The daily union., 1846-08-29


protection, her people will be satisfied, complaint
will cease everywhere, snd all will aequesce IN wha
the testimony establishes. Let US do this, and, 70
one, pledge myself 10 be bound by Il. Let the re
port be made when il will, ! am ready to conform
| to it, But am opposed TO changes on the surmsei
or speeulations of any man, let his position be wha
| II may, or his talents ever 80 pre'emnent. Vot'
down this BILL and let us go to work and ascertain
the truth in some such mode as have suggested
and we shall all go together harmoniously to con
| form TO the result
But, sir, after making these suggestions and fear
ing they may not be aequiesced TO- will Troeeet
TO the consideration of other matters connected with
this bill. And here | wish distinctly TO say, tha
between the bill under consideration, and the tariff
Of 1912, am unhesitatngly and decidedly in favor
of the latter. do not say that no bill between the
two would receive my vote; on the contrary,
would vote for an alteration in many particulars o.
the existing law; | would amend IL where Il need
ed amendment, and change It where It ought 10 be
changed: but protest against the abandonment o
all its principles and the change In all It's details
What interest, sir, has not been advanced under III
IL is said that the agrieuturist suffers by It's opera
ton; that the manufacturer realizes immense PeI
eentAge, while tho agricultunst has to Oear the
whole burden Of what constitutes these immense
profits. This, TO my mind Is extraordinary enough
Have the farmers omplainedI-petitioned to be re-
iisyedI Not a word oft IL they were oppressed
think you we should not have heard OF ~ lntelli'
gent and Independent they are, would they not lei
US hear from them, If suffering under your present
tariff SYSTEM No men on earth understand their
interests better than do they. But they are silent
and their silence is proof-pregnant proof, TO my
mind-that those who utter complaints in their
name do il without their authority
Let us examine the subject and see how they
are injured. Viii the fact be denied, that the more
consumers there are OF agricultural products, and
the fewer producers, that the advantage from this
ala 1I nf.aEa gha taEH E3
No one can doubt in II is selfevdent. There
are at present $50 900 manufacturers and mechan.
les IN the United States these with their families
make an aggregate Of about four millions OF inhabi
tants. Now, sir, If there were twice this number
OF manufacturers, with our present population
would il not render twice valuable the home
markets to the farmer But, If it should happen
to be the effect Of the bill under discussion to break
down manufactures, and turn out of employment
half those engaged in II at present, changing these
consumers Of agricultural products to producers,
would not this greatly injure the farming interests
SIR, It would not only be the loss Of half the consul
such, but il would turn them into producers
creating additional competition in agricultural labor
and prices, to the ncaculabls injury of both. Is
this so' And can anybody doubt but that the pres
ent bill will have this effecli That it will produce
this result ii is only necessary to advert to cacula
ions made, showing the great increase Of mporta-
ton contemplated under this b-the increase o
tHc pTOuuCNb VI OtntI W Ot l1uOuuCcu inu
ours to raise the amount Of revenue by low duties
up TO, or near, the amount arising from the existing
law. Will the excess OF importations have no ef
fecti The people will consume no more than for
merly or at present. They are supplied now in eve
ry necessary fabric. What will be the result wher
third or half more shall be introduced Sir, i
will dispace an equal amount Of the domestic manu-
facture. Ii will of course, therefore, turn out o.
manufacturing employment those engaged, to the
extent of the increased supply. Under the most fa
vorable auspices this will be the result But the in
jury will be Immensely greater-it will extend to al
those reduced TO the necessity of giving up business
on account of low prices that it will be the interes
of the foreign manufacturer to adopt. Why, sir
all protection will be Withdrawn from our infan
anuactures; such Is the effect, II not the terms
of the bill; and hesitate not to avow my convic
tions, that, without protection, vast majority o
our manufactures will be destroyed, and their EN-
ployees be forced to seek for subsistence IN agri
cultural pursuits; thus diminishing the demand fol
this kind Of product and Of course greatly reducing
the price Of the product well as the land itself
The manufacturers of New England alone take abou
| ten millions of bushels of grain from the ives
annually. Reduce the number of manufacturers tC
one-half, and there will probably not be one-thirC
of the amount of grain taken, because the consumer
| are not only diminished, but have become them
| selves agricultural producers. 1t seems to me
| therefore, that in place Of beneftng the farmer
| the injury to him will be the most incalculab'
| and ruinous. Why, sir, the existence of manufac
lures always advantageous to the farmer. They
not only furnish him market for his grain, but fo
all and everything he raise; and there many
very many things, that would not bear transporta
ton that he can sell at home for handsome profit
for all profit, without such market they would
not be sold at all This is not all; it increases the
value of his land; it enables him to improve it; from
day to day and year to year it is steadily increased
in value; and when the manufacturer has worn ou
eyh hans hiA mat al broke n
from misfortune or mismanagement, the farmer be-
| side him has become more independent, has a bet
farm, in higher state of cultivation, and is
more independent man. This is most emphatcally
true. 1t is no fancy SKETCH but is constantly occur
| ring, particularly in the iron districts.
Nothing is taken into account, in what seems tC
me an effort to array the farmer against the manu-
facturer, but the annual profit of the one over tht
other; no recurrence to risks; no appeal to final ls
Sues which often fatal to the latter. This i:
not fair to either, reason you will. In practice
the farmer is always-and always will ba-the mos
independent. Do you propose to increase his profits
by diminishing the value of his business 1t is GER
talnly very novel way to accomplish the object
Sir, am for protecting him by increasing the amour
of the consumption of his products; and this is al
| the farmer desires. Ii was formerly urged that ou
tariff and restrictive legislation had the effect tc
| keep up British duties on grain; and this was sale
to be prejudical to the agriculturist of this coun
| to the west here and say to them that if this ar
gument ever reached them, it ought to do so nc
more. Without relaxation of our duties, Eng lane
has adopted, from necessity, new corn-aw sys
TEN, which reduces the duties to trihe, wher
compared with former rates. IL is said their port,
are now open to our grain. It is so, to a certain
extent. Our grain can enter without much restric
ton. That market is, therefore, open for what it il
worth, without asking corresponding relaxation
of duties on our part. You have it. Now, why
will you not preserve the home market-thnt is
keep up your manufacturing interests, and thus
keep up the home market, in add ton to the for
eigns Retain both Is this not the best policy the
can be adopted Why break down or injure tn,
domestic market, now that you have, without thu
necessity for doing so, attained foreign onei Leave
things as they are, and both will exist. The far
mer, IN that event, must be prosperous; he will
have domestic market, and, for his surplus pro
duce, the chances of free competition in foreign
one. But let your home market be but seriously
injured, and send the farmer with his products to
foreign one, subject to all the uctuaton incident
| good and bad seasons, to meet the competition o
the whole word--to experience the derangement
agitating institutions to which he IL a stranger
| and The nroanect of huving some arfirlea nf ron