Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-04-20
Speech of Henry CLAW.
In defence of the american System, against
the british Colonial System, delivered
inthe Senate Qffhe United States,
on the End, Sd and 9Th, Of
February 1892.
+ Ibuf;n,,oJ \


on the 2nd, Sd and 9Th, Of
February 1892.
{ Continued
l will now, Mr.. President, proceed 10 a
more particular consideration of the argu-
ments urged against the protective system,
and an inquiry into IFS practical operation,
especially on the cotton growing country
And, as | wish TO state and meet the argu-
ment fairly, invite correction of my slate
ment OF 1T, if necessary 1t is alleged that
the system operates prejudicially 10 the cot
ton planter, by diminishing the foreign de-
mand for this staple that we cannot sell 10
Great Britain, unless we buy from her that
the import duty is equivalent TO an export
duty, and falls upon The cotton grower that
South Carolina pays a disproportionate
quota OF the public revenue that an aban-
donment of the protective policy would lead
10 an augmentation Of our exports of an a.
mount not less than one hundred and fifty
millions ofdOllars ; and finally that the South
cannot partake of the advantages of manu-
featuring, il there be any. Let us exam
inc these various propositions, in detail. /.
That the foreign demand for cotton is di
minshed and that we cannot sell TO Great
Britain unless we buy from her. The de-
mand OF both our great foreign customers is
constantly and annually increasing. tits
true, that the ratio of the increase may not
he equal TO that of production but this is
owing TO the fact that the power ofproducing
the raw materials is much greater, and is
therefore constantly in advance OF the power
ot consumption. a single fact will illus
trate. The average produce of laborers en-
gaged in the cultivation Of cotton may he es-
timated at five bales, or fifteen hundred
weight TO the hand. Surprising the annu-
al average consumption of each individual
who uses cotton cloth TO be five pounds, one
hand can produce enough Of the raw materi-
al to clohe three hundred.
The argument compreheDds two errors,
one off fact and the other of principle II as
sumes that we do not in fact purchase of G.
Britain. What is the true state ofthe case
There are certain, but very few articles
which 1t is thought sound policy requires
That we should manufacture at home, and
on these the tariff operates. But, with re
spect 10 all the rest, and much the larger
number of articles Of taste fashion orutility
they are subject TO no other than revenue
duties and are freely introduced ! have
before me from The treasury a state ment oil
our imports from England, Scotland, and
Ireland, including ten years, preceding the
II,
from which ii will appear that although there
are some fluctuations in the amount OF The
different years, the largest amount import
ed in any one year has been since the tariff
Of 1927, and that the last years importation
when the returns of The fourth quarter shall
be received will probably be the greatest in
the whole term of eleven years.
Now, lift be admitted that there is a less
| amnnNt tff he oil srIo fo,l
from Great Britain, she may be, and proba-
bly, is, compensated for the deficiency, by
the increased consumption in America oil
the articles other industry not falling with
in the scope Of the policy Of our projection.
The establishment Of manufactures among
Us exciies The creation Of wealth, and this
| gives new powers Of consumption, which
are gratifed by the purchase Of foreign OBJ
jccts poor nation can never be a great
consuming nation. lis poverty will limit its
consumption 10 bare subsistence.
The erroneous principle which the argu-
ment includes, is, that il devoyes on us The
duty OF taking that Great Britain shall be
enabled TO purchase from us without exact
ing from Great Britain TIE corresponding
duty. II il be true, on one side, that nations
are bound 10 shape their policy in reference
TO the ability Of foreign Powers, il must Ia
true on both sides Of the Atlantic. And This
reciprocal obligation ought 10 be emphati-
cally regarded towards the nation supplying
the raw material, by the manufacturing ma.
ton, because the industry ofthe latter gives
four or FIVE values 10 what had been prOduc.
cd by the industry ofthe former.
But, does Great Britain practice towards
as upon the principles Which we are nov