The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1830-03-17

advertisement, beyond the sum charged for its
insertion.
Ma. WEBSTER'S SECOND SPEECH,
ON MR.. Foor's RESOLUTION.
In Senate--Jan, &c, 1880.
EConcluded.]
With great majority of the Representatives
of Massachusetts,, | voted against the tariff of
1924. My reasons were then given, and will
not now repeat them. But, Notwithstanding
our dissent, the great States of New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky, went for
the BILL in almost unbroken column, and it pass
ed. Congress and the President sanctioned it,
and it became the law of the land. What, then,
were we to do: Our only opinion was, either
to fall in with this settled course Of public poll
cy, and accommodate ourselves to it as we'll as
we could, or to embrace the South Carolina
doctrine, and talk of multiplying the statute by
State Interference.
This last alternative did not suit our princi.
pies and, Of course, we adopted the former. In
1927, the subject came again before Congress,
on proposition favorable to wool and woollens.
We looked upon the system of protection as
being fixed and settled. The law of 1924 re-
manned. 1t had gone into full operation, and,
in regard TO some objects intended by it, per-
haps most of them, had produced all its OK.
pected effects. No man proposed to repeal it,
no man attempted to renew the general contest
on its principle. But, owing to subsequent and
unforeseen occurrences, the benefit intended by
it to wool and woollen fabrics, had not been re-
allied. Events, not known here when the law
passed, had taken place, which defeated its OBJ
iect in that particular respect. measure was
accordingly brought forward to meet this pre-
else deficiency, to remedy this particular defect
1t was limited to wool and woollens. Was ever
any thing more reasonable? If the policy of
the tariff laws had become established in prin-
ciple, as the permanent policy of the Govern
ment, should they not be revised and amended,
and made equal, like other laws, as exigencies
should arise, or justice require' Because we
had doubted about adopting the system, were
We to refuse to cure its manifest defects, after
it become adopted, and when no one attempted
its repeal And this, sir, is the inconsistency
so much bruited- had voted against the tariff
of 1S24-but it passed; and in 1927 and 1898
I voted to amend it, in a point essential to the
interest of my constituents. Where is the in
consistency? Could / do otherwise !? Sir,
does political consistency consist in always Civ
ing negative votes Does it require of a pub
lie man to refuse TO concur in amending laws
because they passed against his consent Hav.
ing voted against tho tariff originally, does con.
sistency demand that should do all in my
power to maintain an unequal tariff, burdersome
TO my own constituents, in many respects, IA
vorable to none? To consistency, of that sort
lay no clain--and there is another sort tc
which lay as little--and that is, a kind of con.
sistency, by which persons feel themselves al
much bound to oppose proposition after it hai
become the law of the land, as before.
The bill of 1877, limited, as have said, tC
the single object in which the tariff of 1924, hat
nanifestly failed in its effect passed the house
Of representatives but was lost here We hae
then the act Of 1923. I need not recur to thu
history Of a measure so recent, Its enemie.
,spiced It with whatsoever they thought wouIS
render il distestefu; its friends took It, drupgeC
as it was. Vast amounts Of property, man,
millions, had been invested in manufactures
under the inducements Of 1924. Events Gale,
loudly, a. l thought, for further regulation I,
secure the degree Of protection intended bv tina
act. Twas disposed TO vote for such regulation
and desired nothing morej but certainly wa
not 10 be bantered out Of my purpose by
threatened augmentation Of duty on molasse.
put into the bill for the avowed purpose of max
ing it obnoxious. The vote may have bee
right or wrong, wise or unwise but it is littl
less than absurd to allege against it an incon
sistancy with opposition to the former law
Sir, as 10 tho general subject of the tariff,
have little now to say. Another opportunit
Il
that this policy did not begin with us in Ne,
England; and yet, sir, New England rs CHARGE
with vehemence, as being favorable, or charge
with equal vehemence, as being unfavorable (
the tariff policy, just as best suits the time
place, and occasion for making some charg
against her. The crodulity of the public ha
been put to its extreme capacity of false i'm
preston, relative to her conduct, in this par
contest, nhrough all tho south, during the lat
England adminstr- EnglsanSAt p %as Sctng ~
country with tariff policy beyond an endn,
ence, while on the other side of the Alleohanv
even the act of 1928 ITSELF the very sublimate
essence OF oppression according to souther
opinions, was pronounced to be one Of tbos
blessings for which the west was indebted 4
the generous south"
Wlth large Investments, in manufacturin,
establishments and many and vatious interest
connected with, and dependant on. them Il 4
NOT 70 DO expected that New Englatd, an,
more than other portions Of the country. vii
now consent to any measure, Destructive ~
nlgnly dangerous, The duty OF the govern
ment, at the present moment. would sea,,, - 4,
TO preserve, not to destroy to ma;n,or ,ho ~
stlon which il has assumed and sor one III pJ
feel 1t an Indispensable obligation 10 hoId !,
steady, as Tar as in my power, to that degree n
projection which it has undertaken to bestow
NO more of tie tariff.
rrolesslng to be provoked, by what ho chose
70 consider charge made by me against Sou,h
Sarolina, the honorable member, Mr.. President
mas taken up now crusade against New Fnr'
land: Leaving altogether the subject of ,So
public lands, in which his success. nerb,ns had
been neither distinguished or satsfacinrv ma
letting 60 also Of the topic Of the tariff ~ s,I.
iled forth in general assault, on the opn mi
politics, and parties Of New England. ns ths y
nave nav boon exhibited in the last thirty years
ms n, Is natural. The "narrow policy" Of the
pubic lands had proved legal settlement in
,T TSu'n Oarolna and was not to be removed.
a.'sh,;.s cSuIsed policy Of the tariff, also, had
established the fact of its birth and parontaOo
an the same State. No wonder therefore. tss