The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-08-05

law of 1882 He defed gentlemen who opposed the
bill to point out single word IN II which was against
the act of 1883.
mr. WISE here rose and said he ready TO meet
the challenge. He asked the gentleman from fehn
syvana satisfy him to the provision IN ihe 'our'h
section Of this bill in reference TO beached ana uh
bleached linens, and next to explain 10 nun NY
wlre was made 10 bear duty OF 70 per cent. "hie
there was large duty the imported material u
Mr. s. said ifihere any items IN the bill when
had escaped his notice, he should prefer that ihey
should be pointed out by the gentleman from virginia
mir Wise within the hour allowed him for his own
speeeh and not in that allotted To Mr.. >. lie could
not now 90 into the details OF particular articles on
the bill but he said of it, generally that lis repeating
efficacy spent upon the law OF 1857 and was NOT
meant To affect that of 1888 The Secretary OF the
Treasury took the same view Of it had the late
Secretary and the chairman of the COMMITTEE OF
WAYS and Means MIR. Fillmore had done the same
Ii any particular item had escaped their scrutiny lei
it be corrected But he repeated that the bill did not
repeal the of 1888 il restored or raised duties Ia
ken away or lowered by the law of 1882 It's nam
stress do that-neither more nor less to make
good the taken away by the JOINT operation
of the two acts. Did the compromise act declare OF
mean 10 declare that Congress might IN no case IN
crease the duties levied in 1882 1t did say that such
duties as that law had laid for protection should be
reduced 10 twenty per cent. Well inns provision was
not touched by the present bill As bill relating to
revenue he had shown that the compromise act was
an act OF hasty legislation But what has that act to
do with the question before the Committee !!
That question was whether Congress was at liberty
10 lay duties upon articles not competing with our
own manutactures-not protected by the act OF 1882
With the facts staring them IN the face, that the ma
tona revenue was insufficient that even the exist
ing deences OF the country might be lost for want OF
funds 10 preserve them-was Congress to be bound
down by the effect Of the compromise act upon the
law Of 1882 I Taking, for the present, the 20 per
in the compromise act as the limit, and the al
valorem too this bill did not trench upon that act II
the argument against the bill was worth any thing,
was this that hereafter Congress could not move at
all il checkmaied by two pieces, VIZ the law OF
1892 and the law of 1888 If that be the effect
OF the compromise act then Mr. 5. declared it plainly
unconstitutional
Who were the parties to il He did not speak of
interests or of individuals still less did he mean to
mpu,e wrong motives TO any one but he asked the
questi6n-did any member OF this House who was
then member bind himself his successors by that
law Mr. S. did not speak of contracts where there
were two parties; but simply of law enacted for the
good Of the people of the nion and involving
tract but being mere expression of the legislative
will as this In regard TO such law, what right
had any member to bind his own hands that he
perfectly free the very next day TO alter the law he
had voted Tor Or, however he might bind himself,
what ght had he to bind the Congress of the United
States The people of the United States Did
gentlemen demand respect tor the compromise act
With all his heart; he not disposed to interfere
with it, without the strongest and most urgent
shy But suppose where a Senator was in
siructed by his constituents to vote for something
trhry to that act, what answer could he give Would
it be sufficient 10 say that he was ofthose who had
voted for the compromise act ? Did not gentlemen
BEE that the answer to such objection PLAIN
Here the hour expired, and Mr. S. resumed his
seat
Mr. GILMER said in substance as follows Mr..
Chairman, do not regard the compromise act as the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr Sergeanr who
has Just taken his seat seems to do. He considers IL
only temporary in its Objects and designed merely to
settle u point of honor" | look upon that measure
of great conseq to the interests and har
mony of the Union, and have supposed il in
tended by mutual concessions and forbearance, in the
spirit of institutions TO settle the unfortunate
controversy which existed in March, 1888 and to pre-
vent far possible, all future controversy, by
permanent adjustment Of certain conflicting inter SITS
and principles. The two most important features of
this compromise act and those which recommend it
especially to my regard are first the declaration
by authority of Congress that revenue, and
alone, is the legitimate object of import duties; and,
second that they should be laid with reference to ri
gid economy | beg sir, to call the attention Of the
committee TO the language of that act which en-
phatcally declares that the duties which it contem
plates, VIZ. twenty per cent? " shall be laid for tie
purpose of raising such may be necessary
to economical administration of the Government"
These words should be inscribed in shining charac-
tiers every dome and mitch of this Capitol. These
principles conceded, there is much less difficulty in
concillng those conflicts of interest between the pro-
ducing and the manufacturing States which have so
often occasioned anxiety and bitterness of feeling in
this Hall, and throughout the country. Revenue be- I
ing the object, protection follows necessarily as an in
ciIent and conceive that within the range of TWEEN
ty per cent prescribed by the compromise act and on
the principle of incidental protection there ample
ground for fair and just discrimination, such will
lnlc no injury on one interest, while il confers suff
Gent benefit on the other and such as may reconcile
the views of tariff and anttariff men. Much of the
excitement which this subject is too apt TO enrender
arises from ancient preudlces or msconcepon of
terms-from the want OF an accurate definition of the
points where we may agree and where must differ. |
have argued heretofore that the information sought
TO he obtained by the resolutions reported from the
Committee on Commerce, proposing to organize a Sc
lect committee to report facts not mere theories and
opinions, 10 this House at its next session. would be |
useful IN bringing about comparison of those data
which alone all correct opinions are formed But
SIR to produce this result the committee should be fair
ly constituted OF men who represent the different nte
rests involved in revision of the tanrhe agrcul-
ture the commerce. the manufactures of the country
and they should examine those who have practical
experience in connexon with these interests. Their
inquiries and their report should be confined facts
which are the only true tests Of opinion should be
willing to see such an inquiry Instituted provided this
bill IS postponed till the session
he bill now under consideration is to all intents
and purposes revision Of the tariff 1t proposes
increase the revenue from lmpost duties than
eight millions OF dollars and to rase this from
articles all OF which either free paving a
duty less than twenty per cent The articles of tea
aud coffee, an Importation Of Sl3 961 l2l, now
free will pay duty Of ~ 1872 76l coarse blankets
now paying duty Of five per cent, will pay twenty
under this bill; saddIery, nc. paying ten per
cent, will pay twenty; while acorns gems, gold and
silver cpauletes paintings, pastc-work or Bristol
stones pearls, ratans, fiddle strings tortoise she'll and
trees duty free. There of these articles
which am at loss how to class, such acorns
rstans, and iddle-srlngs. They will scarcely be re-
garded as necessares, while tea, coffee, coarse han
kets, and saddles, are esteemed Injuries
The information which the Committee on Com
mercc propose to obtain for general revision Of the
tarh, at the next session, hold to be necessary
proper and Ineligible action the BIN before
u by, are we prepared to revise the whole range