of
flour, wheat, corn meal, rye flour, rye, oats, &c. In 1S30, it
was not far from seven millions of dollars in value; in 1832,
about six millions; in 1831, (and that too under the high tar-
iff of 1828,) less than twelve millions; in 1835, about six mil-
lions; in 1841, trfn millions; in 1842, about ten millions But,
if Great Britain is disposed to be liberal, why does she not
take more? Why does she not repeal her sliding scale and
let in breadstuff's at a moderate duty? Why does she prac-
tically exclude our flour, wheat, and Indian corn? Be-
cause she does not intend to break down her agricultural
producers by a foreign competition. She intends to protect
them even at the expense of the starving poor. She receives
from us small amounts of these productions, and when ad-
- mitted into her dependencies, it is from necessity, or for the
furtherance of what she deems to be a more important inter-
est to be fostered and protected. Wheat is admitted into
Canada from the United States, I believe, upon the payment
of a small duty; not, however, to cultivate a spirit of liber-
ality towards us, but to benefit her labor and her works of
internal improvement there, and to aid the navigating inter-
est of Great Britain. When the wheat gets to Canada it be-
comes nationalized upon being manufactured into flour, and
' is exported through their canals, and in British vessels,
through the St. Lawrence, to England. My friend from
• Michigan [Mr. Porter] informs me that in 1841 Great
Britain appropriated about eight millions of dollars for
interna^ improvements in Canada, of which seventy
thousand pounds sterling were for harbors and rivess. It
• is, therefore, not a matter of surprise that she should adopt
a policy which would tend to afford employment to her
people, to increase the tolls on her canals, and give in-
creased advantages to her navigating interests. But does
she admit our manufactured flour into Canada free of duty?
Eioes the rate imposed on this article give evidence of a
' liberal spirit? There is, however, one important fact con-
nected with British duties, which evinces how little she re-
gards in practice the doctrine of free trade, and how inflex-
ible she is on the subject of protection to her own industry.
i allude to the discriminating duties on imports, in favor of
her own colonies and dependencies. If she mean? to be
liberal, why make thu essential difference in the duties9
"Why sustain her commercial marine at the expense of our
merchants and farmers? Take, for example, some of the
articles of breadstuff's. While flour from foreign countries
i? charged with a duty ranging from 6s. 10£d. to 4£d. per
cwt., according to the sliding scale, and wheat from 20s. to
' Is. per quarter, they are subjected, when the produce .of,
and imported from, British possessions out of Europe, to a
duty varying from 6s. to 6d. Wheat the produce of and im-
ported from Canada, Is.; flour, 4£d. per cwt.
The senator says Great Britain receives from us five hun-
dred thousand dollars worth of. beef and cattlc annually.
This is very small, compared with our production. And
why does she not take more, if she be liberally inclined?
Ana she will exclude it wholly, whenever her interests re-
quire it. The discriminating duties as to this article are as
©7 per cent, when imported from foreign countries to 16$
from her colonies. She takes from us two hundred and fifty
' thousand dollars in value of butter and cheese. This is a
trifle, indeed, compared with what we make. What he-
eomes of the rest? Does it not find a market at home, in
consequence of the protection given to the industry of
those who consume it? The differential duty aR to butter is
as 861<3 • per cent; as to cheese, 45 to 10. The small quan-
tity of pork, lard, &c , amounting to one million two hun-
ted and twenty-five thousand dollars in value, has been
mentioned; and the difference in duty is, on pork, as 34 to
and on iard as 7 to If ad valorem. She also takes two
hundred and fifty thousand dollar? in value of sperm oil
And what is this to the quantity which is brought here, the
product of the toil, privations, and dangers of our hardy
mariners? The difference in duty, for the protection of the
British whale fishery, is as 36 ad valorem to £ per cent.
Timber is another article which has been alluded to. ft is
difficult, from the character of the British tariff* to fix an ad
valorem duty on timber; but a statement has been made,
supposed to approximate very nearly to the fact, to which I
will refer, and which shows that Great Britain does not in-
tend to favor this interest in the United States. The discrimi-
nating duty on timber and lumber is almost prohibitory. On
boards, &c , sawed or split, from the United States', $7 68
per load of fifty cubic feet; from the British colonies,
48 cents. On oars from the United States, $36 per 100;
her own colonies, 90 cents. Handspikes, $9 60 : her
own colonies, 24 cents. Spokes for wheeK per 1,000, flfi
SO; her own colonies 40 cents. Lathewood, '210 cubic feet,
$0 60; her own colonies 04 cents. Firewood $2 40; her own
colonies free. Another view maybe taken of this misnamed
British liberality, and of h r desire to meet us on fur recip-
rocal terms. For three years—il8.38, 1S39, and 1810—the
value of the productions of the United States exported to
England, Ireland, and Scotland was a little over 15o mil-
lions of dollars; the duties paid on them were nearly 79 mil-
lions of dollars—average about 50 5-lOpor cent Ofthese
cotton and tobacco constituted over 143 millions; duties
more than 73 millions—average not far from percent
Exclusive of cotton and tobacco, the value was between 11
and 12 millions of dollars, and the average duty about 44
£-10 per cent; with the exception of cotton, the average
- 4uty would be about 330 percent. During the same yt^ars
the receipts into the treasury of the United States from cus-
toms were about 53 millions of dollars; and the duties col-
lected for that period by Great Britain on'cottoo and tobac-
co from the United States were more than 73 millions." In
the year 1839 the customs duties in Great Britain were near-
ly 23 millions sterling—equal to 110 millons of dollars; of
which almost 27 millions were collected on the productions
of the United States and exported to England, Scotland, and
Ireland. It has been said that Great Britain and her depend'
cies take more in value from us than we take from her. In
1840 the balance was in favor of the United States 31 mil-
lions of dollars. So in 1837 it was 9 millions, and the same
in 1838; but in 1831 it was against us 6 millions; in 1832, 5
millions; in 1833, 4 millions; in i834, 2 millions; in 1835.5
millions; in 1836, 22 millions; in 1839, 3 millions. Of the ten
years, the balance has been against us in seven of them.
The senator, having referred to the proofs of British lib-
erality, proceeded to say that no equivalent was given for
the oppressive duties paid by, a large majority of the people
of th£ United States, particularly the farmers; and that they
received no remuneration in the home market, which, it had
been said, was opened to them. This market, he said, was
comparatively of litle value. I was somewhat surprised at
this remark of the senator. The home market for our agri-
cultural productions inconsiderable! What becomes of all
ofthem! Wc have seen that but a small proportion is ex-
ported. Where are the rest! Are they stored and permit-
ted to perish'' Do they find no purchasers! Ask the farmer
of the West where is his market for his wheat, and his beef,
and his pork, and his other productions? Will he not point
you to tne North, and tell you that is his market—that there
much of it is consumed, and that the market there is of value
to him? A gentleman well conversant with the subject,
has informed me that the State of Massachusetts consumed
annually, of the beef, pork, hams, and lard of the other
States, (before the late alteration of the British tariff',) as
much as the whole amount exported to foreign countries,
and that her annual consumption of the flour and grain of *
the other States exceeded th« average annual amount ex-
ported to England and her dependencies for six > ears pre-
ceding 1841. Another gentleman, on whose statements I
rely, has informed me that the iron manufacturers of the
United States, and those connected with and dependant on
them, consume, efthe productions of the farmer, about nino
millions of dollars annually—an amount about equal to the"
value of the breadstuff's exported from the United States an-
nually. But, I again ask, who art the consumers of the sur-
plus productions ot the larmer' It is not exported, it is not
destroyed, it docs not perish. Where, then, does it find a
market? The answer is obvious. It is purchased by the
mechanics, the manufacturers, the day-laborers—by all the
rest of the community beside the producer; and they create
the home market, and ore enabled to purchase and consume
by the protection which is given to their several employ-
ments. All are benefited—the fanner as well as the artizan
—all, all share in the blessings which are produced by sus-
taining the diversified labor of the people in their several
trades, callings, and professions. The senator then sum-
med up m ligures the extent of the oppression which
he supposed was borne by a large portion of the
community, for the exclusive benefit of the remainder,
by duties on certain articles. By the consumption
of iron, fifteen millions of dollars; of sugar, seven
millions; of salt one million six hundred thousand dollars.
The mode adopted to produce this result was to estimate the
quantity of iron used by each individual to be twenty-five
pounds—average duty tbree cents per pound—equal to
seevnty-five cents each for a population of twenty millions.
Of sugar, the consumption two hundred and eighty millions
of pounds, duty two and a half cents per pound. Salt, one
bushel to each individual, duty eight cents por bushel. It
was treated as a tax to the extent of the duty, amounting,
on three articles, to nearly twentv-four millions of dollars.
I am aware it is insisted that figure? always speak the
truth. Ifthis be so, it is no less certain that they are some-
times made the basis of very erroneous inferences. Iwill
examine, very briefly, this array of figures. Iron, includ-
ing pig metal, does not,! believe, pay more than an average
duty of one cent per pound, having reference to the quan-
tities of the various descriptions which are imported. The
duties specified do not fall wholly on the consumer; aa to
some of tb,em, not at all, and as to others, a small portion of
them The fallacy of the argument will be seen by advert-
ing to the consequences which would follow , if it were
true that the duty which is imposed constitutes the amount
of the tax paid. One would be that our revenue would be
immensely great. If on three articles taxes are paid amount-
ing to more than twenty millions of dollars, what would lie
the revenue on all dutiable articles7 Another consequence
would be that the agricultural States obtain a very large
protection for all their proditctions. In New Hampshire it
would amount, if the duty was assessed on the articles
which she raises, to more than two millions of dollars. But
we cannot but perceive that m neither case is the duty in
this form the criterion of taxation ov protection.
In connection with the subject of a home market, the sena-
tor said that Great Britain does not depend on her home mar-
ket. That i« wholly insufficient. She searches, therefore, tor
other markets. fam aware: that she makes as many com-
mercial treaties as she can, which will give her exclusive
privileges; establishes colonies; subjugates all the foreign
countries which will submit to her dictation; makes tributa-
ry provinces. and thus endeavors to find a market for the
surplus productions of her varied industry. And if this be
so, would the senator hol.l up to us fox' imitation the doc-
trines of free tr?de, whif h Great Britain inculcates in the
vanous forms mentioned7 Especially would he recommend
that we should raise armies and navies to conquer foreign
countries, to make them dependencies of o-no. that our sur-
plus productions might thereby find a market? 1 think not;
butifno:, why is her example adverted to, as one which
proves that the home market of the United States is of little
value to us7
The senator insists that the tariff'act is injurious to the
navigation and commerce of the United States; and he
feels interested in that which is so important to the por-
tion of the country from which he comes. If the high-
ly respectable State of New Hampshire depended lor Her
prosperity solely or mainly on her commerce, &he would
be much less prosperous in her business concerns than
she now is. Her geographical position is such that, as
a State, she is but slightly interested in the commer-
cial business of the Union. H is to other causes than
commercial pursuits that she is indebted for her wealth,
her influence, her respectability. She has a short extent
of sea coast; about 24,000 tons of shipping. In 1842 her
exports were* about28.000 dollars, and her impoTts
about 60,000 dollars; the tonnage of vessels entered was
10,000 tons, of vessels cleared 6,000 tons? while Rhode Isl-
and in the same year—a State which upholds with ere&t
unanimity the policy which the senator condemns—ha<i ton-
nage to the amount of 88,000 tons; her exports and imports
were each 323,000 dollars; her tonfiage, entered about 17,000
ton?—cleared, about 20.000. I state these facts not to dispar-
age any State, but to show- that even States partly commer-
cial do not think that the prosperity of that branch of their
business is injured by the protection given to American la-
bor and productions. The senator says our commerce is in-
jured by the duties imposed on hemp, iron, and cordage,
which heestimates at $-5 per ton on every vessel of the bur-
den of 300 tons. It increases the expense to the ship-owner,
and so increases the prices of freight, both outward and
homeward. This argument assumes that the duties on those
articles always fall on the consumer, which I think cannot
be proved. It assumes, also, that if the duty were reduced,
the expense of construction and of freights would be less by
the amount of the duty, which, it seems to me, it would be
difficult to establish. It further assumes that, notwithstand-
ing the protection afforded by the duty gives employment
to others, it does not proportionally reduce the price of the
vessel and of frieghts a reduction which experience shows
does generally take place. But if the price be raised, as the
senator supposes, the ship-owner is more than compensated
by the increased freights which his vessel carries, both in
tne domestic and foreign trade, in consequence of the in-
crease of the productions of industry which are to be trans-
ported, occasioned by the encouragement and protection
given to the different employments of labor.
But, I ask, has not the policy of protection conferred any
benefit on the ship-owner and the ship-builder, and, in con-
nection with them, the producer of the raw materials—cotton
and hemp? What but this policy has led to the manufacture
in the United States of cotton canvass, which is furnished
at a cheaper rate, and lasts longer with constant use, than
theimportod hemp canvass; and which is now used to a con-
siderable extent for small craft, and partially for vessels of
larger size; and which gives employment to a great num-
ber of persons, builds up villages with dwelling houses,
stores, and school-houses, and pioduces a steady profitable
market for the neighboring farmers ? Has not the same
policy sustained and promoted the growth of hemp in this
country, by which cordage for some of our vessels is made
of Kentucky water-rotted hemp, and is an article of the
very best quality, and furnished at a price much reduced
from that of the imported cordag« made of Russia hemp?
And in this view does the ship-owner suffer an injury
by the duties on hemp and cordage, when, they bring
into existence and sustain manufacturing establish-
ments which furnish him with a cheaper and better ar-
ticle than the imported one? The same result would be
seen by a careful examination of the effects of our own es-
tablishments in reducing the price and improving the qual-
ity of iron; but I have not time to make it, nor can I stop to
refer particularly to the effect of high duties on our cod and
other fisheries, alluded to by the senator. If the quantity
and the price have diminished, it is not to be attributed to
our duties, preventing the exchange of our commodities,
but to the fact that foreigners now catch fish and make oil
for themselves.
The senator says our high duties, operating to increase
the expenses of ship-building, have made foreigners our
carriers, and thus our commerce has been injured. It i 
true that our carrying trade is, to some extent, in the hands
of foreigners, but this has not been produced by the imposi-
tion of duties, but by reason principally of the reciprocity
treaties which we have concluded, and which give to the
foreigner advantages which we cannot obtain. An illustra-
tion is found in the state of our trade with the Hanse Towns.
The course is this* A vessel sails from Bremen with a cargo
for Brazil; there she takes coffee for the United States, and
from here a cargo for the north of Europe, thus being the
sole carrier on each voyage. 1 was infoimed two years ago,
by a very intelligent merchant of New York, that in 1S41
more than 100,000 bags of coffee were imported into the
United States from Brazil in foreign vessels. In 1839 and
lS40.more than three-fourths of the trade carried on be-
tween this country and those towns was in foreign ves-
sels.
In 1839 the American tonnage entered from Hanse Towns
Was 10,721; iu 1840, it was 12,717; in both years, 23,438; the
amount cleared in J839 was 4,892; in 1840, 17,849; equal to
22,741. The foreign tonnage entered in 1839 was 37,741; m
1S40,3S.177; equal to 7o.918, amount cleared in 1^39,29.098;
in 1840, 42,324; equal to 72,3.22 In 1841, American tonnage
entered, 15,593; cleared. 14.123; foreign tonnage entered m
1841, 35,481; cleared, 46,147. In 1842 American tonnage
entered, 14125; cleared. 16,779. In IS-ji, foreign ton-
nage entered, 40 988; cleared, r>l 060. ^ The foreign
tonnage entered from Braril in the United States, m
1840, was double the amount it was in 1839. In theso
Hanse Towns wages are much cheaper than here, of ship
carpenters, ship masters, and seamen: and vessels may be
purchased by their citizens wherever they can be pur-
chased cheapest, and by their laws* they are nationalized
and entitled to the benefits of the reciprocity treaty. In
view of these facts, it is not surprising that our carrying
trade is falling into the hands of foreigners
It has been heretofore urged that our navigating interest
has declined under high duties, and increased under lower
ones; and the commercial document has been referred to,
which shows that in 1S32, the year Vforc the compromise
act, the amount of registered tonnage was 680,989 tons; ot
enrolled and licensed, 7.52 460—making a total of 1,439,449
tons: and that in 18-tfl, under the compromise act, the former
was 899,764, the latter 1,280 999; equal to 2,1S0,663 tons;
showing an increase of tonnage on the declining duties of
741.214 tons. I have recently seen a statement prepared ty
agentieman of intelligence,* and of the highest respecta-
bility, which accounts for this difference. He says that the
register is, in this respect, inaccurate. It contains every