The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1840-03-17
REMARKS OF MIR. WEBSTER,
In ansper 10 some part Of Mr.. Calhoun's
speech.
IN SENATE, March 3, 1910.

| consideration
Mr.. WEBSTER said it was not his pur-
pose, at present, TO enter far into the wide field
OF debate which was opened by this Discus
slon Another opportunity would probably
present itself Tor the expression Of his OPT
MONS upon the general state OF the country,
and the measures which he thought to be
called for by the crisis. My single purpose
now (said Mr.. WEBsTER) is to make few
remarks upon the speech of the honorable
member from South Carolina, delivered some
days ago, or, rather, upon some of the topics
OF that speech. l had not the pleasure OF
hearing the speech, but | have read il atten-
lively, with the respect due to the subject and
to the author, and the remarks which pro.
pose to make upon il desire to address to the
honorable member himself and his friends
who think with him, as well as to the rest of
the country. it is an able speech, showing
much thought and reflection, as well as much
acutcness, and exhibiting, on the whole, spi-
rt apparently not unkind towards all the great
interests ofihe country. My remarks shall be
in the same spirit.
l. In treating of protection, or protecting
duties, the first proposition Of the honorable |
member is, that all duties laid on imports real
" fall on exports that they are toll paid
for going to market This, certainly, is not
very obvious, but he says il is the received
and settled doctrine Of the South. He does
not argue the point on this occasion he only
states it as the fixed belief Of the South
shall not argue it, but content myself with
saying that have never been able to agree
to this doctrine. The question was debated
with much ability some years ago between
my honorable colleague and distinguished
gentleman from South Carolna-both being
at that time members of the other House,
The South Carolina doctrine was then called
the Z" Fory-bale Theory;" and the result of
the discussion certainly left most of us in the
North still adherng to the old doctrine, viz
that when duties are laid upon imported arti-
cles II Is the consumer who pays; and OF
course, that each part of the country pays in
exact proportion to what it consumes. We
think that the trade outwards has little or no.
thing to do with the subject We think the
substantial question is who consumes the tax
ed artclel | can, indeed, conceive posi-
BILE case in which this general truth might be
qualified. If one country exported to another
a raw material WEIGH it could sell nowhere else,
and which no other country could furnish,
why, then, so far as duties on imports affected
material, or perhaps other articles imported in
to the country producing it as its equivalent in
return. so far it might he true that the duties
would have an influence to check expectation.
But no such case exists with US. The South |
and the West sell their cotton both at home
and abroad. But they are not the sole pro-
ducers of cotton. They have competitions
There is market on both continents and in
IF TO- c.~l Al Q Al
America, Texas, India. and Egypt, in strug
gle for prices with their own. Our Southern
and western States have fair demand; no
thing obstructs their sales as in all other
cases, the prices are regulated by the supply
and the demand. They pay no duty on going
out, and il they can produce as cheaply as
others, they can afford TO sell as cheap. Their
commodity, sold in foreign markets, mingles
with the commerce Oh the world They have
received their price for it, and their connexon
with it has ceased.
Whether it comes back here in a manuac-
tured shape, or goes elsewhere, is no matter
to them, as mere raisers and sellers of the ar
ticle. If any portion OF il comes back here,
as doubtless It does, il is portion which has
been purchased in the general market OF Eu
rope, manufactured, and perhaps, miyed, in
the very process, with the cotton of other
countries, and reaches our shores as a foreign
article for sale. Foreign labor and skill have
become Incorporated with it, and constitute its +
chief value. AT out custom house it is made
subject to duty, which is supposed TO raise
its price; and, il seems 10 me- if this be the
effect Of the duty, il is the whole effect. 1t
reaches no further. do not see how il acts
back upon the original grower of the article in
South Carolina. 1t no more affects the cot
ton grower in South Carolina, except so far as
he is consumer, than it affects the cotton
grower in South America, India, or Egypt
The thread of causes and effects in this case,
if there be any such thread, becomes quite too
fine and attenuated to be felt or followed, from
the higher price paid by the consumer, in con-
sequence Of the duty, back, through all the in
termediate stages, to the influence of that
higher price upon the original cost of the raw
material. The same is true in regard to all
imported articles not produced from the ex-
ported cotton. How is it possible to say that
duties on such articles, iron and wooen
cloths, for instance, are burden Of discou-
ragement on the raising of cotton!
But suppose admit the South Carolina
doctrine-suppose admit that duties on i'm
ported merchandise really fall back, and be-
come charge on the exports of the country
and suppose admit, what is true, that cotton
grown in the Southern States constitutes a
great portion of our exports-t does by no
means follow from all this that the burden Of
these duties falls on the South, in proportion
to the exports which leave its ports. And the
reason is this: These exports are not alto
gether the result Of the skill, labor, or capital
Of the South. Cotton, though it grows ex-
clusively on Southern fields, is not, in truth,
mere Southern product. Much Of the labor