Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1857-03-04
Speech of the Hon. John Letcher,
Of Vrginia, IN the House Of Representdt'Ues'
February 5, 1857.
(CoNcLUDED.)

| U F8Tgll2d IN He H0uSe " AicP' 0'e'''''
February 5, 1851
(CONcLUDED.)
The next schedule is B, at thirty per cent.
contains the articles which are embraced IN tn'
thirty per cent. schedule of the tariff OF lo4o
with transfer to it of some of the articles from
the higher schedule of forty per cent. DO no
think there has been any transfer from schedule
lower than thirty per cent. up to the rate OF duty
The articles transferred from the forty to th'
thirty per cent. schedule are
"Alabaster and spar ornaments; anchovles
sardines, and all other fish preserved in oil com
fits, sweetmeats, or fruits preserved 10 sugar
brandy. or molasses; composition tops for tables
or other articles of furniture manufactures, or
ticles, vessels and wares, of glass, or OF whlcf
glass shall be a component material, not other
wise provided for; manufactures OF wood, or o
which wood is component part, not otherwise
provided for; prepared vegetables, meats, poultry
and game, sealed or inclosed IN cans or other
wise segars, snuffs, paper segars, and oil othel
manufactures of tobacco; and wines; Burgundy
| Champagne, Claret, Madeira, Port, Sherry, ant
all other wines, and limitations OF wines"
/ Nearly all these articles enumerated arc knowr
as luxuries, and have been reduced twenty-five
per cent. by their transfer from the forty to tht
thirty per cent. schedule. Let the committee
bear this fact in mind, as we proceed with the
examination of the bill of the majority:
Ny friend from Ohio Mr.. Campbell] says thai
| in the preparation of this bill he has been look
ing to all the great interests ofthe country ina
lie has been looking to the agricultural interests
to the manufacturing interests, and to all the I'M
portant interests of this land. We have no ar
tcle in this whole country that is in more gen
'eral use, or which enters more largely into the
consumption of the people of all classes, thar
iron and the manufactures OF iron; and yet IN!
friend from Ohio does not propose to make any
change in the duty now imposed on the article
of iron, of any character or description whatso
ever, for the relief of the farmer, or the mechanic
or the aborer.
But, how is it in regard to another article 2
Take, for example, the item of hemp, which
under the bill, is reduced from thirty to ten pei
cent. This is production of the West and mas
as strong claim to protection as even the ar
tcle of iron. Why is struck down to ten pei
cent If the great object is to protect all the
interests, equally and fairly, of this land why
is it, that so far as iron is concerned there is moi
some reduction made in that particular article
Why is it, that the gentleman from Ohio Is fol
striking down sugar also to ten per cent, an ar
tice produced exclusively in the South, while,a
the same time, he is for retaining the duty or
iron, which is produced almost exclusively IL
the middle and Northern States2 Why this IN
vdious discrimination in duties imposed on lead
ing articles chiefly produced in different section:
OF the natonl
Mr.. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. would simply
say very briefy-tor do not want to take ~
the time of the gentleman-that under the tarlf
of 1916, the production of sugar has proved t
be totally inadequate to the wants OF the coun
try.
Mr.. TAYLOR. If the gentleman from OhiC
had taken as much pains to acquire Information
on this subject as one in his position should, h
probably would not have shown himself, as h
will prove to be, so ignorant.
Mr.. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. | make no poin
with the gentleman from Louisiana as to intelli
gence. will simply say that the figures show
that in that great article of universal necessit.
the people of the country have been compele'
to pay tax of nearly seven million dollars with
in the last few years.
/ Mr.. TAYLOR. trust, that before the dis
cussion closes shall have an opportunity t.
show what the gentleman's policy is, and to ex
pose his facts.
Mr.. CAMPBELL, Of Ohio. And not in al
impertinent manner, trust.
Mr.. LETCEER. The production of sugar j
like everything else, subject to fuctuation from
one cause or another ] doubt not, from my OBJ
servation and reading, that there have been tiuc
tuations which have operated upon the suga
crop of the southern portion of the Union, an,
which have, perhaps, for the last year or two
somewhat reduced the quantity as compares
with the product of previous years.
But how does the argument fmy friend from
Ohio Mr.. CAMPBELL work. He says he vii
not protect sugar because there is not enough q
it produced in the South for the consumption q
the country; and yet he will protect the manu-
features of wooden goods and ofiron, while ther
is not enough of them produced here for tn
consumption of the country, and while the i'm
portations are large for the purpose ofsupplyn
that deficiency. Now, is that exactly fair op
eration7 Is it doing equal and exact justice t.
all Is it placing the great interest of the coun
try, North and South, on an equal and fair foot
ing? If any one interest in this land is to
Judged of by the vicisSitudes which have attend
ed tiff the production of five years ago-a yea
of very great prosperity-is to be taken as ties
on which future estimate is to be based, ma
it not operate, according to his theory, in tn
most monstrous injustice to that particular in
. terest2 If in consequence of bad season or a
ny other casualty, the quantity produced shoul
be diminished in any one year after that time
would he undertake to strike it down on tina
ACCOUNT Yet this-according to the argumen
of my friend from Ohio-is the reason assigne
for striking at sugar.
) But how is it in regard to hemp2 Has tn
production of hemp diminished2 | have no
examined the statistics, but, if | am correctl
advised, the production of hemp is steadily in
creasing. If this be so, how is my friend to re
conce his argument in regard to sugar2 II
strikes down the duty on sugar from thirty t
ten per cent, because the quantity which is pro
duced in the United States is diminishing; an
at the same time strikes down hemp, which
increasing.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. 1 think my frien
from Virginia is mistaken.
Mr. LETCHER. think you will find it t
be as have stated it. If the fact, that we d
not produce all the sugar we consume, justife
so great a reduction of the duty on that article
why is it that iron, and the manufactures of iron
and the manufactures of wool, the productions c
which fall short of the wants of the country, ar
exempted from like reduction? The following
table, which have had prepared by the Regis
ter of the Treasury, can be relied upon for it
accuracy and it demonstrates clearly and salts
factorily that neither one of these articles is pro
duced in sufficient quantities in our country t
supply our wants, and hence the large and con
stantly increasing importations of each and all @
them:
- r
This table shows that iron imports increase,
from $S,750,000 in 1917 to S20,O0O,000 in 1856
wool from $3.50, 900 in 1S47 to $685. 900 il
1S56-manniactures of wool from $ll l,000,OO
in 1S4T to $32, ,O00, 900 in 1S66-and sugar from
S9,S77, 900 in 1S47 to So, ,596, 900 in 1856; thu
showing less increase on sugar than on iron
and the manufactures of iron or wool and tn
manufactures of wool. This great fact shoul'
be kept in mind.
This table further shows that the importation
of iron, manufactures of iron, and iron and steel