Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1844-05-31
TERMS OF THE RICHMOND PALLADIUM:
Two DOIIars.-in advance; and Three Dollars
at the expiration of the year.
EFFECTS OF THE TARIFF ON AGRI-
CULTURE.
SPEECH of MT. CALEB b. SMITH, OF Ind lana,
on the su biect Of the Tariff.

Tuesday, 29th April, the bill to modify tho Jarih
1872 reported tho Committee Of Ways and Means, be
under consideration in the comni''.e Of The hol'
the Union, Mr. CALEB b. SMITH. of In
diana, addressed the Committee as follows
Nh. CHAIRMAN: | will not consume any por
ton Of the time allotted to mo under the rules O
the House, in a discussion of tho Constitutions
powor of Congress to impose duties upon foreign
importations, with a view to tho protection of the
industry and mechanical skill of our own cltl
Zens. If any question of constitutional power
can BIO regarded settled, beyond all cavil Of
dispute, it is this. Tho constitutionality of q
protective tariff asserted by the first Con
gross which convened under tho Constitution, and
bill exercising the power received an ardent
support from many of the most distinguished
mombers Of the Convention which framed that
instrument. Tho right Of Congress to adopt
such measure was not at that timo called in ques
ton. From that period to the present time, al
though tariff laws have undergone frequent
changes, in reference to tho amount of duties inn
posed, yet the principle of protection has been
cognised in all. The doctrine, that the right to
impose duties, with view to protection is not
within tho constitutional power of Congress, is
ono of modern growth; but, like many other
modern political distractions, it has but a slender
foundation to rest upon.
In regard to tho expediency of protective ia
riff, differences of opinion have always existed,
and probably always will exist. That all should
entertain similar views upon great national
effects upon the various interests of tho COM
munty arc not at all times susceptible of de-
monstratlob, and as a necessary consequence,
views widely dissmar in reference to its policy
will be entertained.
1t will be my purpose, in the remarks which
shall submit, to examine the question principally
with reference to its effects upon tho agricultural
interests of tho community. My constituents, as
we'll as tho great mass Of the people Of Indiana,
aro essentially an agricultural people they have
no connoxion with tho extensive manufacturing
establishments which have been tho themo of so
much vituperative denunciation during this dis
cussOn. They arc practical farmers, enga god in
ting the earth, and look alone its rich fruits,
produced by thoir toll, for the of subsis-
tonce. They indulge in visionary anticipa-
tions of rapidly accommodating wealth from large
investments of capital in machinery and manu-
featuring pursuits. They have 'ntoroe. how
ever, in common with every other class of cltl-
zens, in tho general welfare Of tho country, and
in tho promotion Of every branch of honest in
dustry. Tho success of manufactures can re-
suit in no advantage to them, except far it may
promote general prosperity.
My colleague upon tho othor side Of
tho House, (Mr. Owen,) who opened tho dis
cussion upon this bill, presented very
graphic picture of the poverty and suffer-
ing of portion of the population of Eng
land. This poverty and wretchedncss no as
sumcs to be the result of the protective policy a
doptod by the Government of Great Britain, and
urges that protective tariff must produce SINH
lar results in this country. That thoro is much
suffering among the laboring population of that
country | willing to admit, and the picture |
presented by my colleague although highly CO.
lorod, may DO but faithful representation of
their condition. Tho source of their poverty,
however, is to DO found i'll other causes than the
protective system. 1t may DO found in tho re-
dundancy of their populatlon-in their unjust
and iniquitous church cstablishnent-n the onor-
and oppressive taxes imposed by the govern
ment TO pay tho interest upon their immense ma
tional debt-to support thor splendid navy and
extensive army-and to keep up the splendid pa
geantry and guided trappings of royal estab |
llshment-in the numerous and oppressive cNac-
tons of 4 luxurious and pamperod aristocracy.-l
These causes furnish ample reason for the misery
and suffering which exists. They are causes, |
however, which have application to this coun-
try, and no connexion with the protective system.
There Is no analogy between tho protective sys- |
tenn of Great Britain and that of this county,
England has not adopted a protective system for
the benefit of her manufacturing interests. Her
manufacturers require no protective duties to en-
able them to sustain themselves in their mar
ket against foreign competition. The low prices |
OF labor, and the advantages resulting from large
accumuatons Of capital, enable them to COM
mand their own market. and to engage in success
ful competition for large share Of the foreign
market. The object Of the protective policy of
Great Britain is to protect her agricultural inter-
est against the effects of foreign competition
by her corn laws she prohibits the introduction of
foreign grains. except at exorbitant rates of duty,
Unless unusually short crops render thoir admis-
son a: io~er rates of duty Indispensable to save
portion OF hor population from starvation. II
Is the high price Of grains. produced in some
measure by the corn laws, which is there the
subject of so much complaint. 1t is the manu-
facsurers there who complain most loudly of pro-
sect'vc duties, and advocate most zealousy the
principles of free trade. The object most de-
slrod by the advocates of free trade there, is re
auction in the price Of bread stufs. In this coun.
ny we have surplus Of bread stuffs. and an ex.
tended market and enhanced prices are what we
most desire. The sufferings Of the laboring pop
oahon Of England, then, furnish no argument a.
galnst the policy Of protective tariff in this