Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-03-23
NEr. Haynes Speech.
IN sen ATE.
Monday, January 16.
DEBATE ON THE TARIFF.
I Continued. I

Continued
Sir. have done with this branch of tho
subject. Great are the present evils o.
this iystem 10 the south, there are greater
still-+in prospect. We are seriously threat
enedwith the entire loss Of the foreign mar
kels or our productions. All trade is but
an exchange of equivalents, and is founded
on The maxim of "give and take" If you
exclude British goods from our markets
you, 10 effect, excluded our cotton from their
markes. Ii is vain 10 tell US that England
must have our cotton. You may force her
TO do Without it. Even now she supplies
hersellto great extent, from other coun-
tries from her East India possessions,
Egypt, Brazil, and elsewhere; and you will
make II her interest, in the end, TO give UP
The American trade entirely Even now
she's looking TO this as possible event.
You find her encouraging the production of
cotton in the East Indies, by discriminating
duty TO which you have forced her, and slim
ulatlng the production Of the article inSouth
America, where she is furnished with mar
ket for her manufactures, almost duty free
Can we, then, be blind 10 he fate that awaits
US when the American sysem shall be con
summated s. we shall be CIT off from mar
ket for seven hundred thousand bales ofour
cotton an event that, it is hardly necessary
| for me 10 say, would involve The whole south
in irretrievable ruin. 1t is idle for gentle
men 10 pretend that the north tan ever fur
nish home market for all the cotton OF the
south. Two or three hundred thousand bales
is the utmost extent 10 which we could find
a market in that quarter. The catalogue of
the evils of this system, however is not yet
completed IT is not merely the mischiefit
has done, and the still greater evils which it
threatens, but il has arrested our march TO
greatness, and prevented us from fulfilling
our high destines. What would have been
the condition of this country now, if we had
never been deprived of the blessings of free
trade? Why is il that our tonnage and our
exports have not grown with our growth,
and strengthened with our strength? 1t is
because our prosperity has been blasted by
picture. In 1910, with a population of Sc
ven millions, we had tonnage, of one mil
lion four hundred thousand. In 1881, with
population ofthirteen millions, our tonnage
is reduced TO one million two hundred thou
sand ; and going still further back, in the
year 1900, our exports amounted to eighty
one millions, while now, with population
Of thirteen millions, our exports are reduced
TO seventy two millions. Thus while our
population has increased nearly three fold g,
our foreign commerce has not advanced at
all. Sir, if w ashington's free trade system
had continued unto this d., (for, be it re-
membered, that Alexander riamilton's pro-
tecting system was essentially system of
free trade, imposing duties only OF form 10
seven and half per cent. Gan il be doubt
ed that we should now have tonnage of two
millions and halfand that our exports would
have amounted 10 one hundred and fifty mil
lions. am told that one of the ablest finan-
ciers in this country, has recently declared
that he should consider an average duty of
twelve or fifteen per centum dd UOlorean, as
ahundantly sufficient for all the purposes of
| revenue; and that, under such system; our
imports and exports would, in his opinion.
exceed hundred millions of dollars the first
year. | know, Mr. President, that it has
| sometimes been said, that the evils under
which the south is suffering, arise from the
! over production of cotton-but this is not so.
Cotton is an article, the production ofwhich
cannot be overdone. 1t is the cheapest of
all known raw materials. 1t is fast super
seding silk, wool, hemp, and flax, all over
the world Asa proof of this, will advert
to the fact, that during period in England
when her wOollen manufactures advanced
from five millions Of pounds sterling TO six
the cotton manufactures progressed from one
million 10 more than thirty. Ifyou would
take off your duties, and throw open to us the
markets of the world, American cottons
would, 10 great extent, supersede all 9th
ers, and we should find a market not for one
but two millions of bales The whole south
would then, indeed, become "garden spot. "
But it is insisted by the supporters Of the
protecting system, that its only effect is
to make our goods come cheaper Sir, il
this were true, will venture 10 assert, that
the manufacturers themselves would be the
very first to abandon the system. Their OBJ
Iject, certainly, is not TO lessen, but TO in.
crease their prices. Even if this were the
case, however, am unable TO discover how
the cotton planter could be compensated fol
the loss ofhis market. How is this suppo
sed reduction TO be brought about? BY com
petition, says the gentleman, between th,
British & the American manufacturer. But
ifitis competition, that is to produce this re-
ducton Of prices, the manufacturer, on boil
sides, must be put on equal footing What sor
Of competition is that which is founded on
discrimination offilty per cent. in favor O
one Of the parties-and il, in spite ofsuch
discrimination, the contest can be maintain
ed at all is il not, by that fact, put beyont
dispute, that but for the tax, the prices woul
be still further reduced? Gentlemen take
for granted that the competition among tn
foreign manufacturers is not sufficient,
great 10 reduce the price TO the low est rate
They even tell US Of combination anon,
them 10 keep up the prices Sir, such com
binations are utterly impossible. How ar
the manufacturers Of iron, in Sweden, Rus
STA, and England, or the cotton and silk man