The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-11-13

mands OF the country, vast aggregations OF manu-
factoring population, bound by the necessities OF
their condition TO ernge before the eaprlces OF their
employers. Let Mr.. Webster show that these
things belong to tho true views Of just government
and free government, and then he may be allowed
to maintain with at least some plausible appearances
Of honesty, that high tariff is not calculated TO "di-
nis the industry, impede HE prosperity, and corrupt
the morals Of The people"
MR. wEBsTER's SPEECH. AT FANEUIL HALL, Bos,
TON, OCTOBER 3, 1870.
Mr. WEBSTER said he felt an unfeigned embar-
rassmenrin addressing the meeting on subject,
which many members of IL understood much
better than himself
As il was question, however, of general and, as
he thought, of very high importance, he would beg
leave TO detain the meeting for few moments.
II was IN the first place necessary that he should
repel any suggestions Of feeling unfriendly to
American manufactures. He believed there was no
ground for supposing that such feeling existed IN
any part of the community. IL certainly did not
exist with him. He thought il, therefore, quite I'M
ustihabe, that those who could not support the pro-
posed tariff should be charged with hostility TO do
nestle industry. There was power IA names, and
those who had pressed the tariff on Congress, and
on the country, had represented II as Immediately,
and almost exclusively, connected with domestic
industry and national independence. In his opinion,
no measure could prove more injurious to the indus.
try Of the country, and nothing was more fanelful
than the opinion that national Independence render
ed such measure necessary. lie certainly thought
il might be doubted, whether Congress would not
he acting somewhat against the spirlt and intention
Of the constitution in exercising power To control
essentially the pursuits and occupations OF lndydu-
ais in their private coneernsa power, 10 force great
and sudden changes, both Of occupation and prop
inHi IN he yer
else Of any other power, but az a substantive and
direct power II such changes were wrought Incl
dsnialy only, and the necessary consequence OF
such imposts Congress- for the leading purpose oil
revenue, should enact, then they could not be
complained OF. But he doubted whether Congress
fairly possessed the power OF turning the incident in
TO the principal and instead of leaving manufsctur.
TO the protection OF such laws as should be pass
ed, with primary regard to revenue, ofenactng
laws, with the aV0wed object Of giving preference to
particular manufactures, and with an entire disre.
gard to all the considerations OF rcyenuei and instead
Of laying such mposts as would best answer the
purpose of raising revenue with the least burden
on the public, carrying the impost certain articles
to burdensome excess, with full knowledge that
the increase of duty will diminish the amount OF
revenue raised.
| IL would hardly be eontended that Congress pos.
sessed that sort Of general power by which IL might
declare that particular occupations should be pur-
| sucu IN society, anu hdt Olntfs bnOulu not III
| such power belonged 10 any government in this
country, il certainly did not belong to the general
government. The question was, therefore, and he
thought II very serious question, whether, IN lay
ing duties under the authority to lay imposts obyi-
onsly given for The purposes Of revenue, Congress
can, reasonably and fairly, lose sight Of those pur-
poses entirely, and levy duties for other objects.
Congress may tax the land; but it would be strange
proposition II Congress should be asked to lay a
land tax for he direct purpose of Withdrawing CAPT.
tai from agriculture, and sending those engaged in IL
to other pursuits. The power, however, exists in
one much as in the other. IL is not ensy, il
must be confessed, to draw limit in such cases,
and therefore, perhaps it must be presumed, in all
cases, that the power WINS exercised for the legal
purpose-the collection Of revenue; and that whalev-
er other consequences ensued must be regarded as
Incidental and consequential to the exercise of the
power. Sill it was question very fl, in his udg
| ment TO b considered by Congress, whether il was
fair and just exercise Of power to elevate the incl
dental far above the primary object, or, to speak
properly to pursue the latter in utter disregard
| Of the former.
But, admitting the right Of congressional legisla
ton over these subject, and for these purposes to
be quite clear, the inquiry was, is II eIpedie to in
crease the duties on imposts to the extent proposed
| in this bR The inquiry was not whether some
change might not useful be made There was no
objection he presumed, to revision of the table Of
duties, upon the common principle Of such revis-
| ions, now, at any time. But the House Of Rep.
resentatives had put it fairly to the people of the
United States whether a new tariff, to the srteni
proposed and on the principles proposed, should be
established. And he hoped the people would give
a distinct answer to this question The principle OF
| the measure he understood to be, that we should
| encourage the manufactures proposed most to be
benefited by the bill, principally those of woollen
and cotton cloths, by prohbitory duties. That re-
strictons, such have never before imposed,
| shall he laid IN nv Vav of bounfv N
| particular manufactures. For his own part, he had
| supposed that restrictions trade and commerce,
in order to benefit particular classes of manufac-
| lures, were now very generally understood to be
mischievous, and inconsistent with just notions OF
! political economy. They were Of two sorts, such
as arise from treaty stipuations between nations
and such each nation may create for itself by its
duties on importations. The understanding between
4 England and Portugal relative TO the importations
of the wines of Portugal into England, was an in
| stance of the first sort-the prohibition Of French
| silks into England, an instance of the latter.
| Both these, and all other modes of giving great
preferences to some occupations, and some modes of
investing capital others, he believed had almost
| universally proved detrimental. They not only
| restrain private enterprise but often exceedingly
| embarrass the operations of government. In the
instance above mentioned, the English government
at this moment experiences the bad policy of such
measures. notwithstanding the general peace
! Of Europe, the commerce between England and
France is understood to be almost nullity. Why
Because England cannot agree to receive on fair
terms, and in exchange for her commodities, such
principal articles as France produces for exporaton
viz. silks and wine. And why cannot she agree to
| receive these from France' Because, as to wine,
| there is the old treaty with Portugal; and, as to
silks, the manufacture Of that article has been un-
naturally forced by high bounties at home, and if
those bounties should now be Withdrawn, some
thousands of persons would be thrown out of en-
ployment. So that the particular agreement with
Portugal, and concern for the silk manufacturers OF
Coventry, completely tied up the hands Of govern
ment on subjects supposed to be of the highest ma
tional importance. To individuals this policy is as
injurious as it is to government A system of ar,i-
fetal government protection leads the people to too
much reliance on goyesnment--if left TO their own
choice ofpursuts, they depend on their own skill,
| and their own industry. But if government essen
tally affects their occupations, by it's systems of
bountes and preferences, it is natural, when in dis
tress, that they should call government for
lief Hence perpetual contest carried on between
the different interests of society Agricuurists tax
ed to-day to sustain manufacturers-rcammerc tax
ed tomorrow to sustain agriculture-and then were