The Arkansas advocate., 1832-02-08

consistent willl 1t. And Eie did not think that the object of paying of the whole public debt by a precise day in. the year 1853, ought to delay for one moment the repeal of duties on objects not falling within the scope of that sys- tem. Having made this explanation he would not farther trouble the Se- nate.
 Mr. Hagnc said, if gentlemen had suffered the question to be taken up on this report without debate, he would have been content to give his silent vote inits favor. The only question presen-
 ted by the report was, whether 1t was Iexpediebt to pass q bill greatly to re
 duce the duties on teas, 10 take effect
 oihi tthile Ist Of January January nsext. He con cured with the committee, that such measure would not be expedient, even l il it were practicable. But, said Mir. ] H. as gentlemen who have addressed the Senate haVenot confined themselves to this question, but have gone into all explanation of some of their views with respect 10 the proposed modification of the tariff, Ca modification of some sort
 being admitted on all hands to have become enecessary, ) it was perhaps prop erthat he should also express his opin-
 ion, in order to ''conclude the conclu- sionp that there was q general concur
 renee in all the views which had been
 presented in the report, or by the gen,
 tIemen who had favored the senate with their sentiments. 1t was certainly de- sirable that there should be no misun-
 derstanding on this subject, either here or elsewhere. and he was most anxious that. so far as his own views were con- Icerned-and perhaps he might add, the views of those with whom be usually acted on such questions--gentlemen should not delude themselves with the belief thatany modification of the tariff would be atall satisfactory, which should not be effected on the broad principle ofpegfect justice andequalay. The Chair
 man ofthe. committee fhir. SMITII) had
 told us that he was not only prepared
 greatly to reduce the duties upon tea,
 but upon all other articles which did
 not enter into competition with our manufactures ;-he spoke of imposing upon such articles what he was pleased to call pro fornaa duties, while the ob- 3aorious articles. by which l presume he meant the protected articles, were to remain subject to other, and of course higher-perhaps she existing-rate of duties. The gentleman had referred, in illustration his views, to q bill re- ported by himself last year, for the re- duction often millions of taxes. Against the scheme embraced in that bill, Mir. H. felt himself bound, now, and at all times. to enter Els earnest and decided protest. What was inc schemeq Why that.from articles of luxury fhe taxes should be taken off entirely, while from articles ofabsolute necessity they were to remain undiminished-artieles con- sumed by the rich were 10 come into the country duty free, while articles consumed by the poor were to be bur dened with exorbitant taxation. The rich man was to drink his costly wines, and his family to be arrayed in fine silks, without paying one cent towards the expenses of the government, while the poor man was 10 be heavily taxed on the coarse woolens which were to shield himself and his family from the cold. Now, could a system of taxation resting on such principles be seriously defended? Could it be tolerated in free country, and liberal and enlight- ened age? He trusted not. There is another objection to this scheme, which waste his mind equally conelusive-it was, that by it the dutieswere to be ta- ken off from what was called the unpro- tected articles-artieles, too, of general consumption, {and which, according to the acknowledged principles of politi- cal economy, and ihe common consent ofall mankind, are the proper subjects for taxation, and the entire reyenue of the country was to be raised upon the dartacleS-uponcottons, ,woollens, andiron-- articles ofneeessity, on which enormous duties are now imposed-du- ties which operate as heavy tar on certain portions of the country, and cer- tain branches ofindustry, and as boua,- ty to other portions ofthe country, and other branches of industry.
 Against q system So unjust, unequal, and oppressive, the tax-paying people of the Initnd Gkator tht,,1 .xrh<, ..<,<n <,sr1,