The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-06-23
CONGRESS-.


-
CONGRESS-.
In the House, on Tuesday, Mr.. CUSHING Of
fered a resolution calling on the President, in
the usual form, for information concerning the
proceedings of the Government in the case of
George Johnson, in Montevideo The resolu-
ton was adopted,
A bill for the punishment Of certain crimes
against the United States was referred to the
Committee Of the Whole and ordered to be
printed
A communication from the President was
read in answer to call for information in rela-
ton to the quintuple treaty, &C. The commu-
nicaton says GA resolution of the House of
Representatives has been communicated to me
requesting copy of the qulntuple treaty be-
tween the five principal powers of Europe for
the suppression of the African slave trade, and
also copies of any remonstrance or protest ad-
dressed by Lewis Cass, Envoy Extraordinary,
&C., Of the United States at the Court of France,
against the ratification of France of the said
treaty-and Of all correspondence between the
Governments of the United States and France,
and of all communications from said Lewis Class
| to the Government and from this Government
TO him relating thereto.
SIN answer to this request, have to say that
the treaty mentioned therein has not been Off
ciay communicated to the Government of the
United States and no authorized copy of it,
therefore, can be furnished. In regard to the
other papers requested, although ii is my hope
and expecrelion that it will be proper and con-
venient, at an early day, to lay them before
Congress, together with others connected with
the same subjects, yet in my opinion, commu-
nication of them to the House Of Repre-
sentatives, at the present time, would not
be compatible with the public interests"
| The consideration of the question relating to
the Virginia land claims was then resumed. Mr.
Gilmer was entitled to the floor and occupied
most of the morning hour in reply to the speech
of Mr.. Hall. He advocated the justice of the
claims and went into comparison of the rela
tive services of Vermont and Virginia during the
Revolutionary war, and the allowances made to
each He did not wish the claims Of his State
to be allowed unless it was conceded that they
were lust The revolutionary soldier is no ele
mosynary petitioner.
Mr.. FILLMORE moved to 60 into committee OF
the whole, and, urging the necessity of passing
the Naval appropriation bill, requested Mr..
Cowen, who was entitled to the floor on the ia
riff, to give way, that the Naval bill us amended
by the Senate might be taken up. Mr.. .Cowen
refused and proceeded to speak his hour. He
contended that a high tariff was now necessary
in order to supply the deficits in the revenue pro-
duced by the preceding administrations. He
conceived protective tariff to be coni ituIional
and authorized by the clause empowering Con
gress to provide for the general welfare. The
authority of the greatest names were in favor,he
said, of protection.
Mr. KENNEDY, Of Indiana, was opposed to the
protective principle. He thought it unconsttu
tional. The Federal Government was one OF
limited powers. The Constitution authorized
it to impose duties on imposts-but the objects
of the authority were clearly defined-and pro-
lection was not among them. He thought pro-
lection njust-it taxed one portion OF the COM
munity for the benefit of another-it taxed the
farmer to enrich the manufacturer; but it laid no
tax in favor of the farmer, at least, sufficient to
enhance the price Of agricultural produce Pro-
lection, of course did not mean prohibition, but
such an impost on the productions of foreign in
dustry as would augment the market price
of the domestic article, of the same descnp-
ton He thought that the interests of the
country were essentially connected with the
prosperity of agriculture, and he was opposed to
any system which would force the people
from the course Of industry taught by ma
ture. He would go for a liberal revenue
and, within the limit of revenue, he would
not object to discrimination. But he would
discriminate not in favor Of manufactures
his rule of discrimination would be alto
gether different. If an article imported were
consumed by the rich, he would discriminate
by laying high duty on that article. If ano-
Their were used by the poor man, he would lay
small impost on that article. %