The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 184?-1851, 1844-04-25

approved 4 lllappnprleting S40O,O 20 the con
tnuaton OF the road. That be also signed bills /
making appropriations to these western rivers,
and 10 harbors on the lakes. | also refer TO
correspondence between Mr.. Van Buren and the |
gentleman now before me Mr.. DAVIS in lS40, |
on this subject. In that correspondence he will
find the evidence 10 disprove the charge of hos
tiliiy TO thai great national work. And vet, sir,
in the face of all these facts, the member from !
Pennsylvania has the hardihood 10 stand up here
before the representatives of the people, and de-
clare that Mr.. Van Burcn would veto a bill for
The continuation of that road, or the improvement
of the western rivers. venture the assertion
that 10 other member on this floor is so lost TO
shame, as to hazard such declaraiion--a de-
claration which defy him 10 sustain by proof.
Letitbe remembered thar the question between
The member and myself, is not whether MIR. Van
Buren, is in favor of internal improvement of 10
cal character within a State, but whether or not
he is opposed 10 the Cumberland road and the
western rivers. The member from Pennsylva-
MIA has asserted that he was have denied il !;
and this is the true issue on this point.
Here then, sir, in the discharge of the duty
which have undertaken, am compelled TO fas-
ten mark No on his forehead
The next allegation of the member, TO which
! ask attention, is as tollows
SIN lS4l, (said Mr.. ST. we made a revenue
tariff, the last Congress made tariff giving pros
perity from one end of the country to the other,
and which had increased the revenue more than
four millions of dollars"
/ Where is the evidence Of this general prosper
lity? Does he find it in the stagnation of bust
ness? the low prices of the products of the soil?
or the diminished wages ofthe laborer? Go ask
the toiling and industrious farmer in the rich and
productive valleys of the mighty West, whether
this general prosperity which "extends from one
end of the country to the Others" has reached
him; and with stern ffown on his brow, he will
tell you, No! Go ask the laborers generally of
the country whether they have felt this ''pros-
perity," and you will receive the same answer.
!, Has the member from Pennsylvania shut his ears
10 the cries of distress which now and then come
up from the agricultural portion of the cornmu-
nifty, whose industry has been SO heavily taxed TO
enhance the profits Of the manufacturer? Does
he find evidence Of "prosperty" in the exports
r or imports otthe country, under the operation oil
) that tariff? Are we able TO sendto foreign coun-
tries larger quantity ofour agricultural products!
And if our trade has diminished, how are we
''prosperous!" What are the facts? The report
ofthe Secretary of the Treasury, now i'll my hand
shows that our exports, in 1871, amounted tc
: $l2l 100000, in 1912 it was $l04, 100000, be.
Ing falling off of seventeen millions, under the
operation of this benefcent tariff! The imports
, in 284l, amounted to $l27,000,000; in 1912,
: 100000, 900, being falling off of $27 100000
= The imports, this year, will fall little short o
: S00,000,000.
, If it is alledged that the protective system has
: given prosperity to the country, how, ASK does
] it come that, when you had this system in exis
t tence, and your national bank in full operation
the prices of the products of the soil were at the
i lowest? BY table taken from Niles Register
- find that, in Philadelphia, from 1928 to 1897
! whilst our tariff was highest, the average price
FROM 1887 TO 1910 inclusive, was SS5 To; the
average price Of wheat for the nine years of hgE
e duties 90 cents per bushel and for the four years
] of low duties 81 Is per bushel; the average
price ofcorn for nine years of protective tariff o.
cents per bushe, and for four years of low tarit
: 82cents per bushcl. also find, by another ia
$ bic that in the eastern part of Ohio, (Belmon
It county, the average price Of wheat, for the nine
r years of high tariff, was 81 cents per bushel lie
i it be remembered that, in 1887, the compromist
e act (as the manufactures say ran down beloy
II the protective point.
II With what truth, then, could the member maxi
Il the assertion, that our country had heen mad
Df prosperous" by the act Of lS4l-2? Am nc
c authorized to fix No on bis forehead
IS The next assertion to which | invite your al
c tention, is in these words:
7, "AIr STEWART said: Now, if the gentlema
would look at the revenue received for the yea
): l84l, before the passage of the late tariff, h
G would find that the amount ofrcyenue received
i for that year from all sources, was $l5,952,00C
ID The genAeman 1couId find that, in lS13, GJte
N the passage Of the tariff, the rerenae had bee
a. $20,605,O00, being an increase Of $4,652,OO
L under the present tariff"
9 Is this statement true? The document befor
me shows that the gross duties on merchandise
" in lS41, were $l9,9l9,000. In 1912, it wa
or Sl0,622, 900. (See the report of the Secretar
a. of the Treasury, Dec. IL, 1913, page 36.) Th
NJ net revenue, in 1S41, set down at SSl5,5l6,0OC
Or in 1912, at Sl3, 600; being So, ,73G,000 les
than the precedngyear. (Same document pag
38.) Bat he tells us that the receipts from Gu:
re toms had, in IS43, amounted to S20,605, 900.
n Mr.. STEWART. The report Of the Secrctar
ey of the Treasury would fully sustain the statemen
e. Mr.. WELLER. That is not the fact. hay
or the report in my hand, and will read an oxtrac
II which will settle the question:
IS, "l will be perceived that there was decide
= improvement in the duties on imports during II
It's year 1913; for during the first three quarters
ol that year the receipts exceeded thirteen million
ch and from returns already received it is quite ce
ot tain those of the fourth quarter will amount
e. more than three millions, making total Of mo
ad than sixteen millions for the calendar year.
Thus, then, it will be seen that sirteen milIio
,e- is all that the Secretary anticipates during ii
III calander year l643 INSTEAD of $50 sos 900; al
ar thus another mark must be placed on his bro
no being No. a..