Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-07-26
CoNGREss--2d sessie
SPEECH or Mn. HUBBARD, OF VIRGINIA.,
AGAINST TIE TARIFF.

DCttUeTcd IN TIE House Of ffpreS6ntdlceS, WcdHes0u9'
jane 90, 1942.-GCoscLUDED.
Though | have not boosted of my devotion to econo-
my and strict accountability in the administration oil the
Government, nevertheless | am in hopes my acts,
since j have been honorcd with a seat on this floor, will
prove that | am thoroughly and practically in favor OF
both. ] ~regret-whilc hearing so much Of the pro-
mised Wing retrcnchment, and while too their COM
mittees are in the midst Of tier operations, and with
cut, as | believe, SO far having accomplished what the
country had been induced 10 expect, unless we are
10 be satisfied with reports not yet fully carried out
10 find some other of their Wing friends SO eager to
impose a heavy tax, which must defeat all The bright
anticipations Of those honest, though, l fear, doomed
TO be deluded reformer Certainly, if the promised
retrenchment is to take place, we must calculate
on a great diminuion of expenditure. But what
Will the country gain by your retrenchment OF ex'
peroilurcs, if you nevertheless impose heavy taxes
and collect !nrra amount of revenue? Is it moi
self evident that if you collect the money from the
people, Government will find ways to spend it?-
No one can doubt it. Why, then, should you raise
a large revenue il you mean TO cut down %expendi'
tures' There is an absurdiiy it such legislation, so
~palpable as must destroy the confidence of the PEG.
pie in the capacity of those in power properly to con.
duct the operations of Government. Entertaining these
views, am fully persuaded that the best and most
powerful mode OF correcting extravaganza IS to limit
the Government 10 barely an adequate supply of reve-
nue.. The Wings in this House, as statesmen true
TO their promises to the people in the last Presidential
canvass, as they had to ~re-adjust the Tariff, should in
the iorepart of this session, in good earnest, have set
about correcting abuses; and, if necessary, remodelGng
the Executive Departments OF Government, and have
clearly ascertaned what amount could thereby be saw
ed; and then have made their estimates of The sum ne
cessary to delray current expenditures and pay the
debts now due. This being accomplished, they could
have entered upon thus great financial question fully
prepared 10 do their duty, because they had judlcIous
" possessed themselves with The requisite information
to enable them to legislate wisely.
! invite the attention Of gentlemen to the high tariffs
offset and 1888, and ask them, Why harp upon the
abuses ind extravaganza engendered by those odlous
acts, and fail TO visit proper Indignation upon the boun-
,iful sources from whence all those mischievous conse.
quences flowed But few, if any, | suppose, will deny
that most OF the ex!ravagances which this Govern
ment has experienced for the last twelve years are
greatly attributable TO the fact that the tariff act Of lS2-
overlooked the Treasury with funds. Had the means
been limited, public virtue would not have encountered
so many shocks. ] firmly believe, If you pass this bill
that either il will again food your Treasury, or else
the equally appalling fact will stare gentlemen in the
face, of diminished Irnpor:ations, diminished exporla-
tons, diminished commerce, and, finally, Of dimiathed
rtrenue.
But is il not passing strange that when Great Britain,
the very country from whence we derived the protec-
tive system, is becoming more and more convinced of its
fallacies, and injurious tendencies, and is, by degrees,
lIberatlng her industry BY reducing her tariff, that the
party in the ascendant here is rather increasing in its
efforts to shackle and tax the free American citizens 10
support q monopoly, or sustain a business, which, as
they say, is too Improbable 10 stand upon IFS own re-
sources. IL manufacturing is a profitable business, it
does not deserve further projections; ii it is a losing pur-
suit, there ID no good reason, in these hard times, why
its losses should absorb the profits of other branches
of industry. This policy Of protection is nothing
more than shifting the losses Of the manufacturers,
where any are likely to be incurred, on other depart.
men;s of labor, and in return, depriving them of their
legitimate income. Is this species of le%gerdemaln wor.
l-r a.. -xa,a - L. H,C ata "a -, ans
But as gentlemen resort TO authorities, will, in return,
avail myself Of the result Of an investigation made into
the tariff policy By a committee OF the British House OF
Commons, over which Mr.. Hume presided. As the
evidence is Of the highest character, | take the liberty
of citing 4 few passages, prefacing them, however, by a
few significant extracts from the report Of Mr.. Hume:
"The inquiries oil yonr committee have naturally led
them to investigate the effects OF The protective system
on manufactures and labor. They find, en- the part Of
those who are connected with some Of the most impor
tant Of our manufac,ures, n conviction-a growing con-
yiction-that the protective system is not, on the whole,
beneficial 10 the protected manufactures themselves
Several witnesses have expressed the utmost willing.
ness 10 surrender any protection they have from the
Tar, is, and disclaim any benefit resulting from that pro-
lection; and your committee, IN investigating the sub.
iect as 10 the amount of duties levied OIL the plea Of pro-
tectiCn 10 British manufactures, have TO report that the
amount does not exceed half a million sterling: and
some Of the manufacturers, who are supposed 10 be
most interested in retaining those duties, are quite will
ing they should be abolished, for the purpose of intro
ducing a more liberal system in our commercial policy.
Every duty, if paid, is protective, that exceeds the
cost of transporting the goods, produced at the same
price, from the country whore they are produced TO the
country where they are sold.
"John Bowrlng, Esq, l. l.. D.-examined 18th July.
"What, in your judgment, constitutes q protecting
duty,
at appears 10 me that every duty is n protecting du.
ty which excludes any foreign article coming in com.
petition with the home article, or which raises the
price of the home article, by putting a duty upon the
foreign.
AMI. yilliers. Is not the purpose of imposing that
protective duty to compel the consumer ut home TO
consume a dearer article instead ofone that he could
procure cheaper from abroad:
"Obviously it is 10 exclude the foreigner from the
field o, competition, by missing the price in the inter.
est of the protected commodity.
"Creating a monopoly, where the duties are so high
as 10 exclude the foreign article, and creating e higher
price where the duties are prOtecttre, but not prohlbl
tory.
@What IS the objection 10 protective duties, in a fs-
cal point Of view'-Their immediate operation is 10 h.
IN aish trade; and the diminution of trade clearly dimI.
nishes the elements OF taxation. In countries where
the protective system has been carried to its greatest
extent, the revenues are least productive. In France,
70. example, the custom house levies per head, under a
protective system, only about one ninth OF that which IS
lie We'd in England per head under our system, which Is
more liberal. In America, where the maximum OF pro-
tecti0n, OF Tie MAXIMUM Vi uuly, u < per CeHL, u IL
well known that the custom-house revenues are the
great resources of the Treasury.
: "What is the operation Of those protecting duties on
the general interests of the country? a great ohjec-
ton to 4 protecting duty is, TINT il iecies an enormous
amount of indirect taxation; and that this taxation 1hol.
la escapes the public Treasury.
"Mr. Blake remarked that, TO the protective system
alonc do ! attribute wrrtchedness among The manufac-
lnrcrs. Without such fictitious protection, they would
have been better and more wh~olesomely employed ;
therefore, The sum of protective duty is, properly un-
dersiood, neither more nor less than an aUurement TO
become miserable.
ado you consider that the burden Of the Stale taxes
which IRE collected afford any plea for imposing those
protective duties; Certainly not. If it were possible
10 make FOREIGNERS PAY any part of our burdens,
there might be some common sense in it; but certainly
il cannot, by any means, alleviate the national bur
den 10 shift ii from the shoulders of one Englishman
10 those of another.
"There cannot be a greater mistake TO suppose that
additional means of employment are created BY pro-
,ecting branches Of industry that could not otherwise