Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1841-03-29
MESSAGE OF GOV. DAVIS, OF MASS.
ON THE TARIFF.


gislature OF Connecticut, requesting the Senators
and Representatives of that State in Congress, to
resist by all Constitutional means, every attempt
20 destroy or impair the protective policy of our
Government, and to Use their eXertions TO procure
the passage of such laws as will ef1ectualy pro-
tect the labor of this country from the policy and
legislation of foreign governments and also GER
tain Resolutions of the Legislature of Alabama,
upon the same subject.
This is unquestionabIy u topic of great int crest,
and deserves the most careful and deliberate con.
sideraton. II, however, it is examined with the
cnndor and patriotism lis importance merits, it
will be found that wider difference of opinion
has existed than either facts experience will jus.
ty. The controversy, when disconnected from
the complex and imposing circumstances which
surround it, may be readily understood.
The question is generally debated aud argued
as II II were Il matter regarding only the price of
goods, while this is obviously hut subordinate
element Of the controversy. Revenue must be
raised, all admit, but there is difference OF opin
ion as to the amount and manner OF raising it; be-
cause Il assessed in the torn CT duties upon foreign
merchandise, il is believed 10 have a serious nHu
enc on domestic industry. Many of the growers
of cotton contend for the least amount that will
subseyT5 The most urgent and Indispensable neces-
slgies OF the goveinment--and the leading object
appears TO be 20 prevent burdeniug, or impeding
imporiatons This policy, if carried out wonld
distribute this amount so as to give the least pos
sibe aid to manufacturing and mechanical labor,
because tavoring rival domestic productions is be-
leved to diminish imporations.
The basis ofths policy is TO encourage inpor.
tationS, because greater demand is supposed TO he
thereby created for cotton and tue growth to he
stimulated. 1t thus obviously terminates in the
encouragement of domestic business, and re-
solves itself into the same principle which inHu
Cnccs all the producing classes who desire aid
from the regulation OF foreign trade. In pursuit
of this object, many Of the growers of cotton rep
resent, thnt they are the great exporting interest,
and for that reason, insist II right upon policy
that shall promote their prosperity. Ii is not,
however, the exporting but the importing trade
that they would regulate for this purpose. In this
they have no greater or more immediate interest,
th0n all the country for ali the country are con-
su,ners and the burden of duties as far there is
any falls upon the consumers: indeed if there
were no consumers Of foreign MCrchnndise but the
growers OF cotton, it is manifest the demand for it
would be very limited, and consequently The
homewaril trade comparatively small 1t is diff
cult therefore to perceive the justice of such n
claim, or TO discover any grounds upon which it
can rest TOR special favor, any reason why the
production of cotton should be more considered
in regulating foreign trade, than any other great
interest.
If we assume the position tina, the more goods
we import, the more cotton we shall export, and
therefore we ought 10y all possible means 10 ell
courage importaons, TO what IL condition would
such policy bring us? We should either derive
most of our supplies, which not produced by
cntvating the soil, from foreign workshops, or
should he compelled TO work at the rate of wages
which prevails in old and over-populous countries.
This is the inevitable result, for the planter of
ton finds certain market abrod for his staple,
while other agriculturalisls do not, and the as
sumption that The demand for cotton will increase
as importations increase is founded on tho suppo.
ston that other produce will find little demand in
the regions from which imports are chilly derived
and therefore the cotton trade will reap the prn-
cipal advantage. This view of public policy en-
braces hut one interest, and looks only the en-
enlargement OF that branch Of American business
The other great branches of agricultural industry
having no markets abroad capable of taking uI
the surplus of their productions, are forced upon
the necessity of creating them at home by diver
ting labor into other pursuits, and thus creating
mutual wants to be supplied by diversity of occu
patton.
To accomplish this object policy, which is, 10
some extent, the opposite of that of the cotton
grower has been deemed wise and expedient The
object has been TO encourage the domestic produc-
ton OF certain articles instead of imporlations OF
rather TO encourage our own laborers, instead o
resorting to the hips and manufacturers of foreigr
countries. While this policy like that OF the cot
ton grower, has for its end the encouragement o
domestic indusry-like that also, il seeks stability
by the regulation Of foreign trade. But instead o
aiming at the direct increase Of imporations, i
seeks aid from discrimination in the assessment
OF duties upon imports, which shall enable The
manufacturer and mechanic, under the protection
thus afforded, 10 bring the produce of their Labor
into the market on favorable terms, against mpor
ted articles of tie same description 1t thus ap
pears that both parties seek the enlargement of do
mestic production, though the regulation Of for
eign trade but the general policy of The NJ
cessariy tends TO depress the agricurasts VIII,
are not connected with cotton, by discouragn.
manufactures and the mechanic trades while tina
of the other tends to strengthen and invigorite tho
diversified pursuits oflabor.
The question here arises, are these great inter
ests irreconcilahle, aud must the one or the ohe
policy be pursued regardless of all other consl
eratons? have neither time nor is This fit oc
CASTOR, to discuss this question though may b
permitted TO remark, that the fortunes of the couu
try do not appear to rest upon any such ahernH
ave. y the policy Which Is opposite to dVersit
of employment. could b. carried out in lis iu,lej
extent, il would end N paralyzing and impoyel
ishing the country, involving those who adyocat
it in the common canmiW. Ii their exports de
pend upon the amount Of imports, these must /
turn depend upon tho ability OF the population
con sumo, and the imports cannot exceed that {
billy. The advocates of the importing pole
have, therefore, great interest in sustaining IN
common prosperity of the whole country, as tia
alone is capable oi sustaining their policy. Lubo
as now divided, acts upon, and Restraints to som
extent, portion only Of the article imported h,
still diversity Of employment is The vital princip
OF Our ability to become the consumer of loreg
products us well as OF raw cotton.
Whatever may be the object Of such a chang
in policy, there can be no misrepresentation nbo
the effect for it must operate uutavorahly 10 d
vision of labor, by discouragng manuiactnrii
and mechanical pursuits; and | am not able
perceive any thing, which can recommend such
change, unless it be desirable 10 substitute foreil
for domestic productions There mny he tho
who believe the aggregate of imporiations will
icsreased by diminishing domestic production
but even this may be well doubled, for we mu
consider whether il will nor be as likely to impa
the general ability to consume, as to increase il
porlations.
Haxe We then renched point when exnedienI