The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-03-26

State of Illinois, did not prevent It's Legislature
from attempting, and actually passing, by two
thirds vote, proposition 80 g change its const-
the force and energy of our slaycholdng popula-
ton that it may penetrate into the whole or por-
tlons OF this territory, in despite OF the obstruc-
tion of Mexican laws and other regulations
What mean to assert is, that according to the
legal effect Of those measures and the intentions of
majority of those who passed them, the South
as a section, has been entirely excluded from the
the measures in the portion Of the Union from
which l come, do not pretend to justify them.
They only affirm that they are not so objection
able in their character TO authorize revolutionary
resistance. The only issue they willing to Join
il that they do not justify disunicn and that the
Government ought not to be ovcrthrown in conse.
quence Of their passage. They declare, too with
the utmost earnestuess, that they will Join US in re-
of revolution. 1t s because the cup OF wrongs
il filed to the brim that one single drop will cause
it to rum over We all feel that the action Of the
North upon this subject has not been what We had
a right to expect. There is also just ground for
complaint in relation to the surrender Of fugitive
slaves. Many of the northern States, instead of
passing laws to facilitate the execution of ths pro-
vision of the Constitution, have actually placed OH
their statute books enactments calculated and in
tended to obstruct the exercise of right. Look
ng therefore, at the recent legislation the whole
subject of slavery, concur fully in the declaration
of the North Carolina Legislature that we are un-
der obligation to extend additional protection to
the mining and agricultural interests Of the North.
am willing to do them justice, but not favors.
will not consent, for their benefit, to impose great
er burdens on other classes.
Let US look now at the second Of these reasons
II is we'll. known that Great Britain, whose COM
merce with greatly exceeds that Of any other
ton, has, within few years past, essentially
modified and greatly reduced her impositions on
our productions. The rate of her duties seldom
exceeds ten per cent. where ours is thirty. We
are told, however, from time to time that to pre-
| fhc Of her
iects, she imposes q heavy duty on that article,
and therefore we ought to. .retaliate by imposing q
similar exorbitant rate. But ''one swallow does
not make summer" This is the exception, not
the rule. According TO such logic, because she
admits cotton free of duty, Of more Importance
than tobacco to US. we ought to admit all her
productions likewise free. Comparing her tariff
with ours, as whole il ia vastly lower. II can
not be pretended, therefore, that additional duties
should be imposed by with view TO retalia-
ton, existing rates already being greater than
those OF most OF the nations with which we trade
As they are generally adopting our frse-trade no.
tions is it wise in to seek TO drive them back 10
the restrictive systems of former timesf
We are now brought to the consideration of the
third of these grounds, viz the policy of protecting
our manufactures during their infancy. The sys.
tenn of high duties began with the of 1912, and
has been continued by the successive tariff acts
down to the present time. During This entire Pc
riod. with the exception of less than two years i'm
medately preceding the passage of the act Of ls42,
when the rates went down to twenty per cent, the
duties most Of the protected articles have ranged
from thirty to more than one hundred per cent. In
a word, for a period of nearly forty years, our
manufactures have enjoyed the advantage OF q pro-
lection of thirty per cent. and upwards. Can they
be now fairly regarded as infant establishments? !?
Ought they not now, with the aid of thirty per
cent. duties, and the additional advantage which
they derive from the cost of the importation of for
eign articles, TO be able to sustain themselves? If
they cannot, ought we to give'addtional bountics,
in the iangua &c of MIR. Webstcr, in his speech in
1924, to support business which will not sup
port itsclf?''
admit the soundness of the doctrine of protec-
ton this far If by fostering any species of indus
try for a reasonable period, even at some expense
to other interests, you enable it to sustain itself
against fair competition, the policy is allowable.
BY thus diversifying the pursuits Of our people,
we advance the general interest. No will ques-
ton that the existence of manufacturing establish
ments is advantageous to country; but II is equally
clear that any branch Of business which, after being
nursed by bounties for long while, is never able
to stand competition, ought to be abandoned At
any rate, am not disposed to go beyond the exist
ing high rate Of duties to bolster up such establish
mcnts. Were to do 30, it is obvious that we
should nfict greater injury other interests than
wo should confer benefits on the favored
As respects the fourth reason, need hardly say
that the United States have already made such ad-
vances in every species Of industry as to make
them independent of all the world Were we sur
rounded by wall, SO az to have intercourse
with the rest of mankind interrupted, we should
suffer no serious Inconvenience. Every variety Of
manufacturing industry is rapidly diffusing itself
throughout the entire country North Carolina, for
example ia not regarded as a manufacturing State
to any extent, yet they assure me that the locomo
tves for railroads made there quite equal to any
that can be obtained abroad. OF her capacity to
produce, however, / shall speak presently.
We have thus, Mr.. Chairman, rapidly glanced
over the arguments usually rcsored to, TO sustain
our tariffs as far as they have been incidentally
protective. Whatever may have been the force Of
these reasons formerly, they are entitled to no
weight whatever We may now examine this
whole question upon its proper merits ndepen-
IDENTIFY Of all such extraneous considerations. At
the last session. felt myself free to act upon this
question with reference soley to the present and
the future propose, in the first place. sir to take
some notice Of the positions of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, (Mr. HAMPToN,) who spske some
time since in favor of laying additional duties on
such foreign productions az come in competition
with our own manufactures. He discussed espe-
cially the iron and coal interests In this he has
followed the example of the advocates Of high du-
ties generally, who seem to suppose that they
make their strongest point with reference to iron,
and therefore place it in the foreground of the
argument. If shall be able to show that they