The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-25

whose competition would she have mbst cause 10
fearS-that fold England or New England As
| TO my own State, and more particularly TO my
own district, ! can speak with confidence. We
manufactured to much greater extent--iHeludng
household anuiacture-before the era of protec-
1--WE tariffs than we do now; and the trades and me-
ehanic arts were much more hourishing. As young
a man as | am, can recolleet when the poor wo-
men In the country made good living by spinning
and weaylng-the only way, almost, in which they
can be suitably and comfortably employed, as long
as they remain IN the country, where they ought 10
be permitted to remain; and there scarcely
family which was not, to great extent, clothed
and most neatly aud toeH clothed-in linens and
woolens ofhousehold manufacture; whereas now
scarcely ever see a roll of homemade linens or
wooens, and none in the stores for sale, where
formerly they were constantly found And as TO
the mechanics their business is almost entirely bro
ken up by Yankee competition. | can recoect
when every neighborhood had its shoemaker its
tailor, its saddler, its halter; but our shoes
clothes, our hats, our saddles, our axes, hoes-a-
most everything made in a blacksmth's shop-in
fact almost everything made by the machsnie--is
drought from the north. ..-..H-
Mr.. Madison and the trainers Of the constitution
foTesaw that protection by the general government
would not operate equally throughout the Union,
and that to make IL effectua in many Of the States,
liz would be necessary TO levy duties only upon
imporauons from foreign nations, but from the sis
ter States. This latter he was unwilling to do, for
the reasons assigned.
From these proceedings, il appears that Mr.. Mad
ison desired 10 make the prohibition on the States
for laying lmposts absolute. But It was objected
that some Of the States might desire to impose them
for the purpose Of encouraging their manufactures
To thus II not replled--as il would have been II
IL could have been with truth-that the power TO do
hat was vested in the general government, where II
would be much more efectual. On the contrary
Mr. King, who was friendly TO retaining the
power for the States, said expressly that rev.
enue was the object Of the power in the general
government. The convention refused TO make the
prohibition absolute But TO obyiate the objection
hat some Of the States, under the pretext Of en-.
couragng their manufactures, would TAX their neigh
bors who imported through their Ports-as New
Jersey, for instance, through Philadelphia, and
North Carolina through Nohok-they were re-
CURED not only TO get the consent Of Congress, but
TO carry the proceeds Of the duties into the common
treasury. And this was done in the teeth of the
argument Of Mr.. Clymer, already quoted and the
objection OF Mr.. King, that il "would too much in
erere with the policy Of the States respecting their
manufactures"
Col. Mason who was one Of the greatest men
in that age Of great men, and who remarks-
bic for his republican simplicity for his great po
litca sagacity and wisdom, agreed with Mr.. King.
tie knew that the power TO levy imposts, delegated
TO the general government, was only for revenue
purposes and he thought that the restrictions pro-
tingulsh the power to levy duties imports for the
encouragement of manufactures. He had shown
himself throughout the convention to be friendly to
that object; and after he had found as he thought
that all other modes had failed, he proposed will
hereafter appear. a voluntary association Of mem.
bers Of the convention for the purpose. From all
this, il is clear that the power To levy imposts for
the purpose of protection is not vested in the general
government but that it reserved to the States
enable them to encourage their manufactures; and
the restrictions contained in the constitution were
designed to prevent the perversion of the power.
Now, if the protectionsts in this House willing
TO confne themselves to this only constitutional
mode am sure that we, on this side, will inter-
pose no obstacle. We will give them at once the
coosen, af Congress TO levy, under the rossricions
Of the constitution. high duties in their own ports
ms they please. And it is for the encouragement
Of their manufactures, and ours, they ought to
regard this proposition reasonable. II is true,
the duties collected will 60 into the federal treasury;
but as these gentlemen have assured us throughout
this debate that these duties out of the foreign
er, and not the home consumer, they will not
object to this OF course not, If they believe in the
truth of their argument.
But they will object to it. 1t will not answer
their purpose to tax solely their own people TO en-
courage their own manufactures. No; what they
desire is to tax our people for their benefit. They
want compel purchase their fabrics at high
er price than get them elsewhere; and if they
can do that, it is matter OF indifference to them
If they destroy commerce, impair the value of
our exports, and injure our agriculture.
The power to enact protective tariff is also
claimed under the power 10 regulate commerce. |
greatly fear this clause is fast becoming what the
one we have seen discussing styled in the fed
eral convenion-'THE SWEEPING CLAUsE.". Almost
every imaginable power is claimed under it. But,
thank God, there sweeping clause" in the con.
sttution. The trainers of it placed such clause
, there; and hope others may not be permitted to
do it by construction. admit, at once, the power
of Congress to levy countervailing duties for the
purpose Of regulating commerce. But repeat
again. the purpose must not be lost sight of. Dis
terminating duties cannot be levied, under the clause
in question, for any other purpose than to regulate
, commerce. And when they are levied for this pur-
pose, it is not to impose permanent burdens and
strictons but with the view of resisting, as the
best way to procure the removal of restrictions and
distractions. With this view we consent to sub
nit to a temporary inconvenience, for the purpose
of forcing the concession of a permanent good.
And when they thus levied it is to resist injus-
tice, the remedy for which is INJURIOUS to u.s. and
which ought to be enforced day longer than the
{ necessity exists. AS as it accomplishes its
purpose, it should be abandoned. This is the view
which Mr.. Jefferson and Mr.. Madison always took
of the subject. In his celebrated report CONNER
cal privileges and restrictions, made on the 10th of
December, 1893, after showing the extent of the
srictions on the commerce and navigation of tn e
. United States, Mr.. Jefferson said;
1.-THE question is in what way they may best be removed
modified, counteraced
"As to commerce. two methods occur !. By friendly
arrangements with the several nations with whom these
sctons exist BY the separate act of our own legis
, laures for counteryaing their effects u.s.. -... =
There be doubt but that Of these two friendly
arrangement is the eligible. Instead of embarrassing
commerce under piles of regulating laws duties and proh
billions could II be relieved from all Its hackles In all parts
of world could every country be employ ed In produc
ing which has best fitted 70 produce and each
exchange with others mutual surpuses for
tua the greatest possible would then be pro
duced OF things which contribute 10 human life and
human happiness the numbers of mankind would be in
= creased and their condition hettered. .... -.
"WOmd a single nation begin ioiih The United States
this system Of IL poad be advisable 10 begin
Nth that nation since IL is BY only that be
rndsd TO ah Where the circumstances of either party
render il expedient levy by way Of mpost
commerce. its freedom might be modified In that particular
by mutual and equivalent measures preserving 1t entire IN
all others"
In this connexon permit me to remark, that one
nation, at least has shown disposition to commence
n system of free commerce with the United States
as we will hereafter see, and that the nation, too
- alF nfn